The Bible Project on Genesis 1

The Bible Project team has released a new video, this one on Genesis 1. Here is the blurb:

‘How is our interpretation of the creation story in Genesis 1 deepened when we consider its ancient historical and cultural context? In this Bible commentary video, we look at how the literary design of Genesis 1 reveals God’s ideal vision for the whole cosmos.’

It manages to cram a lot into its 7:42 length, and is well worth checking out here.

Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 5, 2 (2016-2017)

The latest issue of the Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament is now available online. The main articles (listed below with their abstracts) are available from here, with a pdf of the entire issue available here. As always, it’s worth checking out its book reviews as much as anything else.

Andrew E. Steinmann

A Note on the Refrain in Genesis 1: Evening, Morning, and Day as Chronological Summary

The meaning of the refrain in Gen 1 “There was an evening and there was a morning, X day” (Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) has long been in dispute. This paper argues that the refrain is a chronological summary of the preceding text by demonstrating what the syntax and usage of such summaries are in the OT. The phrase then means “In summary there was an evening and then a morning, X day,” thereby encompassing an entire day beginning at sundown and ending at the next sundown. Moreover, the phrase “evening and morning” is further defined in the refrain as a single day.

Drew S. Holland

On the Commonalities of Deuteronomy 13 with Ancient Near Eastern Treaties

This article evaluates the numerous potential influences upon Deut 13 from ancient Near Eastern treaties. After assessing both the features Deut 13 shares with Hittite, Aramean, and neo-Assyrian treaties and the ways in which Deut 13 is distinct from them, it will become apparent that this biblical text shares some significant literary traits with these ANE treaties, but the degree to which it differs from them does not enable us to confirm literary dependence, a claim many scholars have asserted. Rather, Deut 13 expresses a uniquely Israelite treaty style within a general ancient Near Eastern treaty tradition.

Greg Goswell

King and Cultus: The Image of David in the Book of Kings

The image of David in the book of Kings is of a cultically-observant king, who does not commit the sin of idolatry, and, as a result, David becomes the model of proper royal behaviour for all kings that follow. In the theology of Kings there is an essential link between kingship and the temple cultus, and the kings who were like David reformed the cult and suppressed deviant cultic expression. The author of Kings measures and assesses the performance of every king by the rule of whether he supported the primacy of the YHWH and his temple in Jerusalem (of which piety David is the exemplar). It is argued that the image of David found in Kings is not without connection to the memory of David preserved in the preceding book of Samuel. In terms of the fate of the Davidic house in exile and beyond, various features in Kings suggest that the book is at best ambivalent as to the long term future of kingship as an Israelite institution.

Book Reviews

Foundations 71 (Autumn 2016)

Issue 71 of Foundations: An International Journal of Evangelical Theology, published by Affinity, is now available (here in its entirety as a pdf), with the following contributions. The article by Ted Turnau is the second part of a two-part discussion of cultural engagement. The plea by John James to remain non-dogmatic on the age of the earth feels significant given the theologically conservative provenance of this publication.

Ralph Cunnington

Editorial

Ted Turnau

Dialogues Concerning Cultural Engagement (Part Two)

In this two-part essay, the author addresses the subject of Christian cultural engagement in a post-Christian context. In Part One (Foundations 70), the author establishes that cultures of the West can be characterised as post-Christian. He then explores the issue of engagement through a series of dialogues with different characters: 1) the Knight, who represents a political approach to cultural change, 2) the Gardener, who represents the Benedict Option espoused by conservative writer Rod Dreher, and 3) the Member of the Loyal Opposition, who represents the posture of “faithful presence” espoused by sociologist James Davison Hunter. Part Two (in Foundations 71) gathers the various characters for a round-table discussion. After pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of each, the author lays out his own approach which focuses on imaginative cultural engagement using the arts and entertainment. He explores the issue of same-sex marriage as a case study, and the reconciliation between gay activist Shane Windemeyer and American Christian businessman Dan Cathy as an example of winsome engagement in which each discovered a common humanity in the other. Our goal is a cultural engagement that is an analogue to that kind of winsome reconciliation that creates space within which estranged parties can meet, or what the author calls “planting oases”. He then briefly considers two examples of this in the work of J.R.R. Tolkien, and U2’s Superbowl performance in February 2002.

