The Book of Hebrews
Creationism versus Traducianism
Hebrews 7 Lesson 084b
Jesus Christ is our High Priest. We are in Jesus Christ, and therefore we sit with Him in heaven. Those with a Jewish background had questions about the significance of Christ’s priesthood, since He was not a Levite.
Most of what we find in the first 4 verses are found in Gen. 14. He blesses him, which indicates a superiority of Melchizedek over Abraham. This is a freewill gift; a one-time thing. The plunder that was taken when he defeated the Kedor-Liomar alliance. When there was a ruler, an emperor or a king, there would be a tribute payment to someone in authority.
The Pre-incarnate Christ; there is no parentage of course; and Melchizedek had no linage given. His birth and death are never given. Levite priests began as priests at age 30 and went on until age 50; but Melchizedek, this was not a factor. A serving Levitical priest different from Melchizedek. It is clear that Melchizedek is a human and not Jesus Christ in His preincarnate state.
Now consider how great this man was.
A present active imperative and they are commanded to stop and think. Θεορεω = to examine something closely. The writer says, let’s think about how great Melchizedek was, when Abraham, the father of the Jewish race, gave a tenth of his stuff to Melchizedek.
In v. 5 we read, And indeed those who are the sons of Levi who receive the priesthood by virtue of birth The only qualification except that they could not have a defect; no spiritual qualification; all physical qualifications; they could be unbelievers. Lev. 27:30 Num. 18 Deut. 14 give the 3 tithes, the latter for the widow and orphans. On the one hand, there are the Levitical priests; on the other hand, you have the other tribes, and none were superior. They had all come equally from the loins of Abraham. But He Whose genealogy is not derived from them This refers to Melchizedek, who preceded Levi in time and not descended from hiim and there is a complete distinction between them. Melchizedek is superior to Abraham, having the title of the King of Righteousness. This was probably a title and not a name. The promise refers to the Abrahamic covenant. It is not simply conditional versus unconditional; it is really a difference of permanent versus temporary. The Jews could not remain in the land if their were disobedient. God could throw them out of the land. Mosaic covenant temporary to be superceded by the New Covenant when Jesus Christ came.
Melchizedek emphasizes that he is the royal priest, and Abraham pays tithes and Melchizedek is superior and a priest hking’ V. 7: The lessor is blessed by the greater. The writer of Hebrews is making sure that you understand that he is superior to Abraham, and this must be driven home. There was a gentile priest-king who was superior to Abraham, and it cut to the core of Jewish pride as it existed in the first century.
V. 8 look at this point and now we will compare it to that point. In this case mortal men is mentioned, This refers to the Levites, as it is in the plural. Literally, men capable of death. These are temporary; the writer is contrasting the Levites with Melchizedek back in v. 3 or 4.
The verbiage may sound strange to us and our way of talking. It may sounds like Melchizedek does not die; and the Levites do. But, that which doesn’t die is permeant; and that which is mortal is subject to cessation. These men are going to die; their priesthood ends at a particular time. It is witnessed; there is testimony that he lives. This is a Jewish idiom expressing the point that the Melchizedek priesthood lives on; the Levitical priesthood dies.
Another application and it is applied to the presence situation. Even Levi who received tithes paid tithes to Abraham, so to speak. this idiom is found only here. I am going to make a strange point here; this is not to be taken literally. This was used by some to indicate that body and soul were transmitted together; traducianism. Levi never literally received tithes from anyone; his descendents did; Aaron did after the Mosaic Law was issued.
Levi and Simeon were responsible for the slaughter of the Shechemites. Levi was not realy a spiritual giant. Even in a manner of speaking. Somehow, Levi is thought to be present, being physically in the loins of Abraham. The text tells us that this is a figure of speech; it is a manner of speaking. The writer is merely recognizing that the descendants of a man are represented in many cases by the ancestor so that if, God enters into a contract with Noah, this contract is not voided at Noah’s death. When God entered into a contract with Abraham, Abraham represented all of his descendants. The book of Joshua gives us another example. The Gibeonites who are afraid of the Jews and they pretend to have traveled for a long distance. They ask to enter into a contract with the Jews; and Joshua took them at their word and they were actually Canaanites from just over the other side of the ridge. All the Jews from that point on were still responsible for what their ancestors had done. Similarly, we have established treaties with various nations, and a generation will die out, and the descendants are still a part of that treaty.
Abraham is greater than Levi, one of his descendants; and if Abraham is less than Melchizedek, the Melchizedek is greater than Levi.
How does our soul originated? How is it transmitted to us? Is it given to us from our parents?
Rudy Giuliani is asked if he would support federal funds for abortion. We have to go back to the Scripture and find out what it says and does not say. This is an important topic and it is often misunderstood; reverse exegesis. A lot of theologians flipped after Roe v..Wade.
Let’s deal with this in a nice rational manner. How is the soul passed along? Does God create the soul immediately and at birth.
Two important terms. Immediate means directly; God creates the soul directly. Mediate involves secondary causes. God creates our bodies, but that is done mediately, through sex and procreation.
3 positions which have been a part of Christian thinking. Platanism: souls have existed eternally and God just puts these souls into body. Traducianism and creationism. Traducianism means to transfer or it is derrived from the word. The immaterial soul and the material body are transmitted in procreation. Tertullian was a mixed bag; we use a word that he coined: Trinitas; God is one in essence and 3 in person. Hypostatic union is a term which was worked out over a period of time. We develop a vocabulary in order to learn Biblical concepts and the church has been doing this since time immemorial; Trinity and rapture are two examples.
