"In writing this work for Israel, Moses wished to portray God as the Founder and Creator of all life. The account shows that the God who created Israel is the God who created the world and all who are in it. Thus the theocracy is founded on the sovereign God of Creation. That nation, her Law, and her customs and beliefs all go back to who God is. Israel would here learn what kind of God was forming them into a nation.
The implications of this are great. First, it means that everything that exists must be under God’s control. The Creation must be in subjection to the Creator. Forces of nature, enemies, creatures and objects that became pagan deities - none of these would pose a threat to the servants of the living God."
Second, the account also reveals the basis of the Law. If indeed God was before all things and made all things, how foolish it would be to have any other gods before Him! There were none. If indeed God made man in His image to represent Him, how foolish it would be to make an image of God! If indeed God set aside one day for rest from His work, should not man who is walking with God follow Him? The commandments find their rationale here.
Third, the account reveals that God is a redeeming God. It records how He brought the cosmos out of chaos, turned darkness into light, made divisions between them, transformed cursing into blessing, and moved from what was evil and darkness to what was holy. This parallels the work of God in Exodus, which records His redeeming Israel by destroying the Egyptian forces of chaos. The prophets and the apostles saw here a paradigm of God’s redemptive activities. Ultimately He who caused light to shine out of darkness made His light shine in the hearts of believers (2Co_4:6) so that they become new creations (2Co_5:17). -BKC
Somehow got into Unger----reference at BKC? Unger is DTS.....1908-1980
Bruce Waltke critiques Unger here.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dbd5/667baa0c88711ab6cb1df3c6c8cfb209ff1e.pdf
1. created heaven and earth
2. without form and void
3. darkness on the face of the deep
No audience to get energy from
"All beginnings must begin with God. Always put God first. The first stone in every building, our first thought every morning, the first aim and purpose of all activity. Begin the book of the year with God, and you will end it with the glory of the New Jerusalem. At first, as in the physical creation, your heart and life may seem to be “without form and void.” Do not be discouraged, the Spirit of God is within you, brooding amid the darkness, and presently His Light will shine through. It is the blessed presence of the Lord Jesus that stirs in your heart and will presently rule your life, Joh_1:4. His Presence divides between the good and evil. You must distinguish between Christ and self. Follow the gleam, and you shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life. God’s days begin in evenings, and always end in mornings." -F.B. Meyers
Waltke, Bruce. "The Creation Account in Genesis" 1:1-3: Part II, The Restitution Theory
cosmogony--the branch of science that deals with the origin of the universe, especially the solar system.
Three popular theories:
1) restitution theory--Chaos of Genesis 1:2 happened after the creation of a perfect world in v 1.
2) originally chaotic theory--verses 1 and 2 both portray chaos
3) precreation theory---chaos in v 2 existed before creation mentioned in the Bible
my question--so matter was created in chaos?
reasons for study--answer to scientific theories, syntax of these verses affects our theology
"The reason is that this text is written in precise prose, whereas other biblical passages bearing on cosmogony are poetic, imaginative, evocative, and not didactic." Waltke insists that this is prose, not poetry.
"Actually, the exposition must painstakingly free this bundled and rather esoteric doctrine sentence by sentence, indeed, word by word." -von Rad, cited in Waltke
Restitution Theory
The proponents of this view translate the opening words of Genesis 1 in this way: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and then the earth became . . . ."
Two sub views:
1) Verse 1 and 2 are sequential
2) Verse 1 and 2 are circumstantial
Sequential view/Gap theory--Satan was ruler of perfect world but because of his rebellion (Isaiah 14:12-17) sin entered in. The chaos in v 2 was a result of God judging the world because of Satan. God re-creates the world in v 3-31. There is a gap of an undetermined period of time between v1 and v2.