David Green

A Theology of the Created World: Neglected Biblical Perspective

Both inside and outside Christian circles, “creation” is understood as a doctrine about origins. This has unhelpfully drawn attention away from the biblical emphasis on God’s “present continuous” activity in the world and the display of his glory in creation. The biblical doctrine of creation has wide-ranging implications for how we understand ourselves and how we live in this world, giving significance to what we call “everyday life”, encouraging a more integrated theological approach to life, and calling for greater engagement in the world in a distinctly Christian way. It also clarifies and enhances our self-understanding as human beings within the created order, and enriches the prospect of our place in a redeemed creation in the life to come.

John James

The Age of the Earth: A Plea for Geo-Chronological Non-Dogmatism

This paper considers authorial intent in relation to Genesis 1, and suggests that it is not the primary objective of the author to fix the age of the earth. When Scripture is understood as God’s accommodated word to us, to remain non-dogmatic on something the author is not choosing to speak on, in no way undermines the doctrine of inerrancy. The paper then considers the history of biblical interpretation in relation to the author’s intention in Genesis 1. It is noted that the rise of modern geology did little to change the predominant non-dogmatism, and that the forceful insistence on six literal solar days is a relatively recent phenomenon in response to the atheistic outworking of Darwinian evolution. The overall aim of the paper is to show that a dogmatic adherence to any particular age is not necessary in order to defend a high view of Scripture and picks the wrong fight against scientific naturalism.

Stephen Clark

Some Thoughts on the Relationship Between the Word of God and the Holy Spirit

Taking published material by Ralph Cunnington and Professor Robert Letham as a point of departure, this article considers the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Word of God and focuses upon certain particular aspects of this relationship. A historical survey analyses the teaching of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones with respect to the relationship of Word and Spirit in the areas of preaching and regeneration, before considering the concept of “immediate regeneration” in the context of the Pajonist controversy and in the teaching of Herman Bavinck. This historical survey of the doctrine of an immediate work of the Holy Spirit concludes with brief references to the teachings of the following: Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, Abraham Kuyper, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, and John Murray. Certain theological “axioms” concerning the ontological nature and status of the Holy Spirit and of Scripture undergird an analysis of the relationship of Word and Spirit, and this leads to the conclusion that while the Word and Spirit are distinct but related, in certain respects the Spirit is greater than, and separate from, the Word.

Bob Letham

A Reply to Stephen Clark

Book Reviews

The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 3, 1 (2016)

The latest issue of the Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies is now available online, with the below articles. Individual essays are available from here, and the journal is available in its entirety as a pdf here.

Creighton Marlowe

Patterns, Parallels, and Poetics in Genesis 1

Debates over the purpose and propositions of Genesis 1 continue to be concerned with its poetic nature. This issue is related to how “poetry” is defined, formally in terms of forms or patterns or informally in terms of function and powerful, persuasive language. This article is focused on the more structural aspects of poetry in Genesis 1 (i.e., parallelismus membrorum and other structural patterns and parallels). The purpose is to demonstrate that this chapter, while not a poem per se, contains poetic features not previously emphasized. While the text remains in its present form elevated prose, the nature of this elevation is greater than often admitted. Some evidence exists for speculation of an original poem on which the extant Hebrew version is based. What is suggested is a text with repetitions that remind one of a song with stanzas. That a rigid, literal hermeneutic is not the only valid option for reading this text becomes clear. The answer to why the author employed a normal week of seven days (six creational ones) may be as much functional or theological as mechanical or temporal. The mere presence of waw consecutive or use of yom as a normal day does not prove that the author’s purpose was the time of creation. Also the use of numerous poetics does not prove that the purpose was non-historical or only theological or symbolic; but as shown, the text is highly poetic in style as well as substance.

Gareth L. Cockerill

The Invitation-Structure and Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark

The structure of Mark facilitates the Gospel’s invitation to follow Jesus on the path of discipleship by identifying with those whom he calls. The four sections that follow the prologue (1:1-13) each begin with a significant interaction between Jesus and his disciples—1:14–3:12 begins with the call of the first disciples; 3:13–6:6 with the appointment of the twelve; 6:7–8:21 with the sending of the twelve; and 8:22–10:52 with Jesus’ questioning the twelve about his identity. Each represents a new phase of discipleship. Mark 1:14–3:12 describes the public demonstration of Jesus’ authority in Galilee that provides the occasion both for the call of his first disciples and for the arousal of official opposition. In 3:13–6:6 those who follow are instructed in the importance of “hearing” reinforced by exposure to much greater demonstrations of Jesus’ authority. In 6:7–8:21 Jesus’ followers actually participate in his authority, and yet seem unable, despite what they have experienced, to grasp his identity as Christ, the Son of God. Mark 8:22–10:52 begins with Peter’s apparent overcoming of this problem by confessing that Jesus is the Christ. This section shows the disciples’ inability to grasp the new conundrum that Jesus puts before them—the necessity of his suffering as the Christ and of its implications for his disciples. Jesus’ public presentation of his claim in the Jerusalem Temple (11:1–13:37) and subsequent passion (14:1–16:8) reaffirm his authority and reinforce the necessity for his followers to follow him by carrying their “cross.” Those who follow embrace both Jesus’ identity as the Son of God and his suffering.