Tertullian was a Matanist. In the middle you have Biblicists. One group wants to take away from the Bible; remove parts of it. Today, they’d be called liberal Christians. Marcion was an anti-Semite, and he got rid of most of the New Testament; and he was the first to come up with a canon. And when he said, this is all there is to the Bible, then others recognized that this is wrong and they had to take a stand. On the other extreme, we have those who want to add to the Scripture. Today, those are the charismatics. Some proto-charismatics. A very mystical, mystery religion. He had two priestesses with him and he said that God is continuing to talk to him. Tertullian is a mild Matonist who wanted to add to Scripture. He was the first to say the soul was transmitted through procreation because he believed that the soul was material. This was an outgrowth from his idea that there was nothing material. The other view is creationism, which is a term which says the body is generated physically, but the soul is directly and immediately created by God; and this is an ancient view and the dominant view. In terms of church history, this is the most held to view. Today, the traducianist view seems to dominate. Some today are asked, how can you hold the creationist view? Most Lutherans and Presbyterians, historically, were creationists (this was determined by exegesis; and not by any political movement or political issue.
Tertullian coined the word traducianism. Luther began as a traducianist and he became a creationsits. Chafer was a traducionist position. He says the evidence is pretty equal, and he says the evidence leans toward traducianism. Many systematic theology books have no mention of this debate.
Jerome was a creationists; life begins at birth. He is a major father to the Catholic church as St. Thomas Aquinas. It is heresy to think that the soul is transferred physically. Many theologians were creationists. Augustine was a creationist most of his life, although he waffled somewhat.
Many who hear the creationist view think that it is an odd view. However, the popularity of Traduciadism is fairly recent. Historically, creationism is the primary view. Robby talked to some seminary students who never knew about this controversy or about the creationist view.
Hebrews 7:8–10 Lesson 085b
Heb 7:8 And here dying men indeed receive tithes, but there it having been witnessed that he lives;
Heb 7:9 and as a word to say, through Abraham Levi also, the one receiving tithes, has been tithed.
Heb 7:10 For he was yet in his father's loins when Melchizedek met him.
We’re in the last 3 verses of Hebrews, which brings us into a theological debate. We need to understand the external affect on this debate. Two views on the origin of the soul.
Origin of the soul article. First page deals with origin of the soul and the abortion issue. Pre-existence of the soul has a Platonic background and related to reincarnation. Some assumed that the creationist position automatically means that abortion is legitimate. The church had always been against abortion and it is actually not a conclusion to be derived from being a creationists. Gives 3 arguments against creationism. Traducian view is most of his article. Traducianism means to transfer and it teaches the material body and the immaterial soul is transmitted at procreation.
Tertullian saw the soul as being immaterial? Jerome, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Charles Hodge all held to a creationist view, that the soul was created at first breath. One said that it is heresy that the soul is created by the semen.
The Lord God formed man out of the dust [chemicals] of the earth.
Scientist versus God joke.
The form and the ideal is pure and good; matter is inherently evil. Plato believed that what we see are the shadows on the cave wall. Only the philosophers could see the ideas, the immaterial, the spirit; and everyone else saw just the shadows on the cave wall.
The soul is the real you and the body is unimportant; this is pure Plato. The body is just as important as the soul. God created our bodies as well; it is well thought out. He is going to inhabit this body. God had to pick a finite physicial body which would be the home of the 2nd Person of the Trinity. The physical body is not an afterthought. It is every bit as important as the soul. Luke 16 there is an interim body; the soul must be able to see, hear, and to get any sort of sensory data. This is missing from the theology of the Middle Ages, as they depended a lot upon Platonist. They denigrated marriage, sex, eating; all of the emphasis was upon the soul and the spirit; the monks were thought to be the highest form of spirituality. The trend of evangelicals today is to return to that sort of asceticism. Maybe not as strong, but the leaning is in that direction.
He got an email from Charlie Clough. A forward from Tommy Ives (I think). Charlie liked to read Charles Colson. Chuck Colson has been promoting the writings of Henry Nguyen and they are in this mystical new age stuff, which is spirit and soul more than the body. Rick Warren is also involved in this sort of thing, to some extent. Their understanding of spirituality is subjectivity; a mindset with an affinity which is worship and spiritual in this contemplative spiritual movement. Worship is not defined by a subjective mental state; an ethereal, lightweight mentality. When Jesus was angry at the money changers and threw them out, He was worshiping God. This violates those who love and feel good. The physical and the immaterial were taught as at odds. The shift in the Middle Ages was getting back to Aristotle rather than getting back to the Bible. The formation of the body of man is seen as secondary, which is wrong.
Luke 16:19–31: And there was a certain rich man; and he was accustomed to don a purple robe and fine linen, making merry in luxury day by day. And there was a certain poor one named Lazarus who had been laid at his doorway, having been ulcerated, These men are named, indicating that this is not a parable. and longing to be filled from the crumbs that were falling from the table of the rich one. But coming, even the dogs licked his sores. And it happened, the poor one died and was carried away by the angels into the bosom of Abraham. And the rich one also died and was buried. And being in torments in hell, lifting up his eyes, notice, that he has eyes he sees Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom. And calling he said, Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering in this flame. Again, all physical occurrences. But Abraham said, Child, remember that you fully received your good things in your lifetime, and Lazarus likewise the bad things. But now he is comforted, and you are suffering. And besides all these things, a great chasm has been fixed between us and you, so that those desiring to pass from here to you are not able, nor can they pass from there to us. And he said, Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house; (for I have five brothers, so that he may witness to them, that they not also come to this place of torment). Abraham said to him, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. But he said, No, father Abraham, but if one should go from the dead to them, they will repent. And he said to him, If they will not hear Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if one from the dead should rise. The point is, there are bodies here, which see, hear and feel; and these would be interim bodies.
