scholarly journals Seeing the world through the eyes of God: Reading the Book of Qoheleth in the light of Genesis 1:1–2:4a

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilbert N. Alaribe ◽  
Lawrence N. Okwuosa
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
pp. 85-104
Author(s):  
Борис Тимофеев

Современная научная богословская мысль склонна к унификации терминов и явлений в сфере своих компетенций. Эта тенденция в современных исследованиях в некоторых случаях распространяется и на древние христианские памятники. Так, например, слово θεωρία многие учёные определяют как мистический метод духовного толкования Священного Писания. Это определение нередко применяется в качестве универсального технического определения при анализе экзегетических произведений древних авторов. При этом игнорируется узус самих экзегетов, которые употребляют это слово в иных значениях. В рамках данной статьи предпринимается попытка выявить и показать основные значения слова θεωρία в древней греческой экзегетической литературе. The article deals with the theology, composition and literary form of the narrations which constitute the prologue part of the book of Genesis (1, 1-11, 26). During the second half of the 19th and at the turn of the 20th cent., following the emergence of the Documentary hypothesis as well as the comparison of the Holy Scripture with the newly-discovered literary monuments of Ancient Near East, the greater part of the narrations that constitute the Prologue were labeled myths and ancient Hebrew folklore (J. Wellhausen, H. Gunkel, J. Frazer). In addition to the then detected Near Eastern parallels, this new attitude towards the narrations of the Prologue was fostered by its lack of a clearly expressed historical dedication and the symbolic form of their exposition. Defending the traditional view of the Prologue as sacred history and prophetic revelation, bishop Kassian (Bezobrazov) proposed to consider all the biblical narrations that contain theophanies as metahistorical. Archpriest Sergey Bulgakov, A. F. Losev and B. P. Vysheslavtsev, who analyzed the phenomenon of myth-making, called the Biblical narration of the origins of the world a myth, but in a sense different from that proposed by Gunkel and Frazer. They have founded a new and positive conception according to which a myth is not fi but rather a kind of reality based upon mystical experience. The author of the article analyzes each of the terms enumerated - «history», «myth», «metahistory» - in their use relating them to the Prologue; he also examines the possibility of their harmonizing with the traditional ecclesiastical view of this part of the book of Genesis.


2020 ◽  
pp. 17-46
Author(s):  
Михаил Анатольевич Скобелев

В статье рассматриваются богословие, композиция и литературная форма сюжетов, входящих в состав Пролога книги Бытия (1, 1-11, 26). Во второй половине XIX - начале XX вв. в результате появления Документальной гипотезы и сопоставления Священного Писания с литературными памятниками Древнего Ближнего Востока большая часть сюжетов, составляющих Пролог, была объявлена мифами и древнееврейским фольклором (Ю. Велльгаузен, Г. Гунекель, Дж. Фрезер). Кроме выявленных ближневосточных параллелей, новому отношению к повествованиям Пролога книги Бытия способствовали: отсутствие в нём ясно выраженной исторической задачи и символичность изложения. Защищая традиционный взгляд на Пролог как на священную историю и пророческое откровение, епископ Кассиан (Безобразов) предложил рассматривать все библейские сюжеты, содержащие теофанию, как метаисторию. Протоиерей Сергий Булгаков, А. Ф. Лосев, Б. П. Вышеславцев, занимавшиеся феноменом мифотворчества, назвали библейское повествование о начале мироздания мифом, но в ином смысле, чем это делали Г. Гункель и Дж. Фрезер. Они обосновали новый положительный взгляд, согласно которому миф не есть выдумка или фантазия, а реальность, основанная на мистическом опыте. В статье анализируется каждый из перечисленных терминов: «история», «миф», «метаистория» применительно к Прологу, а также рассматривается возможность их согласования с традиционным церковным взглядом на эту часть книги Бытия. The article deals with the theology, composition and literary form of the narrations which constitute the prologue part of the book of Genesis (1, 1-11, 26). During the second half of the 19th and at the turn of the 20th cent., following the emergence of the Documentary hypothesis as well as the comparison of the Holy Scripture with the newly-discovered literary monuments of Ancient Near East, the greater part of the narrations that constitute the Prologue were labeled myths and ancient Hebrew folklore (J. Wellhausen, H. Gunkel, J. Frazer). In addition to the then detected Near Eastern parallels, this new attitude towards the narrations of the Prologue was fostered by its lack of a clearly expressed historical dedication and the symbolic form of their exposition. Defending the traditional view of the Prologue as sacred history and prophetic revelation, bishop Kassian (Bezobrazov) proposed to consider all the biblical narrations that contain theophanies as metahistorical. Archpriest Sergey Bulgakov, A. F. Losev and B. P. Vysheslavtsev, who analyzed the phenomenon of myth-making, called the Biblical narration of the origins of the world a myth, but in a sense different from that proposed by Gunkel and Frazer. They have founded a new and positive conception according to which a myth is not fiction but rather a kind of reality based upon mystical experience. The author of the article analyzes each of the terms enumerated - «history», «myth», «metahistory» - in their use relating them to the Prologue; he also examines the possibility of their harmonizing with the traditional ecclesiastical view of this part of the book of Genesis.