Timothy J. Christian

A Questionable Inversion: Jesus’ Corrective Answer to the Disciples’ Questions in Matthew 24:3-25:46

This article explores the interrogatory relationship between the disciples’ two questions in Matt 24:3 and Jesus’ twofold answer in Matt 24:4–25:46 (divided 24:4-35 and 24:36–25:46). First, concerning how these questions and answers relate, Jesus answers inverted forms of their questions that imply the form, “what will be the signs of these things?” and “when will your coming and the consummation of the age happen?” Second, concerning why they relate in this way, Jesus does this to correct the disciples’ wrong views about the destruction of the temple and eschatology. Lastly, the article offers a corrective to the various eschatological positions which are often superimposed upon Matt 24–25.

Howard Tillman Kuist

Chapter VII Psychological Elements in St. Paul’s Appeal (Continued)

Dorothy Jean Weaver

My Journey to JIBS: An Autobiographical Reflection

John H. Walton on Genesis 1

John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove: IVP, 2009), 192pp., ISBN 9780830837045.

IVP (USA) make available the Prologue and Introduction and Chapter 1 as samples of what looks like an interesting and helpful treatment of Genesis 1 in its ancient Near Eastern context.

John H. Walton (formerly at Moody, now at Wheaton), writing as someone committed to the authority of Scripture, emphasises a reading of the text at ‘face value’ (‘read it as the ancient author would have intended and as the ancient audience would have heard it’, 92) rather than making it ‘speak science’ or play to the tune of contemporary scientific agendas.

He argues that Genesis 1 is less concerned with providing information about the creation of the material structures of the world and more concerned with showing that the cosmos functions as God’s temple.

The book is structured around the following eighteen propositions embracing ancient Near Eastern cosmology and perspectives on creation, the main features of the text of Genesis 1, and their significance for Christian engagement with science.

Proposition 1
Genesis 1 is Ancient Cosmology

Proposition 2:
Ancient Cosmology is Function Oriented

Proposition 3:
‘Create’ (Hebrew bara) Concerns Functions

Proposition 4:
The Beginning State in Genesis 1 is Nonfunctional

Proposition 5:
Days One to Three in Genesis 1 Establish Functions

Proposition 6:
Days Four to Six in Genesis 1 Install Functionaries

Proposition 7:
Divine Rest is in a Temple

Proposition 8:
The Cosmos is a Temple

Proposition 9:
The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Relate to the Cosmic Temple Inauguration

Proposition 10:
The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins

Proposition 11:
‘Functional Cosmic Temple’ Offers Face-Value Exegesis

Proposition 12:
Other Theories of Genesis 1 Either Go Too Far or Not Far Enough

Proposition 13:
The Difference Between Origin Accounts in Science and Scripture is Metaphysical in Nature

Proposition 14:
God’s Roles as Creator and Sustainer are Less Different Than We Have Thought

Proposition 15:
Current Debate About Intelligent Design Ultimately Concerns Purpose

Proposition 16:
Scientific Explanations of Origins Can Be Viewed in Light of Purpose, and if so, are Unobjectionable

Proposition 17:
Resulting Theology in This View of Genesis 1 is Stronger, Not Weaker

Proposition 18:
Public Science Education Should Be Neutral Regarding Purpose

Alister McGrath on Augustine on Origins

Alister McGrath, ‘Augustine’s Origin of Species: How the Great Theologian Might Weigh in on the Darwin Debate’, Christianity Today (May 2009).

I’d read somewhere previously that Augustine (354-430) was embarrassed by the ‘days’ in Genesis 1: why would it take God as long as six days to create the world?

Alister McGrath provides a brief summary of Augustine’s thinking here, based on the latter’s Literal Meaning of Genesis. McGrath writes of Augustine:

‘God brought everything into existence in a single moment of creation. Yet the created order is not static. God endowed it with the capacity to develop. Augustine uses the image of a dormant seed to help his readers grasp this point. God creates seeds which will grow and develop at the right time.’

