8: Delitzsch’s System of Biblical Psychology. (1855.1861.1878).
(A System of Biblical Psychology by Franz Delitzsch, D.D., Prof Theology, Leipsic. Translated from German to English, 2nd Ed Thoroughly Rev & Enlarged; by Rev. Rob. E, Wallis, Phil.Dr.1861. Edinburgh, T&T Clark. 1885. From Translator Preface: “The peculiar difficulties with which the translator has had to contend, were not unanticipated by the learned author himself, and may therefore be reasonably pleaded in bar of severe criticism on the way in which the task has been accomplished. Dr Delitzsch, in a courteous reply to a communication in which he had been informed of the intention to translate his book, says: “You are right: that book of mine greatly resists translation into English; it is full of newly-coined words and daring ideas; and both its form and substance are most elaborately involved.” This witness is profoundly true; and should it approve itself so to the reader in the course of his perusal of the following pages, it is hoped that he will indulgently remember this testimony.”)
From Preface of 1st Ed., 1855. “My preparations for the subject are so old (1830-1840), that as early as the year 1846 I was endeavoring to arrange them. In a Latin dissertation upon the elements of man’s nature— sketched out at that time, but suppressed—I proposed to myself an answer to the fundamental question: Whether the soul, so far as it is distinguished from the spirit, belongs by its nature to matter or to spirit? This question I proposed to consider on the side of the ecclesiastical doctrine of dichotomy that had become prevalent, which, moreover, I defended in my Theology of Biblical Prophecy (1845), and in both editions of my Commentary on Genesis (1852 and 1853). (The first edition of the System of Biblical Psychology (1855), comes between the second (1858) and third (1860) editions of the Commentary on Genesis.) That dissertation, indeed, is absolutely right in maintaining the unity of nature of soul and spirit; but it suffers from the great defect, that it does not do justice to the substantial difference between the two that is everywhere presupposed in the Holy Scripture. If this defect were not remedied, the psychologic mode of speech and matter generally in the Holy Scripture would be an obscure and formless chaos. The key of biblical psychology is found in the solution of the enigma: How is it to be conceived, that spirit and soul can be of one nature, and yet of distinct substance? It was not until I was enlightened upon this question that my confused materials of biblical psychology formed themselves as if spontaneously into a systematic unity. My problem was an historical one, standing in a wholly different internal attitude to the psychologic views of the New Testament, from that in which it stood—say to those of Plato or of the Indian Vedanta. In seeking exegetically to ascertain these views, and to combine’ them into a whole which should correspond to their own internal coherence, I proceeded from the auspicious assumption, that whatever of a psychologic kind Scripture presents will neither be self-contradictory, nor be so confused, childish, and unsatisfactory, as to have any need to be ashamed in view of the results of late psychologic research. This favorable assumption has, moreover, perfectly approved itself to me, without my being afraid of having considered the psychologic statements of Scripture in any other than their own light. For while the Scripture testifies to us of the fact of redemption, which is the revealed secret of human history and the universe, it gives us also at the same time disclosures about the nature of man, which, as well to speculative investigation into the final causes and connections of things, as to natural and spiritual self-contemplation, manifest themselves to be divine suggestions. So far, perhaps, the book before us may claim some consideration from inquirers into natural science and philosophy—from such, namely, as are not concealing views of the same kind as were lately frankly avowed by Carl Vogt…..I have striven after this virtue; and as I seek at no point to overstep the limit of the church’s knowledge up to the present time, without at the same time assuring myself that I am abiding by the scripturally sound creed of my church, I shall not be blamed for some theosophic sympathies, especially as I have reduced what Jacob Bohme taught about God’s sevenfold nature to the more biblical conception of the divine glory (doxa), and, moreover, have only so far appropriated it as it commended itself to me on biblical grounds. It was just in the light of this conception that the solution of the psychological problem occurred to me. In it (scil. this conception)— hitherto unduly neglected, and, as Weisse (Philosophische Dogmatik, i. 617) not at all too strongly expresses it, emptied of soul and life as it was under the hands of dogmatic philosophy— there are still to be found undiscovered treasures of knowledge. I have still much to say to courteous readers. But I shrink from bringing myself any longer personally in the front of my book. In deeply conscious acknowledgment of its imperfection, but yet with a grateful retrospect to the enjoyment I have found in the inquiry, I resign it to the not less merciful than strict criticism of the divine Fire (1 Cor. iii. 11-15).”
From Preface 2nd Ed., 1861. “I therefore beg all my readers carefully to distinguish the unassailable historical matter that is here placed before them, from that which is submitted to them for examination, and especially from those merely individual attempts to arrange it in general consistency with the scriptural view of God and the world; and to combine it systematically, agreeably with the suggestions of the Bible. He who in this behalf will form a competent estimate of my work, must first occupy a similar dogmatic, or, which is the same thing, ecclesiastical position to mine. That critics who are unprepared to answer the question: What is the Son of man? and who cut down the holy truths of faith in which they were baptized, and on account of which they are called Christians, nay, evangelical Christians, for the greater glorification of their scientific integrity, — that such critics should be able to find no enjoyment in my book, is wholly natural; and that the exact critics, who have no taste for a gnosis exercised in biblical paths, and the materialist critics, who know of no other induction than one which is calculated by atoms, should reject my book as a senseless production, is neither more nor less than might be expected. I rejoice in another estimate on the part of those who regard everything earnest and without deception—not merely the book of nature, but also the book of the Holy Scripture—as the attestation of a divine revelation, and who acknowledge the ground upon which I build (not without taking heed HOW I build) as the one that endures forever. If my building on this ground should prove a failure, it is after all a first attempt, which still perhaps may supply many stones for a more solid and newer edifice. It is always something gained, that the doctrinal material of biblical psychology here at length more completely and successfully than formerly appears organically articulated, so that it claims to be regarded as a science. And if, moreover, many developments slip in, which appear to lose themselves in what is fanciful, and can pretend to no demonstrative force,—a reproach which no science will escape, which is concerned with the invisible, the spiritual,—it is a fault that may be easily atoned for by the instructive communications of most manifold contents presented in connection therewith……….The relation of the doxa to the personal nature of God is represented, as I hope, more convincingly, as well exegetically as speculatively (i. Sec. 3., iv. Sec. 6). The distinction of nature and substance, which in the first edition was assumed, is now discussed (n. Sec. 4). The trichotomy fundamental text, 1 Thess. v. 23 (n. Sec. 4), and that of creationism, Heb. xii. 9 (n. Sec. 7), are searchingly considered. And equally so, the interpretation of the foundation texts of the conscience, Rom. ii. 15 (m. Sec. 4); of the relation of the soul to the blood, Lev. xvii. 14 (iv. Sec. 11); and of the antinomy of the spirit and the flesh unadjusted in the world, Rom. vii. (v. Sec. 6), are investigated anew. The just claim of biblical psychology to be called a science (Proleg. Sec. 2); the ideal pre-existence of the historically actual (i. Sec. 2); the similitude in man of God, and not merely of the Logos (ii. Sec. 2); the dualism of spirit and matter (n. Sec. 4); the distinction of a wider and narrower conception of (pneuma), (iv. 4, 5, V. 6); the fundamentally of the will (iv. 7); the priority of the spirit over the soul (iv. 8); the conception in the evangelical history of the Kenosis (v. 1); the importance to the history of redemption of the Descent (vi. 3); the actual reality, in the sense of Scripture, of the conjuration of the dead, 1 Sam. xxviii. (vi. Sec. 5)—are all established a new, with reference to the objections that have been advanced. Language, as a psychological manifestation, is better appreciated than before, as well in accordance with Scripture as experience (iv. 4, 10); the nature of the dream is more sharply defined, and its biblical name explained (iv. Sec. 14); and more attention is directed, in the region of extraordinary phenomena of the life of the soul, to the individual degrees and conditions of prophecy (iv. 14, v. 5). The earlier view of the psychologic matter of fact of possession (iv. 16), and the view of the relation of the” resurrection-corporeity to the present one (vii. 1), are justified. Many psychologic definitions of relation, as soul, power, and matter (iv. 9), person (I) and nature (iv. 2), heart and brain (iv. 12), are newly examined, and the history of the views referring to them enlarged upon. In this manner the revision is extended to every paragraph. The substantial views, and the arrangement of the material, are nevertheless first and last the same……..To the doings of the later physiology, empirical psychology, and medical psychology, I have referred in this second edition, as compared with the former, not more frequently, but rather more seldom, because I have gained the experience, that the representatives of this school of inquiry do not quite approve of seeing themselves named by a theologian of my tendency. But such references might, moreover, easily be misunderstood, as though biblical views ought to be modeled according to the results of natural science (precarious though they are), or the latter according to the former. Yet they were not always to be avoided. But my task is one wholly unconfused with that of these inquirers. The book whose answers to the questions respecting the source, the operations, the conditions, and destinies of the soul I have undertaken to discover, is not the book of nature, but the book of Scripture; and I have written for those to whom the answers of this book of books are not indifferent, and who know not merely a natural world of experience, but also one that does not give place to that in reality of self-conviction. Thanks be to God for the capacity bestowed once again to accomplish this work. May He bless it, to the stimulating further labors in this field of biblical psychology. Should it, moreover, be impossible entirely to solve the problems which meet us here, still the Creator of all things is to be glorified, that He has granted to the human soul the capacity of raising itself above itself by self-investigation, and with the necessity for this investigation has imparted the blissful pleasure that proceeds there from.”