God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a living soul. When God breathes into the physical body, that is when the soul comes alive. The purpose of a body is for the soul and the body is just as important as the soul, even though they have not come together yet to be complete human beings.
Biblical parameters of life is what Robby has entitled this.
Job 1:21: Naked I came from my mother’s womb and naked I shall return there. Jehovah gave, and Jehovah has taken away. Blessed be the name of Jehovah. The parameters set by the Bible are always birth to death; never before and never after. God is intimately involved in the birth and death process.
Min beten is what is found here, which means from the womb, out from the womb. There are two nuances, one which means one was in a place and the other where the person was not in a place.
The Greek does not begin a sentence with because. I will also keep you from the hour of testing, and clearly, they are never in the hour of testing. In most cases, Jeff Townsend shows that the vast majority of uses of from in the New Testament has to do with beginning outside of something and never being inside of it.
Traducianist goes back to genesis and says, that is only how it got started. But Job and Isaiah will testify that God breathes life into us. Eccles. 12:7: ..then the dust shall return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God Who gave it. Two processes; a physical process and a non-material process.
There are 3 parts to the human makeup: body, soul and spirit. These words are not always used in the technical sense; sometimes soul and spirit are used interchangeably. Context will dictate the use.
Isa. 2: Sever yourselves from a man whose breath is in his nostrils. Isa. 42:5: Thus says the Lord God, creating the heavens and stretching them out; spreading out the earth and its offspring, giving breath to the people on it, and spirit to those walking in it. Giving breath is an ongoing process. It is not the God gave breath, in the past to Adam, but He continues to give breath.
Breath is crucial to understanding life and soul life.
When does God impart the soul and when do you have a full human being? The Bible always gives the parameters of life from birth to death. You are He who brought me from the womb...but from you I have been cast from birth. You have been my God from my mother’s womb. Me recham and me beten both should be rendered from birth rather than from the womb. Go astray from birth. Isa. 46:3: Listen to me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel; who are borne from the belly, who are lifted from the womb: Job 1:21: And he said, I came naked out of my mother's womb, and naked I shall return there. Jehovah gave, and Jehovah has taken away. Blessed be the name of Jehovah. Job said, “Why didn’t I come from the womb and expire?”
from birth is min + a noun. Hebrew has a verb for birth, but there is no noun for birth, and the Hebrew requires a noun to go with min. There is a phrase for conception in the Hebrew, which is not beten or rechem. None of this is discussed in literature that Robby has looked into.
When Adam and Eve, there was a verb for conceived; and a verb for birth in the same sentence. So, why does the Bible never set the parameters at conception to death?
Hebrews 7:8–10 Lesson 086b
A fairly cryptic passage, where Levi pays tithes in Abraham, when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. The author is reenforcing a point, that Levi, a great grandson of Abraham, since Abraham was inferior to Melchizedek, that Levi is inferior to Melchizedek. This makes the Levitical priesthood inferior to the priesthood of Melchizedek.
This launches us into the topic of when does life begin? Tertullian held to a physical soul. Since the abortion debate has come along and Roe v. Wade, and Creationist has fallen by the wayside. Liberal Christians and poor Bible teaching has led some to think that creationism favors abortion. The body is created indirectly; and the soul is created by God, when a person takes their first breath.
Is this original creation or is this a pattern which continues. The Lord God breathed life into man’s nostrils and man became a living soul. The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.... Formed here is yatsar, which is used of a potter forming something out of clay.
We must be able to demonstrate from the context and from the use of the words that something is not to be taken literally. The noun nephesh is often rendered soul, but it has a broad range of meanings. It refers to the immaterial part of man, which will later refer to the soul and to the spirit of man. It can mean passion and desire; it can refer to the life of man; and there can be an overlap with ruwach.
We cannot minimize the importance of the physical body. Even at the intermediate phase, there is a body which God has created for us. Problems with the body since neo-Platanism. Plato’s analogy of shadows on the cave wall. All that we see is a shadow of what is real.
The Greek word for form is μορφη. Morphe. To Plato, matter is evil, souls preexist physical life and stuck into a body, imprisoned; and that which is immaterial is perfect. The early church could not say that matter was bad, as God created it and called it good; but that it was inferior.
When we are raptured, our body does not collapse in a pile of dust and the soul goes straight up, but it is transformed by Jesus Christ into a body like His. In Biblical Christianity, the body is important. In the book of Hebrews, our Lord says, “A body You have prepared for Me.” The body of Jesus Christ is going to be the best and greatest possible way to express all that God is and Who God is.
Since creation, God uses indirect means to create our physical bodies. The Scripture speaks of immediate creation as well. Psalm 139 God is intimately involved in making the human body, even though that is a mediate construction.
The Spirit will return to God Who gave it. The dust returns to earth.
Isa. 2:22 “Sever yourself from someone whose breath is in his nostrils.” Isa. 42:5: This is what God the LORD says--who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and life to those who walk on it--
Philosophy has always struggled with, how does an immaterial thing like the soul direct the material. What happens when someone has a stroke? What about amnesia? No recollection of this woman’s life for the previous 10 years of marriage. Part of the brain is rendered useless and the body sometimes makes adjustments for such a thing.
Psalm 22 58 Isa. 46:2: (wrong one). The Bible never once makes the parameters of life going from conception to death. Never from life to life. Job 1:29: naked I came from my mother’s womb. 3:11 why did I not die from birth? Job doesn’t say, “Why wasn’t I miscarried?” Isa. 44:2: from birth searched out in several translations. 8-10 verses render this from birth, but this is not consistent. Isa. 44:24: As your redeemer and the One Who formed You from he womb.