However, Augustine has no place ‘for any notion of random or arbitrary changes within creation’, and God’s creation ‘is always subject to God’s sovereign providence’.

For Augustine, the six days of Genesis 1 are ‘a way of categorizing God’s work in creation. God created the world in an instant but continues to develop and mold it, even to the present day’.

McGrath notes that although Augustine does not necessarily answer the questions raised by Darwin and evolution, ‘he does help us see that the real issue here is not the authority of the Bible, but its right interpretation’.

Word for the Week: Whole Life, Whole Bible (5/50) – The First Great Commission

‘Word for the Week: Whole Life, Whole Bible’, from London Institute for Contemporary Christianity, is a series of fifty emails designed to look at the main milestones of the biblical story, seeking to show how whole-life discipleship is woven through Scripture as a whole, from beginning to end. Here is the fifth of the fifty emails…

Then God said, ‘Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.’
Genesis 1:26-28

What is to be the role of human beings in the story about to unfold?

It’s the sixth day, and the author of Genesis 1 makes it clear – through devoting more space to it, through repetition, through the divine ‘let us’ which first plans and then executes the plan – that something even more significant is about to happen. Now the Creator forms a creature – unlike any of the others – who bears his image…

We give thanks that we have been created with the capacity for emotion, the ability to think and communicate – like God himself – although it’s not apparent that his ‘image’ should be identified with these things. It is clear that man and woman together constitute the image of God, that humans are made for relationship with each other as well as with God. Even so, sexual differentiation extends to dolphins, chickens, and elephants as well – making it an integral part of his design for the world, but not necessarily the most significant point about being made in his image.

More notable is the connection of the image with the vocation of men and women to rule creation, as representatives of God on earth, charged with the task of ‘dominion’ over other creatures. Cultures surrounding Israel told stories of people being made as slaves of the gods, with the language of ‘image’ applied only to kings. In Genesis, however, all human beings are created in the image of God, giving men and women a status and responsibility not found in other worldviews.

And Genesis 1 continues to shape our views of humanity – and our lifestyles too – since the tasks of ‘filling’ and ‘subduing’ and ‘ruling’ have not been taken away. In the first place, of course, this refers to the building of families, the growing of crops and breeding of animals, the tending of the garden to which Adam is called. Creation requires cultivation.

But such cultivation provides the basis of the organisation of society, and includes by extension the development of culture and civilisation – building houses, designing clothes, writing poetry, playing chess. These are the ‘mundane’ ways in which we – this very day – exercise our creation mandate, as we represent God’s rule over every type of cultural activity, in relationship with others, and in a way that reflects God’s own nurturing, creative hand. May it be so.

For further reflection and action:

1. What is it that occupies the bulk of your waking hours – work, education, home, hospitality, childcare…? How is the image of God demonstrated in these things?

2. Read and reflect on Psalm 8. In what ways does its portrayal of human beings as ‘crowned with glory and honour’ shape our perceptions of ourselves and others?

3. Try to spend some time this week reflecting on the fact that the first purpose of humanity is not ‘spiritual’ (in terms of how that word is commonly understood), but the somewhat ordinary category of exercising stewardship over our earthly environment as God’s representatives. What difference might this make to your week?

4. If our fellow human beings share the mandate to ‘cultivate’ the earth, what are the implications of this for how we treat their work, art, products, etc.? And are there any areas of cultural ‘cultivation’ that are inherently suspect – advertising, cosmetics, fashion, interior design, contemporary art, weapons manufacturing?

Word for the Week: Whole Life, Whole Bible (4/50) – It was good

‘Word for the Week: Whole Life, Whole Bible’, from London Institute for Contemporary Christianity, is a series of fifty emails designed to look at the main milestones of the biblical story, seeking to show how whole-life discipleship is woven through Scripture as a whole, from beginning to end. Here is the fourth of the fifty emails…

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.
Genesis 1:31

Good.

There can be no mistaking how God evaluates his creation. The affirmation comes six times – to make sure we don’t miss it. The repetition makes it clear that each part is good, climaxing a seventh time with the statement that the sum of the parts is ‘very good’. God doesn’t just create the world; he creates the world good – very good.

That the word is applied to stars and seas and trees and turtles suggests that something more than moral good is in mind. Think good in the sense that Genesis 1 itself implies: a well-ordered, beneficial, fitting, beautiful, teeming-with-life, everything-in-its-place goodness – from the intricate parts to the immense parts – all of it good.