2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-14
Author(s):  
Robert Gnuse

Psalm 104 is a majestic hymn to creation, a dynamic corollary to the more formal presentation of the creation of the world in Genesis 1. Reflection upon some of the passages provides us with insight into the biblical author’s appreciation for nature, an attitude that needs to inspire us in this age of ecological crisis. Though the biblical text is unaware of such an ecological crisis; nonetheless, passages shine forth that can speak to us in our modern age of global warming and environmental collapse.


2018 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ndikho Mtshiselwa ◽  
Lerato Mokoena

The Old Testament projects not only a Deity that created the world and human beings but also one that is violent and male. The debate on the depiction of the God of Israel that is violent and male is far from being exhausted in Old Testament studies. Thus, the main question posed in this article is: If re-read as ‘Humans created God in their image’, would Genesis 1:27 account for the portrayal of a Deity that is male and violent? Feuerbach’s idea of anthropomorphic projectionism and Guthrie’s view of religion as anthropomorphism come to mind here. This article therefore examines, firstly, human conceptualisation of a divine being within the framework of the theory of anthropomorphic projectionism. Because many a theologian and philosopher would deny that God is a being at all, we further investigate whether the God of Israel was a theological and social construction during the history of ancient Israel. In the end, we conclude, based on the theory of anthropomorphic projectionism, that the idea that the God of Israel was a theological and social construct accounts for the depiction of a Deity that is male and violent in the Old Testament.


2007 ◽  
pp. 27-37
Author(s):  
Dmytro V. Tsolin

Every reader of the Old Testament, both experienced researcher and newcomer, cannot fail to pay attention to one peculiarity in the presentation of the idea of ​​God: it is a harmonious (and, at times, amazing) combination of transcendence and immanence. The History of the Creation of the World (Genesis 1: 1 - 2: 3), which begins the first book of the Strictly Testament - Genesis - is an example of an exquisite prose genre with elements of epic poetry. In it, the Creator of the Universe appears to the Almighty, the Wise, and the All-Powerful, standing above the created world: Only one word of it evokes the material world from nothingness. This is emphasized by the repeated use of the formulas אלהים וימר / wa-yyo'mer 'ělohîm ("And Elohim said ...") and ויהי־כן / wa-yəhî khēn ("And so it became"). This use of two narrative constructs at the beginning and at the end of messages about the creative activities of God clearly emphasizes the idea of ​​reconciling the divine Word and being. God is shown here to be transcendental.


