Not that it was ever dead, of course. What I'm talking about is my current seminary class dubbed with the boring title, "Old Testament I". What it's really about is the Pentateuch, which is another way of saying the five first books of the Old Testament - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. One of my textbooks is pictured on the left. This is a core class for anyone wanting a graduate degree from Ashland Theological Seminary.
I have totally lucked out! My teacher is Dr. L. Daniel Hawk. I have now sat under his teaching for six hours and the time has totally sped by. He is really interesting and makes the Pentateuch come alive. After six hours we have finally finished (I think) Genesis chapter one so I'm guessing things will speed up from here.
Our class is using an online facility named "Angel Learning," where we can connect up with fellow students and our professor. We have the responsibility to answer one online question each week. We will also be in the process of writing an exegetical paper, which must also be submitted online and be subject to peer review. The combination of the Bible nerd and the geek nerd within me is almost more than I can bear! :)
For those of you who are interested, click the continue link below and I'll share with you one fascinating online discussion I had today about the creation. It's mostly my writing with the occasional probing question by Dr. Hawk.
Mark: "What a Gift, What a God!" The DOTP article on
“Creation” provides 15 individual features where the Biblical account
of creation finds some common ground with those of the surrounding
cultures. Walton, the author of the article,
then compares eight worldview distinctives between the Hebrew version
and the other Near East versions. As Walton
points out, the Israelites were more like their neighbors in that they
(1) were more concerned with bringing order out of chaos, (2)
understood the beginning of creation within the context of either God
or gods, (3) viewed creation’s function more as a metaphysical act than
the physical act, and (4) comprehended the cosmos as the resting place
for their God or gods. I particularly appreciated the balance that Walton brought to the article. On the one hand, he pointed out the obvious comparisons between the Biblical account and others in the ancient Near East. But he was also careful to note the distinctives of the Biblical account.
First and foremost, the God of the Bible is outside of creation; He exists before, above, under, after. Creation is a description of God’s decision and work. He does not arise out of creation. Rather creation arises entirely from Him.
There is no sense of battle of struggle in the Biblical account. As Dr. Hawk so vividly pointed out last week, God simply spoke and the cosmos came into existence. Along those lines, another distinctive characteristic of the Biblical account is the monotheistic characteristic of creation. There are no needs for multiple gods. There is one most high God. Where the metaphysical concepts of other Near Eastern thinkers needed a god for each basic element, structure or foundation of creation, the Hebrew concept was of one God who spoke all elements, structure and foundations into being.
Animals do not play much of a role in the other
creation accounts (DOTP 160), yet take up the sixth day of creation in
the Biblical account – the last and final day of creation before God
rested. Further, the Biblical account provides
purpose to Adam as he was assigned the task of naming the animals and
was given a caretaker role for them and the rest of God’s creation. Thus we discover a most important distinctive in the importance of man being created in the image of God. It was God who named each item of creation in Genesis 1, but it was Adam who named every living creature in Genesis 2.
Questions this raises in my mind are those of context. I simply never considered the creation account in Genesis 1 from the same literary, cultural and historical context that I would apply to any other section of Scripture. Understanding that the Israelites also had a worldview shaped largely by its surrounding Near Eastern culture is important to understand in grasping the full significance of the Biblical creation account.
Yet I wonder if it might be possible to so contextualize the Biblical creation story that we lose the importance of what Genesis 1 teaches us. For example, is it possible that we post-Enlightenment scholars minimize the significance of the Biblical creation account by accounting it as only one of many creation stories all shrouded within the ignorance of the pre-scientific age.
After this study I will not look again upon the creation account in quite the same way. The perspective I have gained is this: from
this point forward I will consider what the Genesis account tells us
about God, and not just what it tells us about His creation.
At the same time, I will also always marvel at the grandness of the Genesis 1 narrative. God did not just create order out of chaos; rather God created both chaos and order and by his creative first six days provided order for his resulting creation. As creatures fully immersed in the time created, space created, form created, light created orderly cosmos, we can hardly imagine the God who exists beyond time, space, form or light. What a gift! What a God!
Fellow Student Timothy Stauffer:
Mark--great summary. Your succinct response helped me to better understand what I have read.
I too was inspired by the otherness of the Biblical narrative in contrast to surrounding cultures and worldviews. It is no small thing that the Biblical account sets God apart from creation, that creation was not birthed from cosmic conflict, and that God maintained close relationship with His creation.
I am eager to learn more about how our view of creation impacts the rest of our theology and orthopraxy. Does our understanding of creation rule out the possibility of theistic evolution? Are science and scripture really at odds? More questions could be added.
We indeed have a great God who gave us a wonderful gift.
Dr. Daniel Hawk:
Great observations Mark!
Yet I wonder if it might be possible to so contextualize the Biblical creation story that we lose the importance of what Genesis 1 teaches us. For example, is it possible that we post-Enlightenment scholars minimize the significance of the Biblical creation account by accounting it as only one of many creation stories all shrouded within the ignorance of the pre-scientific age. Only if we post-Enlightenment types are not inclined to accord the biblical text a revelatory authority!
God did not just create order out of chaos; rather God created both chaos and order
Does the biblical text report that God created chaos? Perhaps the reference functions symbolically and conventionally rather than to some kind of literal primordial stuff. Many ancient accounts begin with chaos and formlessness. Is the focus of the creation accounts on the creation of matter where there was nothing, or God's act of differentiating and naming? or both? or something else?