“How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit. Those who see you will stare at you and ponder over you: ‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?'" Isaiah 14:12-17 ESV
Believer's Bible Commentary on this:
14:12-17 As the taunt song continues, the theme seems to expand from the fall of the king of Babylon to the fall of the one who energized him, Satan (Lucifer) himself. Ryrie writes that this is "evidently a reference to Satan, because of Christ's similar description (Luk_10:18) and because of the inappropriateness of the expressions of Isa_14:13-14 on the lips of any but Satan (cf. 1Ti_3:6)." Because this Day Star, son of the morning, proudly asserted his will above the will of God, he was cast out of heaven. Verses 13, 14 record the notorious "I will's" of Satan in his defiance of God. Eventually he will be consigned to Sheol, an object of astonishment. The denizens of Sheol will marvel that one who exercised such power has been brought so low.
Scofield Bible notes made this view popular--he views the verb "created" in v 1 as meaning "dateless past" He also references places in the prophets where cataclysmic changes are obviously referenced.
This theory predates evolutionary/scientific challenge.
Pro:"This interpretation enables us to make sense of the
career of Satan which is otherwise fraught with mystery." -Waltke
Anti: The verb used isn't the right one to indicate sequence. In his opinion, it is "inconceivable" that Moses would have picked such a verb if he wanted to convey sequence.
He uses an analogy of tinker toys to make the point that the action in Isaiah and Jeremiah do not logically teach a similar action in Genesis.
Waltke focuses in on the word tohu used in all of these passages. It can be translated "without form" or "nothing" He asserts, "Indeed this appears to be essentially its meaning; not in the sense that material does not exist, but rather in the sense that an orderly arrangement, a creating, a cosmos, has not as yet taken place."
He does not think the Lucifer in Isaiah 14 is a reference to Satan, but he does think the Ezekiel 28 passage probably alludes to Satan.
the compound rhyming expression indicates a state of material prior to its creation.
Regarding Ungert's circumstantial view:
"In the original language, Genesis 1:2 consists of three circumstantial clauses, all describing conditions or circumstances existing at the time of the principal action indicated in verse 1, or giving a reason for that action." -Ungert
Ungert uses Isaiah 45:18 and Job 38:4-7 to argue his case by stating that these passages point to an initial creation marked by order. Waltke disputes---full argument forthcoming.
***************************
Second article I found:
The Creation Account in Genesis 1 : 1-3 Part I : Introduction to Biblical Cosmogony
Bruce K. Waltke 2002
How different all this was from the Israelites' pagan neighbors. The scriptural story is a breath of fresh air in a stagnant room; it is light in the midst of darkness. According to Tablet VI of Enuma elish, man was created from the blood of Kingu, a rebel deity, and for the purpose of doing the work of the gods. The text reads:
They bound him Kingu] holding him before Ea, They imposed on him guilt and severed his blood (vessels).
Out of his blood they fashioned mankind: He [Ea] imposed the service and let free the gods. After Ea, the wise, had created mankind, Had imposed upon it the service of the gods That work was beyond comprehension ....
Having considered the basic text bearing on creation and chaos and its theological implications, the writer now turns to other texts of the Old Testament to test and to clarify his conclusions about creation and chaos. Most writers regard the divergent texts about creation as contradictory and make no attempt to harmonize them. But this skepticism is unworthy of a book that bears the earmarks of an Author in whom there is no confusion.
UGH "Fourth, it is significant to note that the psalmist begins creation with light, not with an earth devoid of form and covered with darkness. This psalm, then, does not differ from the proposed exegesis of Genesis 1.
What does Waltke believe then?
ISAIAH 45:7
This is the only verse in Scripture which states that God created
darkness. He is said to be "the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity."
NOT TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS ISSUE, EVEN WITH WALTKE
*************************
New Article by Waltke
The First Seven Days
Wlatke, Bruce.Christianity Today; Carol Stream Vol. 32, Iss. 11, (Aug 12, 1988): 42.
Concordists
Nonconcordists
Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.
Latest is that I read a reference that said that the Babylonian creation story predates and influenced this???
https://biologos.org/articles/genesis-1-and-a-babylonian-creation-story
Enuma Elish.
But with subsequent discoveries from other cultures (Sumerian, Egyptian, Canaanite) and other time periods, scholars came to a more sober conclusion: Babylonian culture did not have such a widespread influence, and Genesis 1 was not directly dependent on Enuma Elish.
Instead, these texts are two examples of the kinds of theological themes that pervaded numerous cultures over many centuries. The stories are not directly connected, but they share common ways of thinking about beginnings. They “breathe the same air.”