2017 ◽  
Vol 114 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-283
Author(s):  
Robert R. Ellis
Keyword(s):  

Imagination is a powerful shaper of our values and of the way we interact within our contexts. We instinctively form an imagination about the nature of the world, of God, of other people, and of our own selves. A variety of influences offer to shape the foundational imagination out of which we engage the world. In Scripture, we find generative images for creating a worldview that bends Godward. This sermonic reflection explores three overarching images for shaping a biblical imagination: Generous Creation, Redemptive Incarnation, and Compassionate Reconciliation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-103
Author(s):  
Bakhoh Jatmiko
Keyword(s):  

Family is an intersting entity to study. Theologically, a family is a God established intitution in the marrital bound between a man and a woman. The family that designed by God himself has been through many threads and challenges from the world that promoting new values for the family that makes the family origin values put by God are being faded out. Many distortions in the family have become challenges for the church and the believers to set the focus to a family as mentioned in the Bible especially Genesis 1-3 as a resources where Christians capture the picture of the first family that have ever existed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 27-48
Author(s):  
PETER JONES

Based on Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (ESV), the apostle Paul in Romans 1:25 gives an amazingly com- plete definition of the only two ways of existing in the world: “they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” I call these two ways of existing Oneism and Twoism. In Oneism, if you worship creation, you will believe that the world is self-created, self-explanatory, and all made of the same stuff (matter, spirit, or a mixture). Paganism is the worship of nature. If everything shares the same divine substance, then all distinctions are eliminated and everything is god. In Twoism, if you worship God, you will believe that he is the Creator—an external, intelligent, personal God. There are two kinds of existence—the Creator who is uncreated, and everything else, which is created. He has placed distinctions in his creation, making what I call Twoism a worldview based on the binaries of otherness and difference. From living under the cultural canopy of biblical truth, our world has changed in the last one or two generations. This becomes especially evident in the modern views of sexuality—in particular, transsexuality, where human beings now self-define and reject the creational binary of male/female sexuality.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-133
Author(s):  
John Henry King