There is no noun in Hebrew for birth; there is a verb and a noun for conception. To conceive is used ofver 42 times. Gen. 4:2 She became pregnant and gave birth 9 months later. This is found elsewhere as well. Eccles. 3:2: a time to give birth; a time to die.
Matt. 11:11:] Man who is bored of somen. They had the language for conception, but they never use it. Job 38:21 1:21 3:11 10:18–19
What about the development of the immaterial part of man? The original model is God breathing into man. Breathing is the sign of life; that is what is indicative of life being present. No breath means no life, no animating spirit. This argues against Gen. 2:7 being a one-time event. The physical process was different.
New Testament: εκ κοιλια = from birth. Same imagery. There is a Greek noun for birth found one-time in the New Testament. John 9:1 As Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. Acts 14:8: a cripple from his mother’s womb; but the ESV renders this from birth who had never walked. Would it make sense to be speaking about what is inside the womb? Nobody walks in the womb. When did they discover that he could not walk? It was a year or so after birth. He thinks that from birth might really be from early life.
A man lame from his mother’s womb. He was laid daily at the temple. Me beten as from birth. Ek kalia is also rendered from birth. His argument is that this is what the scholarship agrees upon, even though they are not consistent about it. Maybe 18 or 19 New Testament verses like this, although generally half are rendered that way.
There were eunuch’s who were born from their mother’s womb. No word for conception here. They are born that way. Birth is where the process begins.
Sampson. Behold, you will conceive and bear a son. In the LXX, conception is rendered en gastre.
Psalm 139: being created was not a mistake. We might even dislike genetics. Psalm 139:13–16: For You have possessed my inward parts; You have covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are marvelous and my soul knows it very well. My bones were not hidden from You when I was made in secret and skillfully formed in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my embryo; and in Your book all my members were written, the days they were formed, and not one was among them.
The body is not an afterthought; it was not casually made. The DNA, the electrical connections, the connection between the soul and the body, is all carefully made. In this passage, there is some development occurring within the womb. There is a natural process; this is not the growth of a tumor. You don’t simply cut it out; it is not just a mass of cells like a tumor. What is happening inside the womb of a womb is destined to get a soul and it will be formed in the image of God. Therefore, what goes on inside the womb has to be taken very seriously.
The nascent life view, which is not what the traducianists. The latter believe life is in the soul’ the former says something important has begun in the womb, and that this will culminate in a person who is created in the likeness of God. You cannot treat this casually. It is not to be taken lightly. Destroying is not murder, because there is no soul there; it may be sinful, it may be carnal, but it is not murder.
Jer. 1:5: Before I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I consecrated you, and I ordained you a prophet to the nations. This is the foreknowledge of God. Before you were born, I knew about you. God, before Jeremiah was born, had a plan for Jeremiah.
Hebrews 7:8–10 Lesson 087b
Subject of the origin of life and the transmission of the soul. Robby is reading some other literature against his position to see how others are thinking. This position has been way overstated. Both sides have false assumptions and straw men arguments.
Traducianism — physical procreation produces the body and the soul. Proclaimed as heretical by Thomas Aquinas in the middle ages.
Creationism: the soul is created directly by God at birth. The inference is that the vast majority of creationists were held to creation at conception.
He’s never seen Calvin, Brikoff or Hodge that the soul came in at conception. However, in many cases, they do not directly state this. There is also a conception creationist.
Gen. 2:7 is the first passage on this. God takes the ground and shapes it into a man and God breathes life into the man. This is an anthropomorphism, as God does not breathe, per se.
1. Something does literally fill the lungs of the body, which generates life in the body which God has shaped.
2. Breath indicates life; with breath, you are alive; without it, you are not.
3. Nephesh is usually rendered soul, but it is not a technical term all the time. Often a phrase is more than the sum of its parts. You can’t break these down completely word-by-word. Used of birds, sea creatures, animals throughout the first chapter of Genesis, as it is not so understood in the first 3 instances. Some overemphasize the immaterial part of man, like Platonist.
Destruction of everyone on the planet, all in whose nostrils is the breath of life. Moses later instructs Israelites in Deuteronomy—let nothing that breathes remain alive (animals and men). This is never used of plants; there is never a word for life for plants. Hebrew recognizes a different form of life for animals and plants. We cannot push nephesh too far. What animates the physical body is immaterial. Joshua 10:40 11:11 There is none left breathing.
The Old Testament attributes some events to God, even though He did not act immediately; many times, it is when God acts mediately (indirectly).
People think that creationism allows for abortion. A quote from a Jewish encyclopedia from 2000. They go back to Mishna, Rabbinical and Talmud interpretations to determine their position. An unborn fetus is not considered to be a person. What is in the womb is human; it is not nonhuman. It is not just a mass of cells. A fetus cannot function as a legal entity, owning property, transfer property, etc. The fetus is a part of the mother’s body until it exits the body. 40 days is when the fetus is thought to just be a liquid, and it becomes human at 40 days. The 40 days is Aristotelian.
Exodus case law; a woman is inadvertently hurt and has a child. Most scholars recognize that there was a live birth which has occurred. Therefore, the baby is alive. Any damage done to the baby is to a person. Some interpret life for life as death of the mother. This law indicates that what has happened here is significant. A fine is involved. If a Jew harms another Jew, there is fine; killing a Jew means death; killing a slave means there is a fine.
Most Biblical commentators (in this Jewish book) understand if the mother is unharmed and the fetus is lost, there is a fine for the death of the fetus.