Delitzsch’s System Biblical Psychology: Contents: Prolegomena in 3 Sections of History, Idea, and Method; with Appendix of Caspar Bartholitus’ First Sketch of a Biblical Psychology. 7 Divisions: I: of Everlasting Postulates, in 3 Sections of Pre-existence False & True, and Divine Archetype, with Appendix of Letters of Molitor on Jacob Boehme’s Doctrine of a Nature in God; II: Creation in 7 Sec. of Man the Object of the Six Days Work; Divine Likeness; Process; Trichotomy, False & True; Origin of Psyche, Ethical View; Difference of Sex; Traducianism and Creationism; Appendix of R. vonRaumer on the Fundamental Import of the names “Geist” and “Seele”; III: Fall in 5 Sec. of Sin of Spirit and Flesh; Ethico-Physical Disturbance; Shame and Fear; Conscience and Remoteness from God; and Promise and Faith. Appendix: From Pontoppidan’s Mirror of Faith. IV. Natural Condition in 17 Sec. of Personality and the “I”; Personal and Natural Life; Freedom; Triplicity of the Spirit; Nous, Logos, Pneuma; Seven Powers of the Soul; Established View of Capacities of the Soul; Body as Sevenfold means of Self Representation of the Soul; Soul and Blood; Heart and Head; Within the Body (Intestines & Kidney); Sleeping, Waking, Dreaming; Health and Sickness; Natural and Demonical Sickness; Superstition and Magic. Appendix I: Passages from Physics of Comenius; Appendix II: Theses on Fire & Light, Soul & Spirit; by Jul. Hamberger. V. Regeneration in 6 Sec. of Divine Archetype; New Life & Spirit; Conscious & Unconscious Side of Work of Grace; Actus Directi & Reflexi of Life of Grace; Three Forms of Divinely Wrought Ecstasy & Theopneustia; and Unabolished Antinomy. Appendix I: Luther’s Trichotomy. Appendix II: Spirit of the Mind. (A) From H.W. Clemens’ Work on the Powers of the Soul. (B) From Mediaeval Tractate entitled Das Leben der Minnende Seele. VI. Death, in 7 Sec. of Soul & Spirit in midst of Death; true & False Immortality; Future Life and Redemption; False Doctrine of Sleep of Soul; Phenomenal Corporeity and Investiture; Relation of Souls to Soulless Corporeity. Appendix: Johann Heinrich Urainus on Intermediate State of Souls. VII. Resurrection and Consummation, in 4 Sec. of Spirit & Soul in Act of Resurrection; Metempsychosis; Doctrine of Restoration; Progress in Eternity. Appendix: From a Sermon of the Author’s on Rom.8:18-23.
Appendix: “Guide to a True Psychology and Anthropology, to be gathered from the Sacred Writings; Attempted by Caspar Bartholinus. Prooemium: Philosophers have taken credit to themselves and have almost triumphed in the course of many ages, in respect of human comments upon the nature of the soul, its diversities and faculties, and generally of dreams without sleep, and shadow without substance; closely written volumes having been published on this argument, to the great damage not only of paper, time, and labour, but also of truth. As soon, however, as we consult the Spirit of God in His oracles and in His most sacred records, it is very manifest that the wisdom of the age has attained to little or nothing of the truth. And how could it be otherwise in so sublime an argument, when those who are wise after the manner of men are blind even to things which lie in their path and are obvious to their senses, and who, as Scaliger says, lick the glass vessel, but never touch the pottage? Wherefore, although in this imbecility of our nature we neither can nor will promise an exact and accurate (psuchologian, psychologian), yet we will contribute a compendious introduction, with the hope of making the whole matter more fruitful to others, and of affording both the occasion and the subject for its discussion and elaboration. The first foundation, then, of the true doctrine of the human soul, appears as a sacred one in Gen. 2: 7, in these words: “Formavit Dominus Deus hominum pulverem de terra, et inspiravit in faciem ejus spiraculum vitarum, et fuit homo in animam viventem.” (Formavit), i.e. He constructed like a potter. Whence Job (x. 9),” Remember that Thou hast made me as the clay;” and Jer. xviii. 2, God is compared to the potter, and man to the day. The Hebrews will have the Hebrew word (wayyitser, vaiyitzer) written with a double Jod (yod), to signify the twofold formation, earthly and heavenly; for the reason that below, ver. 19 in the same chapter, W is found in reference to the construction of other animals with a single Jod, pointing to a single life, and that not immortal. (Dominus Deus hominem pulverem). Not only out of the dust of the earth, but man altogether was formed dust out of the earth. For which reason below. Dust thou art (not only “of dust”), and into dust shalt thou return. (De terra), or the mud of the earth. (Et inspiravit), i.e. He introduced breath with power. Where some persons are absurd who describe God anthropomorphically, as having blown into Adam’s nostrils like one with distended cheeks, the breath or spirit, as if a particle of His own Spirit. (In faciem ejus). Thus, the LXX and Vulg. For in and by his countenance, man is chiefly seen, and his various affections, as anger, joy, sadness, etc. Therefore, although the inspiration was communicated to the whole body, yet that body is characterized from the most noble and conspicuous part—to wit, the countenance. In other respects, in the largest signification, (aph) and (anaph) mean that by which any kind of a thing is beheld, what and what like it is, except when (trope), it is taken for other things. Hence it is taken also for anger or rage; because chiefly this affection is manifest, and especially in the face. Moreover, it is taken for the nostrils, by which the face is largely characterized; for an injury to the nose disfigures the entire face. Mercerus, therefore, takes needless trouble to induce us to understand nostrils as the actual meaning in this passage, since it cannot be denied that in many places of Scripture this word implies the countenance. (Spiraculum vitarum), doubtless of more than one, and certainly of a twofold life, Heb. (nishmath chaiyim) (for (neschama) is the same which in Greek is (pnoe), breath, blowing, breathing, respiration, and in construction (nischmat)), which two words placed conjointly Paul seems to repeat separately, Acts xvii. 25, where he says that God gives to all (zoen kai pnoen), i.e. life and breath. Whence Forster, in his Lexicon, infers a distinction between the natural man who eats, drinks, begets, etc., and the spiritual and heavenly man regenerated by faith in Christ, who performs spiritual actions, such as are knowledge of God, love and praise and joy in God, —such a one as shall be in perfection in life eternal. (Et fuit homo in animam viventem). This is repeated in these words in 1 Cor. xv. 45: “The first man Adam was made a living soul.” And thus, in that verse Moses impresses upon us all the causes of man. The efficient cause, the Lord God; the matter, earth; the form, the breath of lives; the object that he might become a living soul. Then, in the way of foundation, are to be adduced what things are said about the formation of man in God’s image, in or according to His likeness (Gen. i. 26, 27). Finally, to this fundamental place is to be added what has been observed from the concordances of the Hebrew Bibles, that the words (neshamah), (nephesh), and (ruach) are so different, that neschama is the efficient soul, or the spirit with the idea of efficiency (although sometimes it is put for nephesch): nephesch is the spirit or soul, not simply, but efficient in dust, or the soul efficient in respect of the subject or the efficient subject (for which reason also it is sometimes taken for a corpse, or a lifeless body, as Lev. xix. 28): ruach is efficiency itself, or energy, or the force and efficacy of power. Wherefore, in the most sacred memorials, neschama and ruach are attributed to God, but not nephesch.