Abstrak Seperti yang dikatakan oleh Pendeta David Platt, Pendeta Utama di Gereja Alkitab McLean di Washington, D.C., dengan tepat menyatakannya, “Injil adalah sumber kehidupan Kekristenan.” Di sinilah letak motif Kristen;” menyatakan Dewan Misionaris 1928, “sederhana. Kita tidak bisa hidup tanpa Kristus dan kita tidak tahan memikirkan manusia yang hidup tanpa Dia.” Bagi Dr. Platt tantangannya adalah “bagaimana menghidupi Injil itu dalam kehidupan kita, keluarga, dan gereja di zaman kebingungan seksual, aborsi legal, materialisme yang merajalela, rasisme yang kejam, meningkatnya krisis pengungsi, berkurangnya kebebasan beragama, dan sejumlah masalah sosial penting lainnya.” Dalam karyanya “From Christendom to Apostolic Mission” Uskup Kagan, Uskup Bismarck, North Dakota, melihat perlunya Gereja sekali lagi mengenakan jubah misionaris karena kita tidak lagi hidup dalam budaya kristen. Stanley Hauerwas, seorang teolog, ahli etika Amerika, dalam karyanya, "The Christian Difference, or Surviving Postmodernism," menyebut karya kita "perjuangan hidup dan mati dengan dunia." …menambahkan: “Saya pikir adalah kesalahan serius untuk tidak menganggap serius postmodernisme.” Hauerwas melihat orang-orang percaya sebagai “komunitas di pengasingan.” (Postmodernisme adalah intelektualisme yang melelahkan dunia yang tidak lagi memandang kehidupan dalam kerangka prinsip-prinsip absolut atau universal. Mereka melangkah lebih jauh dengan mengatakan bahwa semua pemikiran sama-sama relevan (bahwa tidak ada batasan, tidak ada aturan, tidak ada hierarki, tidak ada realitas objektif). dan semua fakta hanyalah 'konstruksi sosial.') Seperti yang ditulis Dr. Platt, “Sebagai pengikut Kristus, kita membodohi diri sendiri jika kita tidak menghadapi kenyataan bahwa kepercayaan dan ketaatan kepada Alkitab di zaman anti-Kristen pasti akan membawa risiko dalam keluarga, masa depan, hubungan seseorang. , reputasi, karier, dan kenyamanan di dunia ini.” Dunia menaruh kepercayaan mereka pada kemajuan evolusioner bukan pada Tuhan. Menurut Kejadian 1 Tuhan adalah Pencipta kita yang pertama. Kreasionisme tidak memiliki kesamaan dengan teori evolusi. Teori evolusi menunjukkan bahwa kita sedang menuju dunia utopis di mana "survival of the fittest" adalah proses alami meninggalkan yang terbaik dari yang terbaik, bukan pemeliharaan ilahi yang merencanakan untuk mengakhiri dosa dan korupsi. Pemikiran postmodern dan teori evolusi menentang apa yang dimaksud dengan eskatologi Kristen. Allah sebagai Pencipta kita menciptakan kita, untuk kemuliaan-Nya. Jika ini tidak benar, Roma 3:23 akan menjadi omong kosong, karena kita tidak dapat mengabaikan hubungan yang menurut postmodernisme materialistis tidak ada. Dosa dan penghakiman Tuhan sekarang diejek oleh doktrin bahwa pengetahuan, kebenaran, dan moralitas hanya ada dalam kaitannya dengan budaya. Susunan Kristen telah digantikan dengan realitas materialistis. Kami, dalam kebenaran sederhana, misionaris untuk perubahan budaya. Apologet Kristen J. F. Baldwin mengakui pentingnya kehidupan yang heroik dan dipenuhi Roh, sebagai argumen paling kuat yang memberi isyarat kepada orang-orang yang tidak percaya kepada iman. “Manusia modern lebih bersedia mendengarkan saksi daripada guru,” Paus Paulus Keenam mengamati. Kita sekarang, sebagai Peter, harus menyelesaikan masalah ini di dalam hati kita. Upaya untuk membungkam kita harus gagal. Ketika sampai pada pesan Injil tentang Salib, “Kita harus lebih taat kepada Allah daripada kepada manusia” (Kisah Para Rasul 5:29) Abstract As Pastor David Platt, Lead Pastor at McLean Bible Church in Washington, D.C., so aptly states it, “The Gospel is the lifeblood of Christianity.” Herein lies the Christian motive;” states the 1928 Missionary Council, “it is simple. We cannot live without Christ and we cannot bear to think of men living without Him.” To Dr. Platt the challenge is “how to live out that gospel in our lives, families, and churches in an age of sexual confusion, legal abortion, rampant materialism, violent racism, escalating refugee crises, diminishing religious liberties, and a number of other significant social issues.” In his work “From Christendom to Apostolic Mission” Bishop Kagan, the Bishop of Bismarck, North Dakota, sees the necessity for the Church to once again don the mantle of the missionary since we are no longer living in a christian culture. Stanley Hauerwas, an American theologian, ethicist, in his work, “The Christian Difference, or Surviving Postmodernism,” called ours ”a life and death struggle with the world.” …adding: “I think it is a serious mistake not to take postmodernism seriously.” Hauerwas saw believers as “a community-in-exile.” (Postmodernism is a world-weary intellectualism that no longer views life in terms of absolutes or universal principles. They go so far as to say that all thought is equally relevant (that there are no boundaries, no rules, no hierarchies, no objective reality and all facts are just ‘social constructs.’) As Dr. Platt writes, “As followers of Christ, we are fooling ourselves if we don’t face the reality that belief in and obedience to the Bible in an anti-Christian age will inevitably lead to risk in one’s family, future, relationships, reputation, career, and comfort in this world.” The world puts their faith in an evolutionary progress not in God. According to Genesis 1 God is first our Creator. Creationism has nothing in common with evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory suggests we are heading toward a utopian world where “survival of the fittest” is a natural process leaving the best of the best instead of a divine providence that plans an end to sin and corruption. Postmodern thought and evolutionary theory counters what Christian eschatology is all about. God as our Creator made us, for His glory. If this were untrue, Romans 3:23 would be nonsense, since we cannot fall short of a relationship that a materialistic postmodernism says doesn’t exist. Sin and God’s judgment is now mocked by the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality only exist in relation to culture. Christendom has been replaced with a materialistic reality. We are, in simple truth, missionaries to cultural change. Christian apologist J. F. Baldwin recognizes the importance of heroic, Spirit-filled living, as the most powerful argument beckoning nonbelievers to the faith. “Modern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers,” Pope Paul the Sixth observed. We now, as Peter, must settle the matter in our hearts. The effort to silence us must fail. When it comes to the Gospel message of the Cross, “ We must obey God rather than people” (Acts 5:29)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document