Mark Pierce: Does the biblical text report that God created chaos? Dr. Daniel Hawk:
I suppose we would find
our answer in our interpretation of Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning,
God created the heavens and the earth." Do we understand from this
that in the beginning God created all that was, and is, and is yet to
be?
Perhaps the reference functions symbolically and conventionally rather
than to some kind of literal primordial stuff. Many ancient accounts
begin with chaos and formlessness. Is the focus of the creation
accounts on the creation of matter where there was nothing, or God's
act of differentiating and naming? or both? or something else?
I understand the concept
of God's differentiating and the comparison to other creation accounts
that tell of God or the gods differentiating from sameness. And we
could certainly view the rest of Genesis chapter 1 beginning in verse
two this way. But we could also understand that God did indeed create
matter from nothing as He created the heavens and the earth in verse
one. Could we not understand that verse one tells us that He created
the earth (and thus matter) and as we arrive at verse two we find the
original earth creation "without form and void, and darkness over the
face of the deep?" If so, then we could understand that it was indeed
God who created the earth without form. It was God who created the
void. And it was God who created the darkness over the face of the
deep. In other words, God created the chaos. Further we could
understand the remainder of verse two, "And the Spirit (or wind) of God
was hovering over the face of the waters," to mean that God ruled over
the chaos.
If one understands the Biblical creation account this way, then he or
she more readily thrills over the gift of creation. For God does not
depend upon our concepts of time, space, matter, or energy. But He
loves so much that He gave a creation NOT for His benefit, but for the
benefit of those He had not yet even created. God reigns above chaos
and order and needs neither for His own benefit, but He graciously
provides order out of chaos for the benefit of his beloved.
Mark Pierce:
I grant you that presuppositions and convictions
influence translation. And I won't pretend to be able to make a
defense of the original language. However, in checking 19 different
English Bibles I find that 17 make the same translation, "In the
beginning God created." The NRSV translates, "In the beginning when God
created," and the YLT translates, "In the beginning of God's
preparing..." Though I don't think it makes much of a difference
either way. Even with the 17 translations one could argue that
"beginning" has a different meaning when time had not yet even been
created.
So let me press this a bit by following the logic of the text...How does God create a void out of nothing?
This is much like the question I would ask my Junior High Sunday School
teacher, "Could God create a rock so heavy that He Himself could not
even lift it?" We can often be trapped within our own logic. The
answer of the Sunday School teacher of course should be "yes," even
though we cannot understand how it could be done. God is all
powerful. There is nothing He cannot do if He chooses to do it.
However, in the case of the creation account, we don't even have to go
to such extremes of logic forcing our faith in God's omnipotence. The
text does not say God created a void out of "nothing." It does tell us
(in all versions) that God created the earth (v. 1) and then describes
this earth creation in verse 2 as: (1) a formless void, (2) darkness
covering the face of the deep, (3) God's Spirit or wind sweeping or
hovering, and finally (4) the face of the waters.
So following the logic of the text should render the question: "How
does God create an earth as a dark, formless, watery, deep void?" I
wonder if our own presuppositions come into play when we read "face of
the waters." We presume oceans or a planet of water. But could
"earth" as understood by Genesis 1:1 describe a universe of space
(dark, formless, void) with two elements of hydrogen and oxygen interspersed widely throughout the new space, before creation both
unknown and uncreated?
I realize I still have not answered the "how" question other than to
say, "God created." This is all we are given in the passage and thus
must suffice for our answer. We ARE given
the "how" from there on - God speaks. Frankly, it takes no greater
amount of faith on my part to believe that God could "create a void out
of nothing," than it takes to believe that He created light by the
simple expedience of His spoken word.
Dr. Daniel Hawk:
We ARE given the "how" from there on - God speaks. Frankly, it takes no greater amount of faith on my part to believe that God could "create a void out of nothing," than it takes to believe that He created light by the simple expedience of His spoken word.
What does it mean that God speaks? Does God have a mouth? Did God make noise? Was there a medium which conveyed sound? How does God create via a "spoken word" if there is no air or mouthpiece? (my Middle School mind asks ;-)
Mark Pierce:
How does God create via a "spoken word" if there is no air or mouthpiece? (my Middle School mind asks ;-)
Again, my own
presupposing comes into play. I say "spoken word," while the Bible
literally reads, "And God said," nine different times in Genesis 1. I
PRESUME when God says something that he does so with a spoken word.
But this is not necessary to the text. For the middle schooler in all
of us, we should understand "to say" when it comes to God in a larger
sense than only the spoken word.
The Word Biblical Commentary describes it this way: "Though it is of course taken for granted throughout the OT that God speaks, אמר “to say” is used here in a more pregnant sense than usual. It is a divine word of command that brings into existence what it expresses." (see footnote below.) A Commentary Critical and Explanatory gives this further description: "This
phrase, which occurs so repeatedly in the account means: willed,
decreed, appointed; and the determining will of God was followed in
every instance by an immediate result." (See footnote below.)
So God's "spoken word" is the equivalent of God's word of command and
what God commands, what He decrees, is accomplished in each case of
Genesis 1.
----------------------------------------
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, A. R. Fausset et al., A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, On Spine: Critical and Explanatory Commentary. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), Ge 1:3.