From these three words in the holy writings, as if b, priori, the nature of the soul is aptly shown by the Spirit of God; that nature which the philosophers are compelled to investigate only a posteriori; and thus, the foregone foundations being given up to this point, we will approach the matter itself.
Chap. I. That Vegetables are not animated or living, notwithstanding the assertions of Philosophers. Those things which philosophers call living things—to wit, endowed with a vegetating soul as they call it, as roots, plants, trees, etc.—are not classed by God’s Spirit among animate or living things; nay, they are absolutely distinguished and separated from these (Gen. i. 30); and therefore, we most correctly say that herbs and trees are not animate or living. For the more abundant confirmation of which assertion, I adduce other passages of Genesis. Gen. i. 24, the living soul is classified according to whatever species the earth produces; but herbs and trees are not enumerated, but cattle, reptiles, and beasts of the earth; and therefore in ver. 30 the herb is distinguished from the living soul by its being appointed for its food. In Gen. vi.-ix. it is plain what things are said to have the spirit of life, or are said to be living things, or a living animal. For when God had determined to destroy every living soul that was on the dry land, He comprehended nothing under this designation except animals—winged, and living on the earth— beasts, and men; and these species He very often calls omnem animam viventem, sciL in the dry land (vi. 7, vii. 22). Wherefore the Hebrews never consider the vegetative life worthy of being called by philosophers by the name of soul or life.
Chap. II. — Of the Senses. The instruments and servants for the bodily, and, in like manner, for the mental functions, are the senses. In brutes I say they are for the purposes of nutrition; in man correspondingly, they subserve the intellect.
Chap. III. — What Man is and concerning his Origin. Although philosophers accustomed to human speculations do not speak with the Spirit of God, since they are left destitute of suitable words in so sublime a matter, yet we most rightly say, following the Spirit of God, that man is a soul, that man is a spirit in the dust, etc. Thus, also cattle, reptiles, and beasts of the earth, are called living souls. But man is called a soul, not by synecdoche, but by a scriptural phrase in which nephesch is not a part of a man, but a spirit in the dust, or the spirit of dust, i.e. man. Besides, man is often called the world in the sacred writings, because he is, as it were, the nucleus of creatures (that which, when it putrefies in the fruit, the rest also putrefies), and (aparche ton ktismaton), or chief of them all. Man, especially is (ktisis) and (kosmos), adorned and elaborated (and that not tropically or figuratively only) by God. But every (ktisis) has shown forth in God the Spirit, either that they may become only entities, or at the same time living entities, i.e. either entities potentially, or potentially living. For the efficacy of the Spirit of God is sometimes one thing, sometimes another, as some things may have received the spirit by which they are, others that they may live. All things, however, were made by the spirit of His mouth, i.e. by speaking. Hence being and living differ in the intensity of spirit, which indeed is plain from the intensity of the letters in the Hebrew words (hayah) and (chayah), (hawah) and (chawah) (conf. Ps. civ. 29; Job xii. 10; Ezek. xviii. 4; Neh. ix. 6). Moreover, law and life have, according to Forster’s Annotations, a great affinity between them. Living things are divided, in respect of motion, into flying things, creeping things, and walking things (Gen. vi. 19). But a certain (ktisis)? shone forth in the embrace of love in the moulded dust, to which, as there was its own face and form (species) (whereby it is looked at, so to speak, or known), the Lord, by the efficacy of His own Spirit, gave the spirit of lives, and then man was made a living soul; which peculiar efficacy is in this (ktisei) beyond the rest, that to them it is not said that He breathed into them, although He made them by His own Spirit, and gave them the spirit of life. And how intimately it shone forth in God, Moses declares (Gen. i. 26, 27), even into the very image of God with His likeness, to wit, the (apaugasma) and character of God giving itself as an image, in whose close embrace it might obtain the image of God Himself; that, as God Himself in His essence is an act of light knowingly true, of love mightily willing, and of the Holy living Spirit, so this (ktisis), in its essence mighty, might exist in light knowingly true, in love mightily willing, and in the Holy Spirit living. Wherefore, as far as the spirit of lives is chiefly the spirit of this era’s, its proper potentiality is noted by the designation of God’s image; but as far as it is of bodily dust, it is described in words of fructifying and subduing. For the life of the mental functions is to see God, (en ouranois); that of the bodily functions is (exousiazesthai, etc., en oikoumene}. Finally, we must observe that soul and spirit are sometimes distinguished, as Heb. iv. 12 and elsewhere. For the soul is so called in its natural powers; but in so far as it is enlightened by the light of the Holy Spirit, it is called spirit.
Chap. IV. —Of the Image of God in Man. Thus, man shone forth even in the image of God, which before the fall was like, afterwards unlike. The likeness of the image was, that his spirit beamed with love, or that it was light, love, and spirit, as God is. After the fall the light indeed remained, but unlike; the love remained, but unlike, etc. Thus, that likeness must be restored in holiness in regard of ourselves, and in justice in regard of (logismou tou Theou). Before the fall God shone forth in a fitting image, that man might reflect God, which light was the life or the to live of man; and this life obtained from that light, that it might reflect God fittingly, by which very thing man was (eneikos), and moreover (eudokimos) (who in himself was (entheos), and a partaker of the divine nature) and (ennomos). For he was a law unto himself, his own essential conformity and perfection from within dictating to him what God in other cases from without dictates and prescribes; and that life was in very deed the vision of God, while God was shining forth in our spirit, and was thus being seen. This light perished in the fall, and man died with death, and thus became (aeikos and anomos). The fallen Adam indeed retained his essence, and that a living one (Heb. ii. 14), but dead in respect of the perfection of its position. Hence Adam died. What life was left to him in life was a dead life. And we all received from Adam such a flesh: dead we are, certainly, born of dead flesh. Wherefore it is necessary that we be transformed and daily assimilated to God, which assimilation, in proportion as we realize, in that proportion we see God; and because man has lost the likeness of the image of God, that is to be restored in Christ, in whom, as if in an image, we are built, and in whom intimately made to shine forth again, we have received (eikona), from whom, I say, as if the head and beginning, the image of God Himself, the spirit living, although in moulded dust, has subsisted. For God’s counsel remains one and constant, and is not changed on account of the fall, scil. that we ought in (logo) to return (eikona), and thus to be united to God in an eternal covenant. That real change was made in the fall and by the fall, that what we had before by nature is now conceded to us by grace.