One is permitted to destroy the fetus to save the mother’s life; but once the head has come out, one can no longer kill the child. In Jewish thought, apart from any other accident or other human factor, what the result will be a human being, as God is putting together a human being bit by bit. You cannot test for diseases, etc.; there is not stopping the life, which God has begun. That involves the physical and the soul dimensions. This is the Jewish position. However, on the other hand, it is not deemed as murder.
Always bear in mind, where is your evidence? The Mishna was written and codified in the 2nd century a.d. which collects Jewish thought orally given over the previous 400–500 years.
Can you measure the soul? Can you weigh it? Can you see it?
A second article in the Trinity Journal in 1993 by Harold OJ Brown, one of the top 5 significant theologians who pushed the anti-abortion movement. The evangelical movement were very slow to respond to Roe v. Wade and some even accepted it.
Billy Graham was originally on the board for this anti-abortion movement, but excused himself when he saw where it was going.
Brown held the chair at and taught theology; and got 4 degrees from Harvard and Harvard Divinity School. However, when Robby saw the class list there, there was little or nothing about theology there. He’s taught in several schools from all over.
Some self-damning comments in his article. The question of the soul. For some it is important to know when the soul occurs, but you’d think that he’d have made this decision. Speculation concerning ensoulment. Darwinists cannot discuss a soul, as they don’t believe in it. Does such a thing actually exist? The entire proabortion argument has come about apart from a discussion of ensoulment. Factually, the government is not able to determine when the soul enters the body, and we don’t want for the government to determine this. This discussion should be confined to Christian circles. Even a proof here would not have any affect upon the courts, as they don’t care. It is not a factor to them. It is not possible to assume that the soul does not occupy the body until birth. However, Brown gives no reason here. Ensoulment cannot be answered Scripturally, he says. The Scripture makes no comment on this at all.
Using abortion for birth control is tantamount to interfering with a divine process, making it immoral and sinful, but not murder.
Job 3:3: Let the day perish in which I was born, and the night which said, A man-child is conceived. Throughout this chapter of Job, he is bemoaning his birth. The narrative is in the first 2 verses, and then poetry follows. A male-child has to do with the physical properties of the body, and that this second half has nothing to do with the soul.
Psalm 139:13: ...for You formed my inward parts, you covered me in my mothers womb.... There is no other way to articulate David’s physical body in the womb of his mother; this does not mean that there is a soul in the womb.
Job 3:4–11: Let that day be darkness. Let not God look upon it from above, neither let the light shine upon it. Let darkness and the shadow of death claim it. Let a cloud dwell upon it; Let the blackness of the day terrify it. As for that night, let darkness seize upon it. Let it not rejoice among the days of the year, Let it not come into the number of the months. Lo, let that night be barren; let no joyful voice come in it. Let those curse it who curse the day, who are ready to stir up Leviathan. Let the stars of its twilight be dark; let it look for light, but have none. Let it not see the eyelids of the dawn. For it did not shut up the doors of my mother's womb, nor hide sorrow from my eyes. Why did I not die from the womb, come from the womb and expire? You have to recognize that a phrase has meaning, and you cannot spend too much time dealing with individual words. You cannot press this preposition too far. Min and ek are not going to always from our from the source of. All of these simply mean from birth, as there is no exact term for birth, although there was one for conception. Job 3:13: For now I should have lain still and been quiet; I should have slept. Then I would have been at rest
Hebrews 7:8–10 Lesson 088b
Heb. 7:9–10: And if I may say so, Levi, also, who receives tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
The phrase can take on a meaning of its own, which can be more than just a breakdown of the terms which are there. There are passages which have not been treated equally and opening on both sides of the issue of abortion.
Job speaks of God shaping the physical body, although it sounds as if God is immediately involved, however, the idea could be that God is mediately involved. Scriptures can speak as if God is immediately doing something, whether or not He is.
The breathing of lives into Adam is significant and it gives us a pattern. However, there is no muscle function in Adam until God breathes life into him. However, before God breathes life into a person, there is muscle growth and movement etc.
The nehsemah is not a word or phrase used only of man; it is used of bird and animals as well. Therefore, this word can be used to simply indicate life. The Bible always speaks of life from birth to death; it never speaks of life from conception to death.
Go back to the Talmud and the Mishna and the Encyclopedia of Judaism, that there is no true life until there is nephesh breathed into the person. The fetus must leave the womb and go into the air in order to become alive. For this reason, it is okay to save the mother for the infant in the womb. On the other hand, the fetus is God’s work within the body of the woman, and destroying God’s work may not be murder, but it is just short of murder.
Someone in the forefront of the right to life says the Bible does not allow us to know when soul life begins. To which, Robby says, “How can you base law on something which you don’t know, even if God has given you divine revelation.”
We cannot minimize what is in the womb, whether it has a soul or not.
Scripture cannot answer the question as to the timing of ensoulment.
We do not the government or congress determining when ensoulment occurs.
1. Only Christians have access to and can understand the things of God. You can develop all kinds of ethical systems apart from divine revelation. There are a lot of systems which come up with high moral standards.
2. Why base a universal standard on a disputed area of Scripture?
How can you claim to be on this or that side when dealing with several passages in Scripture. There was a miraculous birth and announcement of John the Baptizer’s birth.
To Luke 1. There are 6 women in Scripture who have trouble conceiving. Elizabeth, John’s mother, has this problem. Zechariah sees the Angel of the Lord and is agitated. Joy and gladness will come to you, which is promised to Zechariah and these words are also associated with the coming of Jesus Christ, the Messiah. “Prepare the way of the Lord for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” And Jesus shows up, and he says, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” He sends out His Apostles to say the same thing. . “He will be great in the sight of the Lord and he will not take in wine and strong drink (Beer). He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
This should remind us of Sampson, who has a mother who is barren and there is a supernatural conception. There is no drinking of wine or eating anything which is unclean, which is told to the mother. This is related to the Nazarite vows that the son would take. What she does with her body, which affects the fetus, is an issue. God is very much concerned about what happens to that which is within the womb. This is because Sampson would be a Nazarite from the womb. The fetus is not part of the mother’s body. The child can have a different blood type. This child can be implanted in the womb of any person, and they will still carry the biological features of its biological parents. This must be treated as sacred life, even though it does not have a soul.