Nor is the goodness of creation to be limited to ‘nature’. Human society and culture are also embraced, with the goodness of work and marriage affirmed as spheres in which we may serve God – the architect at her desk, the baker in his kitchen, the mother in her home, the teacher in his class, the husband and wife in their bed. All of it good.

Alas, things don’t stay good. But the evil that comes later is not an inevitable or necessary part of the fabric of the world, or of human beings, and the Bible anticipates a time when evil will be removed. Meanwhile, we have a strong clue that salvation is not about being released from an evil body for a non-material existence. We may expect that the salvation Christ brings is not from the world but a salvation for which the world was made in the first place. A new creation no less.

For Christians, it is a reminder on the first page of the Bible that our faith is world-affirming, that we may delight in the goodness of God’s created order. And it should come as no surprise when God wants to show up in areas of our lives from which he has sometimes been excluded – our careers, our friendships, our studies – since it has all been designed with our well-being in mind, as a place of blessing for us.

Much more than a claim about the process by which life came into being, a biblical perspective on creation involves a response of praise to the God on whom the whole of life depends, and who is the source of all things good.

For further reflection and action:

1. What do today’s different ‘voices’ say about the physical and cultural and social world in which we live – think politicians, media, pundits, lobby groups, etc? How far do these square with Genesis 1?

2. Reflect on the actual difference the ‘goodness’ of creation will make to specific areas of your life this week – work, rest, family, money, time…? How do we live distinctly as servants of God in his good creation?

3. It has been regularly noted that on days 1-3, God forms the world (Genesis 1:3-13), and on days 4-6, he fills the world (Genesis 1:14-27). What he separates on days 1-3, he stocks on days 4-6, first making the ‘realms’ and then assigning their ‘rulers’. What might this suggest about the literary qualities of the creation account? And what might this careful structuring of the account teach us about the nature of God’s work in creation, and creation itself?

Word for the Week: Whole Life, Whole Bible (3/50) – And God...

‘Word for the Week: Whole Life, Whole Bible’, from London Institute for Contemporary Christianity, is a series of fifty emails designed to look at the main milestones of the biblical story, seeking to show how whole-life discipleship is woven through Scripture as a whole, from beginning to end. Here is the third of the fifty emails…

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth… This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
Genesis 1:1 and 2:4

Our first steps in Genesis begin not with creation, nor with ourselves, but with God – and the reminder that we do not properly understand the world (or our place in it) without acknowledging the God who created it, holds it together, and rules over it.

Genesis 1 was designed to work this way. The people of God knew that the real God – the only God – made the world not through violence and bloodshed (a regular feature of tales from cultures surrounding Israel) but by his word, through his wisdom, and out of love. The account thus shapes the way God’s people think and live at the same time as engaging with alternative takes on reality, in such a way as to say: this is the true God; this is what the true God is like; this is the one who alone is worthy of worship.

Genesis 1 does this not by discussing creation in the abstract, but by focusing on God as Creator, and not primarily through nouns or adjectives, but through verbs, highlighting what God does: he creates, he speaks, he sees, he names, he separates, he rules, he delights, he blesses, he rests… And this talking, acting God will take centre stage in the plot that unfolds, showing that far from removing himself from creation, he is personal and relational, intentionally providing an arena in which men and women can live under his rule and blessing.

It’s no surprise, then, that while Genesis 1:1 can use the standard word for ‘god’ or ‘gods’, Genesis 2:4 makes it clear that he is ‘the Lord God’, using the name by which he later reveals himself to Moses as the one who will establish a covenant with his people, setting up a link between creation and covenant which will be played out in the rest of Scripture.

Genesis 1 isn’t designed to satisfy our curiosity about issues raised by science, since something different and more significant is at stake, namely: which God do we trust to have the whole world in his hands? What stands at the heart of the Christian worldview is not a god of our own making, but the Lord God himself – Creator God and covenant God.

For further reflection and action:

1. If possible, take some moments this week to read through Genesis 1:1–2:4, pausing after the account of each day to reflect on – and then to praise – God as creator, sustainer, and ruler of all.

2. In Proverbs 8:22–31, God’s wisdom is personified as a craftsperson through whom God makes the world, designing, measuring, and setting boundaries in place, showing that wisdom is the standard by which God works as he crafts the world. This being the case, where do we see evidence of God’s wise ordering of the world? And what difference should it make to the way we seek to live in God’s world?

3. What do you bring to your reading of Genesis 1 in terms of background education, church tradition, scientific knowledge, and convictions about God? How might these various factors both help and distort your understanding of the passage?