Chap. V. — What (stasis and hupostasis) are in Man. Stasis is in its nature nothing else than that in which the internal perfection of everything consists, and, moreover, that by which the thing itself is made to stand perfect: it is the internal status of the thing itself which the apostolic language designates either by a simple expression (staseos) (Heb. ix. 8), or a compound one, whether (sustaseos); (2 Pet. iii. 5) or (hupostaseos) (Heb. i. 3, xi. 1). Stasis and perfection, therefore, are one and the same thing, in such a way, however, that perfection may be said to belong to (staseos), as that which is of stasis. But (stasis) and (hupostasis) are different, although they sometimes concur in one. For mixed things, as this or that plant, this or that brute, have their (stasin), but not (hupostasin), because they have not yet attained to that (stasin and teleiosin), beyond which it is not permitted them to ascend. For a living form, generally considered, is not restricted to the form of a plant, but may ascend to a nobler grade. In God (teleiosis or stasis) is called hypostasis, in whom all things are said to have (sustasin and stasin), not (hupostasin), man alone excepted, who is next under God, or His (stasei), and in whom the image is reflecting God; wherefore man is called both (sustatos and hupostatos). (Sustatos) by reason of God, in whom all things have their (sustasin, but hupostatos) in himself, and in respect of our inferior (ktiseos). Hence in this same (aparche ton ktismaton, huparxis and hupostatis are different. For the rest of the (ktisis) is (huparktos and sustatos); man, over and above, is (hupostatos), on account of (teleiosin), whereby he excels the inferior (ktisin). Hence Christ, in respect of His human nature, is called, not (hupostatos, but sustatos), although He had an ulterior perfection differently from us men. For the natural (statis) of Christ, in which He was made like to us, is, that His human nature should be equally perfect as ours; whence it has the quality of being something, and not being reduced to nothings otherwise He would not have assumed perfect human nature. But Christ in the divine (stasis is hupostatos), which is a higher (stasis and teleiosis), intimately in God, in whom it subsists in the most internal manner; whence His humanity obtains far greater things than the privilege of not being reduced into nothing. But because every essence consists of a threefold (stasis)? —as there will elsewhere be an opportunity of saying— completing its (teleiosin), certainly also the human essence does so, essentially considered in its universal amplitude. And since, as regards the condition of matter when it is divisible, the individual is divided into various parts, even the units are called (hupostata or huphistamena).
Chap. Vi. —Of the Human Reason and its Acts. (Logos), or human reason, is that (teleiosis and stasis) of man, or of the human soul, by which, by its own internal essential light, he can both receive, consider, and acknowledge, and embrace, retain, and approve, whatever has any light to shine by. Therefore (logikoi) acts are (excipere and amplexari). Some call them (intellectum and voluntatem). But that essential light of human reason, in which it was first established potentially efficacious by God, by that great judgment of God, has even perished and become deprived of its original perfection of brightly efficacious power, so that there has remained to it only a certain spark of light. Wherefore all men are exhibited by God’s Spirit as (te dianoia eskotismenoi) (Eph. iv. 18), and in that respect are alienated from the life of God by the ignorance that is in them. Hence it is not sufficient for vividly embracing things, and bringing them before one’s self in the light,—the things, indeed, which refer to the life of God,—and it plainly has no light left by which they can shine forth to itself; but occult in perpetual mysteries, secret and profound, they will be able to be revealed by no spirit but that of God Himself, to be expounded or to be sought out by inquiry, concerning which thing we have spoken in our orations concerning the use of the human reason in divine mysteries.
Chap. VII. —Of the Twofold Life in Man. Moreover, we have to determine how manifold that life is, in such a way as that the number may not be needlessly great. Some people ridiculously understand by many lives the two openings of the nostrils. Others generally understand a threefold life—vegetable, sentient, and rational. But we have already shown above, that the vegetable is not anywhere called a life in the Holy Scriptures, but that rather the contrary is suggested. Wherefore, since there is said to be in man the breathing-place of many lives, it cannot be thought that they are either other or more than (corporis vita) and (mentis vita), since nothing else in man can be said to live. That one spirit, breathed into the dust from the earth, lives and pervades each life for the safety of the body and the mind; or, which is the same thing, one living soul lives the life of either kind with one spirit. But that the spirit of lives is also given to brutes (Gen. vi. 17), is an objection which may be answered: (1) That they have not (neschama, but ruach chajim); (2) That in the same expression men are comprehended; (3) That there is in brutes also a certain other life than the merely nutritive, yet not mental, but sensual, and in everyone according to its kind (comp. Prov. xxx. 25, vi. 6-8). The spirit of man is so sublime, that in Prov. xx. 27, (nischmat Adam) is said to be the light or lamp of Jehovah.
Chap. VIII. —Of the Power of the Soul: in what way one, or manifold. Since, then, the essence of one soul is one, and if, where the essence is, the essence is potential, and that, moreover, in the one potentiality essential to itself its essentially potential essence is potential, and moreover one, it’s essentially one essential potentiality is living, or actually able to live, with a twofold life. But that the essence is created in which there is such a potential essence, is manifest because of existent creatures. It is one thing (einai), another thing (stenai): the former is to be; (stasis) is to be able, or potentiality. Whence, moreover, on human ground, wise men concede that all created things, in respect to God, are a potentiality. But in God (stasis) is an act, yea, it is to act itself; and when we speak of God, who gives (stasin), then (stenai) also signifies to ordain, or to constitute. In order that this may be better understood, we must know that of every essence it is the essential condition to be prepared for action, or acting, which, if it is not prepared for not acting, then that essence is a mere act, or merely to act, because to act must always be thought of in an act, so that it may not be called potential in this sense that potentiality is opposed to act. But if, moreover, it is essentially prepared for not acting, and thus it is not a mere act, then it is understood and said to have a potentiality to act, so that it is not less essential to it not to act than to act, if the condition of the essence is turned to action; which potentiality of every essence, and, moreover, even of human essence, is preserved and sustained by God in His (stasei). But that one essence, with a certain universality and generic amplitude in proportion to the variety of objects around which either life is occupied, is potential to perform actions distinct in kind, although essentially participating in a generic community, as far as the actions are of an essence essentially potential, with its own only potentiality; which actions the one essence of the soul and of either life controls. Wherefore, although in itself the essential potentiality is one in unity of essence, yet, in respect of its various effect in various objects, potential in various manners and in distinct actions, it is also invoked by distinct names; so that sometimes it is called the power of understanding, now of nourishing, of increasing, of changing, etc., that essential communion of the various actions in proportion to the variety of the objects mental and corporeal remaining meanwhile in the essential potentiality, as if with a general origin and general nomenclature, on account of the condition of the common essence. As mind and body, as far as they are to be vivified by the power of the spirit of lives, are able to agree on many sides in this respect in a certain general community, but in respect of the special condition of every one, to differ also on many sides; thus also the destined objects of their life, and the actions of the same objects for either life and ample community, agree, and in special conditions differ. Whence, also, actions in either life, and in respect of the community indeed, are like to one another both in fact and in name, and for the special condition of everyone are different. As mental life alone is truly human life, so the potentiality which is called of the mental life in objects and actions is primarily potential; secondarily, it subserves the objects and actions of the bodily life. Hence, when in any action man or human soul is set forth as powerful, it will principally bear the appellation when around the mental life it is occupied in act; secondarily, when it serves the bodily life, unless in respect of either the one or the other, whether of mind or of body, from some special condition it is only peculiar to the other.