Luke 1:15: For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall neither drink wine nor strong drink. And he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. This is a different word than be filled with the spirit found in Eph. 5:18. Here it is, be filled by means, be filled from. This phrase is always used of someone who is regenerate. The NIV catches the idiom that this is from birth. The Old Testament phrase was me beten and the New Testament phrase was ek kolia. New International Dictionary of Exegesis, Under the article on beten, the writer says, “The beginning of the person’s life on earth is often seen as when one emerges from the womb; from birth.” “Birth then being the beginning of life...” is a phrase taken from another Theological Dictionary. There have been some who have tried to distort this information. This is an idiomatic statement which should be understood as from birth. However, if you start parsing the grammar and avoid the idiom, then you lose the meaning.
Robby is going to go off the reservation here. It is his gut feeling that this means from an early age rather than from birth. There is the example of the crippled man from birth, which means no one discovered it until most children began to walk and he did not. How can John the Baptizer have a relationship with God the Holy Spirit before he has been regenerated first.
This is different from the santificatnion ministry of the Holy Spirit in Eph. 5:18. Now, how will John the Baptizer begin to speak and reveal information at his birth?
Luke 1:41: She hears the greeting, the baby leaps in the womb, and Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit. And it happened as Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,
The angel Gabriel comes and announces to Mary at the same time, but in a different town. The angel tells all about Elizabeth who was in her 6th month. Mary arises to go see Elizabeth. Elizabeth does not know that Mary is pregnant nor that she is pregnant with the Messiah. Elizabeth’s excited was normal female excitement of seeing Mary.
There is a word used for movement in the womb, used of Jacob and Esau in the Septuagint; it is also used of exuberance because you are surprised or happy to hear about something. There is some writing which ascribes this word to a dog leaping for joy. We impute our emotions like this to animals. Young calves and goats leaping about in the hills, is also an example of this.
It just has John leaping in her womb. There is also a sense of explaining the surrounding circumstances, This movement described by John in the womb. There is fetal development in the womb. The idea that this fetus knows that Mary shows up and is pregnant with the Messiah is ridiculous. There was no impact found when mothers played classical music for their children in the womb (a popular conception in the80's). There is a viable explanation here.
Note, that in this passage, we do not have John’s name used to refer to the fetus. There are a lot of unguarded statements made on both sides of this argument. Job 3:3. A male child known at conception but at conception, that a child is a male can be known, theoretically speaking.
The joy here seems to just be Elizabeth’s at Mary’s arrival; and there are normal reflexes in a fetus. There is a startle reflex. A sound played near a fetus can cause a fetal reaction. It is a normal reflex action, which does not indicate volition but simply a response to sound.
John is not called John until he is dedicated on the 8th day; this is significant.
Ex. 21:22 will be what we go back to next time.
Is our relationship with Adam seminal or federal?
Hebrews 7:8–10 Lesson 089b
Illinois state rifle association. Daley said, if it were up to him, no one would have a gun. They are now involved in a confiscation program. They go into houses and demand guns. In early 1980's, there was a registration required, and one guy did, but he neglected to re-register it. A particular law has them now targeting lawful gun owners. It is called FOIB, which is a continuous registration. The law becomes very fluid, depending upon a liberal judge, who can make up whatever law he wants based upon whatever he wants.
Many Republicans today running are to the left of Kennedy. Too many buy into the law that the constitution is a fluid document, to be twisted and turned. 90% of Christians today cannot properly interpret the Bible; so they obviously cannot understand the constitution. Who would have ever thought that the Congress would have ever entertained hate speech legislation, which is in opposition to freedom of speech.
Heb. 7:8–10. We are still dealing with the origin of life.
Ex. 21: The Old Testament gives case law, a few examples, but the details for each situation is up to man to carry on the process. The same is true when God created the world; with interpreting doctrine. God did not give us a book of systematic theology; He gave us the information which we need, but it is found in a variety of literature. We are to study and analyze the text and to build and examine the categories. God expects us to go to the Scriptures and to examine carefully; our minds must be engaged in order to understand God’s thinking. This is how wisdom is developed.
Other laws can be developed, based upon case law. There are different kinds of case laws which involve violence, for instance.
Predmeditation murder versus unpremeditated. Some people have no authority orientation; no concept of that, at a school campus (Dallas Theological Seminary) and they have problems that they did not have 20–30 years ago.
Beating a servant with a rod would mean that a person would be punished. The Bible provides different punishments for killing different people, a Jew or versus a Moabite or versus a slave. God does not authorize sin or validate sin. However, the kind of slavery practiced in Israel allowed for a lot of ways to get out of it. This was used for those who had allowed themselves to go too far into debt.
Slavery in and of itself is not an evil; Charles Albert Finney was a part of the abolition movement and had a wrong theology. The Scripture has absolutes. You don’t get to take absolutes from contemporary society, and then work backwards and apply it to the Bible. Liberals think that the Bible evolved like any other religion.
Ex. 21:22–25: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
What we have here is a live birth, where the child is fully alive. The harm coming to the child is post-birth harm. The injury deals with a child who has been born. It is not a miscarriage, it is a live birth. The word used for birth is used of Jacob being born as well.