Chap. IX. —Of Death. Death is the destruction of actions, or the defluxion (not perishing and annihilation) of the perfection of every (staseos), as well of that which is common to man with the brutes, as of that in which he lives to God; and in respect of the latter, death is sin: for as far as it is (anomon) it is called sin, as far as it is (aeikon) it is called death. For all sin is death, but not the contrary. For death, as it is the privation of life by which we externally live, is not considered as sin. Before the fall, God communicated to man that he might be a (nomos) to himself; but afterwards, because he became (aeikos), he became also (anomos); and it is called sin as far as man is (anomos). This interchange of death and sin may be seen from Rom. v. 12, where it is said, “All have sinned,” only it is not intended to refer to actual sin. As soon as Adam fell, at that moment he began to die with death, or to sicken to death; for the potential essence was at once cast down from its status on account of the threatening uttered: In the day in which thou shalt eat of the forbidden tree, (morte morieris). Therefore the human soul is not only mortal, but also most certainly dead, in a sense, not philosophical, —as if after death commonly so called it should survive, —but sacred. For any one is called dead by reason of the deficient image and (doxes tou Theou), and of that vital image by which any one is called living. For this reason, as soon as man is born, he is in the same position in which the fallen Adam was, as rightly said the poet, although ignorantly: (Nascentes morimur), etc. Man dies, I say, daily; that is, he is subject to successive waste and abolition of his bodily actions, even to that sensible death, which death in this life is common as well to the pious as to the impious. But mental actions in the pious are renewed in this life gradually by regeneration, by which actions the pious are perfected in Christ and through Christ; and moreover, the soul is spiritualized, until at length in the last day, joined with a spiritual body (which was sown an animal body), it becomes one spirit with God. In the wicked, neither is the soul spiritualized in this life, nor the body in the last day: it will not be subtle, agile, etc.; and although they rise again, yet they abide in that death in which they were before they were buried. Thus, in the Holy Scripture, resurrection of the dead is attributed to them, but not resurrection from the dead. But if you should ask whether Adam, if he had not fallen, would not have been mortal also? I answer, To be mortal is said of the power of dying, or of the necessity. Any one may be in his essence prepared for the power of dying, and nevertheless of freeing himself from death. Because Adam was of the dust, he certainly had the capacity of dying; but if he had wished, he had at the same time before the fall the perfection of vindicating himself from death. But now, from the fall, necessity of dying has taken hold upon him.
Chap. X.—Of the State of the Human Soul after Death. When man dies by what is commonly called death, the soul of the pious is carried into Abraham’s bosom; and where this is, since Scripture says nothing on it, it is fit that we also should be silent. It seems fitter to be said that the soul is at rest, than that it is locally moved by deserting the body (as the common people imagine), as a body from a body, since the soul is a spirit, not a body. Certainly, as in the good, everything which is corruptible perishes and becomes spiritual; in the wicked, that even that perishes and leaves the body which hitherto was as if good, in respect to future evil. In the resurrection the wicked will not indeed be so well off as they have been in the tomb; although, moreover, they may feel horrible sufferings immediately after death and burial, which before they were not able to feel on account of this carnal life, in which they were able in some measure to discharge bodily functions. What things may be objected to the matters brought together in these few chapters, will be able to be solved from the foundations laid in the prooemium.” (Moniti meliora sequemur) ((Be admonished to follow better things)).

(Delitzsch rejects, with Kantian logic and Biblical dogma, pre-existence of eternal souls outside of Adam, and that the notions of the Greek philosophers are false and against Scripture. But as the Lord said to Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee”, and Paul in Romans. He calls those things which be not as though they were so; there preexistence in God and with God that takes in all mankind both as individuals and collective. This eternity of the soul belongs to and resides with God and fashioned after the Son of God the eternal Word and Wisdom of God. This likeness of God’s image is a Trinity, as God is Father and Son and the Holy Spirit, so too man in his nature and constitution is a trinity after the like manner, the Divine Archetype. To understand human nature, we must understand the Divine Nature. He concludes:” God is All. All has its original in Him. He is I, and Thou, and He, and It. As I, the Father is the primal source of the Son. The Son, as Thou, is the object of the Father’s love. The Spirit, as He, is the emanation of the love of the Father and the Son. The Doxa, as It, is the reflection of the Triune, and the origin of the Kosmos. We apprehend now the threefold personal and the sevenfold dynamical, the personally living, and the living archetype of the everlasting Ideal-Model, —in itself, indeed, impersonal, but effected by the personality of God, and wholly interpenetrated thereby,—including, moreover, the human soul and humanity in the image of God. We apprehend now, according to the measure of our knowledge, the everlasting postulates which precede psychological facts.”)
(In Jacob Bohme’s doctrine we probe into this eternal nature in God in His triuneness, but must shun as defective that the Godhead from all eternity had subordination of Persons, and with this a limitation of essence One from the Other. The creation of man in Genesis chapters one and two is reexamined considering modern knowledge. The angels being peculiar to creation, God’s sons and man’s superior. The creation of six days, and its perfection in the seventh, reveals Man as the Divine Object. Creation consists of grades and man shares this characteristic, so that in nature we see evolution by common likeness, but man immensely above and beyond other creatures. In the Process of Creation many enigmas are cleared up, and many false interpretations, influenced by philosophy, are silenced. He says: “But, moreover, to the reproach of J. P. Lange, when he says that it is a trifling bondage to the letter, to regard the narrative of Gen. ii. 7 as implying successive acts, we reply with a downright “It is written!” For when he maintains that the soul was created at the same moment with the body, and even goes beyond v. Rudloff, in the fact that he regards the formation of the body, the origination of the soul, and the inspiration of the spirit, as actual contemporary impulses of one act of creation, —it may be philosophical, but it is not biblical. Not as though it only contradicted the fundamental passage (Gen. ii. 7): it contradicts the entire Scripture, it contradicts its representation of man’s natural condition—of his life, his destiny, and his history; for everywhere the Scripture assumes that man is a nature originating first of all in respect of his earthly corporeity, composite, and on that account a limited and mortal nature.” Scripture distinctly presents man’s body was made without soul, and that the inspiration of God’s breath of life produced a living soul. Thus, the soul is related to the spirit as the body is to the soul. The human soul is in a manner the human spirit, but we must not deny the distinction, as found in Scripture, and lose truth as to man’s trichotomy. (“Similarly, the English physician, George Moore, “The Power of the Soul over the Body” (translated into German by Susemihl, 1850), S. xxv.: “As the dust was formed by immediate contact of Jehovah’s finger, the human figure took the impression of the Godhead. But that this figure of earthly form and heavenly meaning might not remain like a temple without its indwelling glory, God breathed into the body of man the continuing spirit of separate life, and this enlightened it with the moral reflection of the divine character.”) This dual nature of man composed in three persons or substance, body, soul, and spirit is explored in the New Testament, mainly in Paul, and early Christian writers along with some moderns. All of which prepares the reader to consider the system of psychology as found in the Bible and compare it to all else.)

9. Bible Doctrine of Man or the Anthropology and Psychology of Scripture, John Laidlaw, 1879, 1895. Six Divisions on Man’s Origins, Nature, Psychology, Fallen Nature under Sin, Psychology of New Life, Man’s Nature and Future State.
After a brief Introduction to his work, Laidlaw examines and selects examples of the debate between Hoffman and Delitzsch, with special focus on Delitzsch’s System of Biblical Psychology, says: On the other hand, Delitzsch, though premising that no system of “psychology propounded in formal language is to be looked for in the Bible, any more than of dogmatics or ethics, zealously contends that a system can be found and constructed. Under the name of Bible psychology, he understands a scientific representation of the doctrine of Scripture on the psychical constitution of man as he was created, and on the ways in which this constitution has been affected by sin and by redemption. It seems as if Hofmann had overlooked the importance and the purpose of that consistent idea of man’s constitution which underlies the Scripture teaching; while Delitzsch slightly misstates its purpose rather than exaggerates its importance. That purpose is not to teach the science of man, but it has a vital use in subservience to theology, nevertheless. To trace that use, in an induction of Scripture utterances, does the proper scope and form of any study deserve the name of biblical psychology”(p15) (p17-18) “Our aim, then, in the following pages is to give prominence to the psychological principles of Scripture, —to those views of man and his nature which pervade the sacred writings. It does not appear, however, that the psychology of the Bible, or what may be called its philosophy of man, can be successfully treated as an abstract system.”
Laidlaw considers a wealth of sources and references in conflicting views of trichotomy and dichotomy and seek to harmonize them into a single nature of man without an exact system and prefers to think of the soul-spirit not having essential differences. His words are: “That neither the familiar antithesis, soul and body, nor any other pair of expressions by which we commonly render the dual elements in human nature, should expressly occur in this locus classicus, is a fact which may help to fix attention on the real character of the earlier Old Testament descriptions of man. The fact is not explained merely by the absence of analysis. Rather is it characteristic of these Scriptures to assert the solidarity of man’s constitution, —that human individuality is of one piece, and is not composed of separate or independent parts. This assertion is essential to the theology of the whole Bible—to its discovery of human sin and of a divine salvation. In a way quite unperceived by many believers in the doctrines, this idea of the unity of man’s nature binds into strictest consistency the Scripture account of his creation, the story of his fall, the character of redemption, and all the leading features in the working out of his actual recovery from his regeneration to his resurrection.” (p56-57)
(p66-68)”Having considered the Unity which Scripture attributes to the human constitution, and the dual elements acknowledged by it, in common with almost all human psychologies, we have now to inquire whether this duality has to be further modified in favour of a threefold division of man’s nature. Here, as before, everything turns on interpretation of terms. There is a pair of expressions for the inner or higher part of man’s nature which occurs plentifully in the Old Testament, as Nephesh and Ruach, in the Greek Scriptures as Psyche and Pneuma, in the modern languages as Seele and Geist, Soul and Spirit. The distinction implied in this usage may be said to be the crux of biblical psychology. The controversy concerning it has been, not unnaturally, though rather unfairly, identified with that concerning the possibility of a Bible psychology at all. On the other hand, the revival of this whole science in recent times is coincident with the recall of attention to the fact of a distinction in Scripture between these two terms. The real controversy, however, concerns the precise force of that distinction. Does it indicate two separable natures, so that, with the corporeal presupposed, man may be said to be of Tripartite Nature? Or, is it rather such a view of the inner nature of man as sunders that nature into two functions or faculties? Or, finally, is it a nomenclature to be explained and accounted for on principles entirely peculiar to the biblical writings? We shall here sketch the theory of Tripartition, and in next chapter point out the historical explanation of the scriptural usage. I. The Theoretical Constructions.—The Trichotomy of body, soul, and spirit held an important place in the theology of some of the Greek Christian Fathers; but, in consequence of its seeming bias towards a Platonic doctrine of the soul and of evil, still more because of its use by Apollinaris to underprop grave heresy as to the Person of Christ, it fell into disfavour, and may be said to have been discarded from the time of Augustine till its revival within a quite modern period. It has recently received the support, or, at least, the favourable consideration, of a respectable school of evangelical thinkers on the continent, represented by such names as those of Eoos, Olshausen, Beck, Delitzsch, Auberlen, and Oehler. In our own country, such writers as Alford, Ellicott, Liddon, and Lightfoot fully recognise the importance of the Trichotomic usage in Scripture, but none of them has investigated its real meaning. Most of them adopt the mistaken interpretation that the distinction between soul and spirit is that between a lower and a higher essence or nature, and accordingly lean to the foregone conclusion of this exegesis, namely, that Scripture is committed to the affirmation of a tripartite nature in man. Yet their utterances on this point are little more than (obiter dicta). Not one of these authors has seriously or consistently taken up this peculiar psychology. There exists among us a small school of writers who have done so. Their leading representative is Mr. J. B. Heard, whose Tripartite Nature of Man has now been before the public for some considerable time.1 (This psychology has been largely adopted by those who maintain the peculiar eschatological position known as that of Conditional Immortality, although Mr. Edward White, the main exponent of this view, makes comparatively little of the Trichotomy. That it has furnished a favourite scheme of thought for mystics and sectaries has not helped its fair investigation in our theological schools. The pretension put forth for it by some of its votaries, that as a theological panacea it would heal the strife of centuries, has had the effect on the professional mind which is always produced by the advertisement of a quack remedy, not without that other effect on the common apprehension that, after all, there is probably something in it. Its crudest and most frequently quoted form is that which, taking body for the material part of our constitution makes soul stand for the principle of animal life, and spirit for the rational and immortal nature. This is plainly not the construction which any tolerable interpretation can put upon the Scripture passages, though it is often presented in popular writing as an account of the Trichotomy. It is not unusual, indeed, to identify the whole topic with this boldly unscientific statement.”
He concludes: (p85)”Before proceeding to examine the origin and explanation of this usage, we may here sum up what has already appeared on the face of Scripture to be its mode of viewing human nature as one, as dual, or as trinal. There is evidence enough to show that while maintaining with strong consistency the Unity of the human being, Scripture confirms the usual dual conception that his two natures are flesh and spirit, or soul and body, yet makes use quite consistently of a trichotomy depending on a distinction between soul and spirit, which distinction, in some New Testament passages (especially the Pauline), is charged with a religious or doctrinal significance. “Anyone who does not force on Scripture a dogmatic system, must acknowledge that it speaks dichotomously of the parts viewed in themselves, trichotomously of the living reality, but all through so as to guard the fact that human nature is built upon a plan of unity.”

10. Other Writers: Mystics, Swedenborg; Heard, Moore, Bush, Pember, Larkins; Wolff, Nee, Jung and many medical and psychology authors.
The knowledge of man in body and soul and spirit has continued to increase to such degrees that it is difficult to consider much of it in any brief discussion. As a Christian I read from time to time any literature that has influenced modern knowledge in an acknowledged way. Both in philosophy and theology, old and modern, general or special, allured me in seeking to understand Scripture in light of the Church. Secular views did not lay hold on me at any time that I occupied myself with them, not Plato or Aristotle in the Socratic doctrines; not Freud and Jung and those of that science, except I grew fond of Jung and despised Freud. The writers on myths and symbols ever made me take note and compare the Bible. Swedenborg’s works of many volumes treating the soul and the spirit, that is the spiritual life and world did fascinate me for about ten years, but in time parted with the doctrines as extreme if not mild insanity. His clear partition of the soul and spirit of the spiritual world and the body and soul of the natural world did instruct me in several difficult points. Christian scholars like Heard in “Tripartite Nature of Man” 1882, as with Moore and Bush, and many others, shows that no area or element of the Biblical doctrine has been ignored. Pember’s “Earth’s Earliest Ages” 1876 and 1911, along with many other dispensationalists, before and after, especially Larkin’s “Dispensational Truth” making the doctrines popular and well known. Bullinger’s writings did the same; even among Baptists men like Graves spread the new doctrines. Unusual works not widely known outside of smaller circles like Nee’s “Spiritual Man”, or Wolff’s “Changing Concepts of the Bible”, along with countless 20th century writers and scholars have altered the church and the world views of human nature. Freud altered many ideas; Jung, following Kant, corrected Freud and his many followers. After Jung men like Campbell in comparative religion and cultures have dominated the new doctrines. And with these remarks I leave the general influences on my upon my mind and return to the Bible Reflections hoping to record for others what has passed through me without need to detail the many resources affecting me.