The penalty fits the crime is what is involved here; that is the meaning of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
Man is different from all other creatures, as he is made in the image of God. Man is created to rule over the earth as God’s representative, and as a creature, man is designed to represent God. Heb. 10:5 at the time of the incarnation, sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body You have prepared for me. God did not just toss the dice and pick our shape; he chose our structure for a reason. First Adam and the 2nd Adam. Both designed to represent God.
Throughout the Bible, there is an emphasis upon the physical. There is a physical bodily resurrection. When Mary and the Apostles went into the tomb, they notice that the body is gone. The clothes are just lying there, but the body is gone. The body is important. It is not just a place for our soul. It is Platonistic thinking which thinks of the body as being unimportant.
Now we are going to go into a new doctrine. The origin and transmission of the soul. Heb. 7:9–10: And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. The beginning of this verse indicates that this is a figure of speech, and this is not to be taken perfectly literally.
Seminalism goes hand in hand with traducianism. The soul is passed along through the semen or something like that and the guilt of Adam’s sin is passed along through the sperm. Federalism: it is not a physical related thing, but Adam’s sin becomes our sin by representation. This is crucial to understand 1Cor. 15 and Rom. 5.
How is the soul corrupted? That is a fundamental issue. If God is going to create the soul, how does it become corrupted and under condemnation. Traducianists take God out of the picture and say that God is involved only mediately through the body and the soul. Origin and transmission of the soul is all interconnected to even sin, and there is this whole web of interconnectivity. You change one thing, and it affects everything else. Often in a seminary it is an either-or case. Federalism versus seminalism; creationism versus traducianism. Easy to come out of this saying, it is pretty close, this way or that, but I am going to fall on this side. A lot of men come out of classrooms and they become theological agnostics. If these double and triple PhD’s can’t figure this out, how can I? I just have a master’s degree. The first domino in theological agnosticism and it builds. You become a pan-millennial. It all pans out in the end. Then you get weak with doing something with Jesus, walking down an aisle, asking Jesus into your heart; and then maybe it is just a common experience and we get together and we feel good together and have the same experience.
The sin of Adam is transmitted through the human race. If Adam had resisted the temptation and Eve had fallen, there would have been a whole different thing. The man decided that the woman was more attractive than God, but this has been a problem throughout human history.
Women have so much power. So many cults are begun by women. Many husbands screwed up theologically because of their wives. Signs and wonders movement, originally a Quaker and dispensational (maybe), he became a charismatic under the influence of his wife. Some will speak in tongues and some won’t; but we just have to be open to God sending tongues and healings.
In the 80's, 3 men from Dallas Seminary were affected by their wives and they had to feel something, and the wives get into this subjectivity. Frances Beckwith is a noted theologian and apologist. He was the president of the this huge evangelical organization. He confessed his heresy at a Roman church a few months ago, having been a Catholic, and then an evangelical, and then he went back as a Catholic. A woman asks, “What does his wife think about this?” And it was the wife out in front leading him. Catholic church in South American taking out full page ads concerning this. Giving verbal affirmation to this or that doctrine does not mean that they understand it.
Hebrews 7:8–10 Lesson 090b
We’ve taken some digressions in Hebrews, primarily because vv. 9–10 are used to take this or that side of the transmission of Adam’s original sin, the sin nature, and the soul.
We have concluded that the soul is created individually by God, and we know that it is created perfectly, then it is reasonable to ask, how does it become corrupt and receive the imputation of Adam’s original sin.
Traducianism: the soul is passed on through conception; creationism is that the soul is transmitted at birth. Seminalism is closely related to traducianism. Federalism says that Adam is the federal head of the human race, his guilt becomes our guilt. He makes the federal choice on our behalf. God’s plan of salvation is not simply a waving of the magic wand. Sin is universal and widespread and complex; therefore, the solution must be the same.
Adam’s sin is the first act of willful disobedience to God by a human being. He is the one who has to sin, as he is the head of the human race. How is Adam’s sin passed on or transmitted to us? And many say, it doesn’t seem fair that God would send us to hell for what Adam did.
The word fair might be reasonable to apply with absolute standards; but today, with the concept of egalitarian fairness and social equality, fairness has no application. It is best to use the justice and righteousness of God rather than the word fair. Man is composed of two aspects: a material and an immaterial parts. The body and the flesh are often called sin, which is a physical corruption; but there is also an imputation of sin as well. There has to be a corruption of the soul as well, as this is where sin is from.
Most denominations have fallen into 19th century liberalism.
He’s going to Israel; and when he comes back, the rest will be covered.
Hebrews 7:8–10 Lesson 091b June 28, 2007
There is a college which offers a free course on how to study the Bible. 60–70 people show up, and then they get a hw assignment, and they do poorly on this assignment. It is amazing how many people think they can just go to the Bible and expect that Jesus will teach them. Some figure that learning Greek and Hebrew should be easy. The gift of pastor-teacher is a teaching gift, but not a study gift necessarily. You must learn how to study. The principles for Bible study involving learning how to read intelligently and understanding what you read. Learning how to think through all that you read; learning to use Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias. Robbie Dean thought that he would flunk out in his first inductive Bible course at Dallas Thelogical Seminary. Knowing systematic theology does not mean you can understand Scripture. For the first couple weeks, people often have a very tough time in seminary. There is nothing mystical and weird about this. It takes time and work and thought. However, it can be a joy of discovery (title of a book on this?).
Heb. 7:9 most of the translations put a word between vv. 9–10, but it is at the beginning of the sentence, making it emphatic. It means in a matter of speaking. So, we are not speaking literally of Levi. Levi never received tithes from anyone. A progenitor is put in for his descendants. Abraham was the head of the new Jewish race which God had called out. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Jacob bore Levi, which is a few hundred years later. 10% of Abraham’s stuff was given to Melchizedek. Since Abraham was subordinate to Melchizedek, his descendants were also subordinate to Melchizedek.