(Recently I reread some of my Reflections on these chapters in an unpublished book (manuscript) that I had laid aside as being too technical and restrictive to a selective audience of the academic sort. I found in writing and understanding these chapters than I explored an immense amount of literature during ten years of writing. The reward of those who devout themselves to Scripture is very rewarding and gives great insight of human origins. The word studies in English and the Hebrew and Greek and Latin, along with other resources produced untold treasures of the things of God.) Here follows some of these.
1: Some have interpreted the Creation as existing eternally, that God creates from this eternity the universe; others say from nothing comes nothing, and that all things originate from God as an extension of His expression. The world was formed from what did not exist but from God, and all creatures of life of that substance in God and of God, with man partaking of the divine nature and not merely the effect of the divine nature. The ages of the world are not easily or properly understood but all things are intertwined and interrelated from the least to the greatest. Man is unique of all God’s creatures and occupies a special place in creation. Man’s nature is nurtured and formed by God by His word and power and spirit. Man, quickly acquired his abilities and knowledge in human development into families and tribes or clans. His universal corruption is seen from his earliest beginnings, and his struggle between good and evil is never-ending. God continues to save man in ever changing conditions through all generations. Man, most advanced and present state is not a isolative or independent to his past, but rather reveals his exception to all animals, both in vice and virtue. The will of God, His way and word, is discovered and declared in the Bible, and every item and instance lead to greater understanding of the fulfilling of His purpose. Christ is the eternal Word and as such He is the Son of God by Whom all things came to be, and in Whom God deals with all men, applying His worth and blood as the satisfaction for sins and the vindication of His righteousness, to bring eternal life to all who turn to Him and receive him. Israel and the Christian Church along with Islam are tools and means for God to rescue mankind. The world of all nations and peoples in all ages are alienated from God and removed from their origins with God. The Bible is God’s account of His involvement and operation by His Holy Spirit
2: Targums: (Etheridge, 1862) “I have acquired the man from before the Lord…. If thou doest thy work well. Is it not remitted to thee? And if thou doest not thy work well, thy sin unto the day of judgment is reserved, when it will be exacted of thee, if thou convert (repent) not; but if thou convert (repent), it is remitted to thee….the blood of generations which were to come from thy brother complaineth….his wife, who had desired the Angel….I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord…..bear from her husband Adam his twin….Come, and let us two go forth into the field….Kain answered and said to Habel, I perceive that the world was created in goodness, but it is not governed according to the fruit of good works, for there is respect to persons in judgment; therefore it is that thy offering was accepted, and mine not accepted with good will. Habel answered and said to Kain, to goodness was the world created, and according to the fruit of good works is it governed and there is no respect of persons in judgment; but because the fruits of my works were better than thine, my oblation, before thine, hath been accepted with good will. (Kain countered and Habel replied and they argued till Kain arose and killed his brother with a stone….), (the invocation of God’s name is explained as making and naming of idols….).
3: Apocrypha: (Platt. 1927) (In Adam’s Conflict, Book 1: Chapters 73-79 Adam and Eve being betrothed 7 months after the banishment; Cain and Luluwa are born twins, boy and girl, 9 months later; in Adam’s 5th year the twins are weaned, then Abel and Aklia are born boy-girl twins; Cain and Abel are described from toddler to teens, one bad the other good. Cain at times to kill Abel; Adam concerned at the enmity parts the boys in their 15th and 12th year; Cain continues in rebellion, tempted by Satan to hate and violence, he beats Eve and Curses his parents for wanting to marry off his twin sister to Abel, filled with malice and schemes; Cain premeditates murder, but God tries to turn him from sin and to judge him for sin, and to make him an example by 7 plagues to last seven generations, and Cain returns his parents’ home. Book 2 begins with Luluwa, Cain’s twin sister, in grief over Abel’s death, Cain takes her away to live with him as his wife near the field of the murder, Cain being about 18 years of age; Cain’s descendents multiply; Adam and Eve abstained for 7 years in grief over Abel, in fasting and prayers with Abel’s corpse in the Cave of Treasures, till his 27th year; Eve is pregnant in Adam’s 28th year and births Seth, attended by Abel’s sister; Adam never again has sexual relations with Eve after their 5th 5th child. Adam’s 7 years before Set’s birth is described, his 40 days of fasts and prayers, tempted by the Devil. Seth’s grows to perfection and godliness, and in Adam’s 35th-37th years Seth contends with the Devil being 7-9. Seth married Aklia in his 15th year and she was 40, his son Enos was born in his 20th year.)
(Sparks, 1984) (Adam’s Life: Eve, about to give birth, in Adam’s 1st year, is visited by 12 angels and 2 powers with Michael the archangel, who standing to her right, strokes her from face to breast, blessing her concerning the child’s birth. Cain was a beautiful and intelligent baby, who as a newly born infant arose and fetched a blade of grass and gave it to Eve. The family removes eastward. Michael is sent with seeds to teach Adam to till the ground; Eve again conceives and bears Abel, in time Eve tells Adam of her dream of Cain drinking Abel’s blood; Adam separates them, and the grow to manhood, Cain a farmer, Abel a shepherd; Cain murders Abel in Adam’s 132nd (32) year, Abel’s 122nd (22) and Cain’s 132nd (32). Seth is born and grows.)
(Jubilees, Sparks) (Recounts the history from creation to the giving of the law at Sinai, by means the 50 years Jubilee Chronology. The review of 7 days of creation, of Adam and Eve 7 years in the garden, of the serpent tempting, their disobedience, judged and exile; they being childless till the 1st jubilee; Cain is born in first month of the 2nd jubilee, Adam’s 71st year, Abel born in Adam’s 78th year, a daughter, Awan, in his 85th, Abel murdered by Cain in the 100th; concerning the Heavenly Tablets; Adam and Eve mourns Abel till the 128th yr., Seth’s birth in 130th, a daughter, Ayura, born in the 142nd, In the 4th Jubilee, 200th yr., Cain and Awan births Enoch, and in the 5th Jubilee, 250th yr., houses are built, and Cain builds the City of Enoch.)
4: Philo and Josephus: (I have referred to these two earlier but here examine the writings.)
(Philo: 1st cent. A.D. Alexandria. Loeb Classic Lib. 2vol. In volume 1 book 1 covers Genesis 1-3, the Mosaic Cosmology or the World’s Creation; Moses reveals the true Creator of Creation by a form of reason and philosophy, using numeric and allegory to show mystic and arcane symbolic truth; recounts the creation elements , God’s unity and nature; the visible a copy of the invisible, the world is God’s mind and reason or word (logos), the creation both physical and mental is the word of God; time exists with creation as measured space, geometrical or numerical, all being an allegory of the true and unknown. Philo follows the Greek text and explores many doctrines; first five verses constitute Day One; he often drifts from the text explain allegorical philosophic mysteries. Man is the image of the Divine Mind, thus his mind is the principle element of the soul; following Platonic doctrine of the soul and reason, he teaches man’s mind to be archetype, and as God to the universe so man is to the world; after the 6 days of creation he explores the world of numbers, in math and astronomy, and the perfection of 7; Philo avoids the Hebrew names, especially of Adam, uses grammar to support his ideas of nature of the Internal Man; woman is man’s other half, being defective, making man worldly in desires and pleasures; scripture is not merely literal but symbolic or typical; the allegorical interpretation is the only right way to understand the writings, and thus ignoring any use of Hebrew to balance his Greek notions, he gives examples of the doctrines in allegory. He continues in this manner to explain man in the garden, the temptation and fall and exile is filled with allegory. In book 2 Philo covers man’s exile, the Cherubim and Flaming Sword, and Cain as the first man from man, of Abel and Cain, their offerings, Cain’s attack on Abel; Cain’s prosperity and exile. Philo ends on the Giants. Philo is a principle source for the Gnostic mystics against Judaism and Talmud; he is a Jewish Hellenist and Platonic in doctrine.))
(Josephus: 1st cent. A.D. Loeb Class Lib. Josephus writes for the Greeks to understand the Hebrew records and Divine origins and culture, being the oldest. He reviews the early chapters of Genesis, He follows the Greek text; uses some Hebrew, but not reliable, as the name Eve meaning Mother of all, rather than of all life or being. The creation, man’s formation, the garden, the fall, and the first civilization are examined. It’s apparent that Josephus uses the Apocrypha and Rabbinic lore to interpret certain passages, especially of the age before the flood. He is historical and paraphrases the entire Old Testament or Covenant, with more or less embellishment for outside traditions. He establishes the general canon and its spread in the Greek world, with clear testimony of the Hebrew doctrines as superior to the nations. He like Philo follows a liberal and reformed doctrine of Judaism, and to that extent supports the age of the New Testament.)

5: Kabala and Zohar: The Kabbbalah or Cabala (Qabalah): Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Appendix 5 on Rabbinic Theology and Literature, Jewish mysticism, he translates for the first time the Book of Creation or Formation (Sepher Yetsirah) as the first and oldest Kabala text from the Kabala and the Zohar springs, flowing along with Mishnah and Talmud. Beginning at Genesis 2:7 of man’s formation the doctrine unfolds into 6 Pereqs, after the Mishnah’s divisions; first the 12 mishnahs, from the mystic and allegoric sense of the Hebrew text and numeric significance. Yetsirah begins: “In 32 wonderful paths of wisdom, Jah, JehovahTsebhaoth (YHWH, the Lord of Hosts), the God of Israel, the Living God, and King of the World, God merciful and gracious, High and Exalted, Who dwelleth to Eternity, high and holy is His Name, hath ordered (arranged, cosmically) by 3 Sepharim: by Sepher,Sephar and Sippur.” The dualism of nature and life is carried out throughout, heaven and earth, male and female, life and death, good and evil, and all such. There are 10 Sephiroth Belimah (Fearful Sephers); 22 Letters of Foundation (Hebrew Alphabet, the Written Word), composed of 3 Mothers (Aleph, Mem, Shin) and 7 Doubles (Dual Form Letters) and 12 Simples (Single Form Letters). There are 10 Fingers (5+5 of the Hands or Feet) of His Covenant and Word of Tongue and Sex; and 10 of Wisdom and Reality of God and Heaven; 10 Measurements, etc; 10 Appearances, etc; 10 Joints, etc; 10 Silence, etc; and 10 of the One, the Spirit of the Living God, Voice, Spirit, Word, Holy Spirit and Wind: 22+3+7+12= One Spirit. Finally it concludes:”And when Abraham our Father beheld and considered, seen, drawn, hewn, and obtained, then the Lord of all revealed Himself to him, and called him His friend , and covenanted with him and his seed: and he believed in Jehovah (YHWH), and it was imputed to him for righteousness. He covenanted with him between ten toes, and that is circumcision; between the ten fingers of his hands, and that is the tongue; and He bound 22 letters on his tongue and showed him their foundation. He drew them with water, He kindled them with fire, He breathed them with wind; He burnt them in seven; He poured them forth in the 12 constellations.” (For further details see Ginsburg’s Kabbalah: its Doctrines, Development, and Literature, 1863; and Waite’s Secret Doctrine in Israel, 1942; and of course, many more recent works.)
(Zohar: Waite’s Chapter 18, The Occult Sciences, expels some false notions of the Zohar and the Kabala. “The Practical Kabala, in which are included the artificial methods of Gematria, Notaricon and Temura, which are principles of exegetical interpretation.” The reader of Kabala and Zohar vision the Sephiroth Tree with 10 Points or Circles as a Man: Head to Feet; Arms and Legs; Eyes, Ears, Nostrils, and Lips as One; Breasts and the Sexes of Male and Female; and extends to 10 Fingers and Toes. The Ein Soph is the Highest and Endless One and Only. The Creation Week in Genesis 1 and 2, both Gen.1:1 and John 1:1, in the in 10 Words as the Seed contains the Tree. The work is, I believe, the Zohar of Moses de Leon of the 13th cent; and disguised as the work of Rabbi Simon ben Jochai of the 2nd cent. (Sperling’s and Simon’s translation in 5 vols. Soncino, 1933.) Ginsburgh’s outline and analysis the Zohar is most instructive in reading this confusing work. It begins with a Rabbi’s comment of the verse in Solomon’s Song of Songs about the Lily among Thorns, 13 leaves for 13 tribes, symbol of Israel, interpreted or extracted from the Hebrew nuances of the Text. The Zohar explores very intensely the Creation Week and what follows. His doctrine is developed by grammatics, numerics, and Gnosticism with one eye partly closed, on Scripture, and the other eye partly open on Sepher Yitsirah, Talmud, and Apocrypha. The Zohar then restarts several times by going back to the early chapters of Genesis and developing new doctrines. It uses the Targums and Apocryphal interpolations to promote its Gnosticism and mysticism. It continues from the Fall to the Cainite and Sethite races; introduces the sexual relations between Adam and female spirits fathering spirits and demons as plagues in the world, and so too at present such female spirits in human form bald-headed in men’s dreams conceive and birth such creatures; likewise, male spirits copulate with women in dreams in birth the same plagues among men…….)
6: Milton’s Paradise Lost and Regained: Milton in 12 Books poetically expounds the Creation of the World and the Fall of Man, Gen.1-3, being the first attempt of this kind. With much learning and creative sagacity, he intertwines ancient philosophy, Jewish and Christian Theology, to show how God saves and renews. Milton’s Arguments follows the Hebrew Text with Greek and Latin always before. Books 1-8: pictures to us God’s Vindication to Man and Angels, with great speculations of the pre-creation state of angels and the spiritual world; from Genesis 1.1 to chapter 2. Books 9-12: Satan lurks and disguises himself in the mist then in the serpent asleep; Adam and Eve attend to their labors with some conflicts between themselves as to how and where to work. Eve alone is tempted and fascinated by the snake, she finds Adam and gives him the forbidden fruit and reluctantly he eats and sins, sensing nakedness and shame with variance and accusations. Adam’s transgression is considered by God and His Son and the Angels, the Father turns judgment to the Son Who submits to take man’s condition and state, to remedy before God, and pay the price for justice and righteousness, vindicating God. God foretells the Son’s victory and man’s salvation; of the renewal of all things, and of the universe being changed by angelic administration. Eve desires to avoid the curse, and Adam determines to await in prayer and repentance, the Promised Seed to destroy to Serpent. The Son intercede to the Father on their behalf, God banishes them, and Michael sent escort them out, and to reveal the future of the human race up to the Flood. Finally, Michael continues with the vision of man from the Fall to Abraham, of the Seed of the Woman, His incarnation, death, resurrection, his ascension, and of the state of the church till His second coming. Adam is gladdened and leaves Paradise till it is regained by Christ.


About mjmselim

Male, 65, born in Jamaica, USA since 1961, citizen in 2002; cobbler for 40 plus years, Christian since 1969; married to same wife since 1979; 6 daughters and 2 sons, with 7 grandkids. Slowly adapting to the digital world of computers and internet; hobby in digital editing.
This entry was posted in Bible Reflections, Christian Reflections, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s