Augustine was one of the most influential persons in theology of the Middle Ages. Dean did his masters at the University of St. Thomas in philosophy? Luther was an Augustinian monk, and Luther was tyring to get the Catholic church to move back to Augustine theology. But Luther begins to write a commentary on Romans and Galatians, and he recognizes that salvation is based upon faith alone. 500–1500 a.d., there is a departure from Biblical truth and it gets very distorted, and 1400 a.d. is where it is particularly distorted. Luther makes major shifts in soteriology. However, Luther still held to some weird doctrines, like consubstantiation, which is hard to distinguish between transubstantiation. It is not a memorial view, as we hold to.
His understanding in many ways is very Augustinian, as it affected Calvin; both Amillennialists. As people expand on this, there is a great shift, as in the 1600's, to those who understand a more literal view of the Scripture and particularly of future things.
Seminalism: the entire human race was inside of Adam when he sinned; his sin was not federal. He basis this on our passage. This verse becomes a key verse in this arena. I believe that these are the mistaken views of Luther? All of man is transmitted physically, which began with Tertullian, who was a materialist and did not believe in the immaterial. Creationism is the idea that the body was created mediately and that the soul was created by God. Seminalism and traducianism go together. They offer up their position and they give these 3 or 4 verses to support their position; and another offers up the opposite. The corruption and guilt of Adam was transmitted physically, which is seminalism. How is Adam’s sin spread to all men? That is the issue.
One proponent of seminalism was a 19th century Calvinist named Shedd. Rom. 5:12: Adam and his posterity sinned together as a unity. The posterity were not vicariously represented, as that implies that they are not present. The first sin is imputed deservedly to them. Entire human race, body and soul, present in Adam, which is seminalism.
Federalism, Adam as an individual, distinct from Eve and distinct from his posterity, sinned as a substitute and as a representative of the human race as their vicar and representative. This has to be, as Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. Otherwise, going tit for tat, only those descended from Jesus could be saved, just as those descended from Adam were fallen. The 2nd person of the Trinity had to become a human being, because there is this genetic connection which ties the human race together. There is no salvation of that type among angels, as they do not procreate. They are all created differently and separately. You cannot have someone die for angels, as they as not connected. We, as humans, are genetically connected. We are of the same race.
There were numerous pastors in the Catholic church in England who were reading Luther and Calvin, and many being persuaded. Henry the VIII wrote a rebuttle to Luther’s justification by faith alone. Henry VIII was called a defender of the faith and that is where Elizabeth gets this title from. He supported the Catholic view against Luther, but he later broke from the Catholic church over his divorce? However, there was change occurring everywhere, from the bottom up and from the middle up.
They called their pastors vicars, because the pastor was a substitute. Pope is called the vicar of Christ. Shedd twice used the term vicarious. Adam cannot be a vicar of the human race is Shedd’s position. Federal headship by some people seems to be linked to covenant theology. However, people in the reform position. They are either seminarists or federalists.
Federalism: Adam’s decisions were on behalf of all humanity. There is a physical component to all of this, as Adam is physically related to everyone in the human race. This is why the old sin nature is passed down. That is the physical link; the federal link is the imputation of Adam’s original sin to everyone. His sin affect him and all of his progeny.
Unitarians humans are basically good, which is the vision of a political party. Dean is fed up with both parties. Conservatives believe in the total depravity of man and liberals believe that man is basically good, and everything flows from these (Conflict of Vision from some author, not a theologian).
Arminius was a strong follower of Calvin and he taught theology in Holland. Depravity extends to every aspect of his person; he is not as depraved as he could be, but he is totally depraved. Jesus said, “You being evil can give good gifts to your children.” Arminian view, man is not complete and totally depraved. Man is sick but not totally depraved. Charismatics, Nazarene church hold to this Armenian view.
Federal view: Adam’s sin affects every person and the human race is affect. Depravity is total and sin and guilt are imputed to everyone. Presbyterians, reformed theologians, Baptists, etc. Calvinists also hold to this. Hyper-Calvinist did not even think that we need to witness to anyone.
Humanity physically sinned in Adam; sin and guilt are imputed. Just as through one man’s sin entered the world, which Paul built up to, and then he goes down a rabbit trail to explain more fully, and then he goes back in vv. 15–17 and re-explains the first part of the comparison, and in v. 18 he gets to the second part of the comparison.
He pulls together how sin came into the world and how sin is dealt with by Jesus Christ; he stops and starts elsewhere, and Paul is excited and stops abruptly, and has so much to say, and he jumps to somewhere else, which is not directly affixed to what he is saying, but gives some background. Because of everything that I have said up until this point, just as [you expect two parts to be compared, but you only find one] through one man sin enters into the world and we have the noun harmartia, which is a missing of the mark, the righteous standard of God. Sin is not a violation of your parent’s or friend’s rules, but a violation of God’s character. David says, against You and You only have I sinned, even though his sin had consequences for everyone. The singular use of sin here is the principle of sin, not a group of things which we have done wrong. Hamartia is used 3 times in v. 12. The next word is parabasis, which means an offense, from a verb which means to transgress, to violate a law, to transgress a commandment. Rom. 4:15 5:15 Heb. 2:2 9:15. Third word for sin is paraptoma, which means to fall by the wayside, to violate moral standards; and is found 19 times in the New Testament, and 5 times in Rom. 5. Parakoe, which is an act of disobedience.
Hebrews 7:8–10 Lesson 092b July 5, 2007