But this does not mean that the similarities can be minimized. Some scholars have gone to the other extreme saying there is no real value in comparing Genesis 1 to Enuma Elish.
Only a very small number of scholars think this way, however. It is very clear that these stories share a common, ancient, way of speaking about the beginning of the cosmos. They participate in a similar “conceptual world” where solid barriers keep the waters away, pre-existent chaotic material exists before order, and light before the sun, moon, and stars.
Those similarities should not be exaggerated or minimized. But they are telling us something: even though Genesis is unique, and even though Genesis is Scripture, it is an ancient story that reflects ancient ways of thinking.
Genesis 1 cries out to be understood in its ancient context, not separated from it. Stories like Enuma Elish give us a brief but important glimpse at how ancient Near Eastern people thought of beginnings. As I’ve written previously, ancient texts like Enuma Elish help us calibrate the genre of Genesis. That way we can learn to ask the questions Genesis 1 was written to address rather than intruding with our own questions.
https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-was-the-genesis-account-of-creation-interpreted-before-darwin
The inspired penman in this history [Genesis] … [wrote] for the Jews first and, calculating his narratives for the infant state of the church, describes things by their outward sensible appearances, and leaves us, by further discoveries of the divine light, to be led into the understanding of the mysteries couched under them.6
Wesley also argues the scriptures “were written not to gratify our curiosity [of the details] but to lead us to God.”7
Augustine offers this advice:
In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.
*******************************
. First, “As God unfolds the drama of creation in successive days, building to a climax, so God develops the drama of history through successive epochs, which reach a dramatic climax when all volitional creatures bow to Christ.Second, “The order of creation will undergird God’s later revelations regarding humanity’s social order. His law (the teachings of Scripture) is in harmony with the created order. Thus, to flout his revealed moral order is to contradict creation, his created reality.” ” -Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary
“Understanding that we are made in the image of God is essential for understanding our destiny and relationship to God. Without revelation humans become confused and depreciate themselves.” He further writes, “The narrator (of Genesis) does not systematically present abstract truths about the divine; rather he tells us a story about the Creator and his creation.”
Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2
He speaks to his creation, and in particular to humankind, but to bless them ‐ there is little or no sense of creation interacting with God or any part of creation partnering with God. This is a majestic account of an awesome.
This account shows an immanent God, intimately involved in and with his creation. If the Genesis One account is like a soaring gothic cathedral pointing to the glory of God, this account is an encounter with the personal God during a walk in the woods
The second account is focused on relationships.
When the structure “These are the generations of” occur elsewhere in Genesis it introduce a new section rather than acting as a conclusion and the chiasmic structure of Sean Kelleher Page 3 26/04/2009 this verse points towards it being treated as a single whole1 introducing the following account (Genesis 2/3) and by extension the rest of Genesis and the Pentateuch
While there is little evidence that Genesis Two is written in direct response to other ancient Near Eastern texts as is suggested for Genesis One, nevertheless it does share similarities to some texts of surrounding people, in particular to the aspects of the Sumerian flood story, the Epic of Gilgamesh7 and Atrahasis. 8 That the Yahwist has borrowed literary and mythical motifs from one or more surrounding cultures seems indisputable, but the story he has crafted is independent of, not primarily a response to or an elaboration on, those sources.
While there is wide consensus that these two narratives have their origins in separate source documents a variety of views exist about the dates of authorship, how and when those texts came together, and even in what order the two accounts were originally compiled9 . The Genesis Two account comes from the J tradition10 and the consensus has been that this is a tenth‐century work resting on a possibly older oral tradition.11
In contrast to the stories of many surrounding cultures, Genesis speaks of God working on behalf of humanity rather than humanity being created to do the slave work of God. At the heart of Genesis Two is the subject of relationships; God notes that it is not good for man to be alone.
The Yahwist recognises that we cannot be fulfilled individually but our humanity can only be properly realised in relationship with other people. This is, perhaps, the most important message Genesis has for the culture of the western world with its emphasis on the individual, in contrast to the African thinking explored in the Ubuntu theology of Archbishop Desmond Tutu that maintains “a person is a person through other persons” and “I am human because I belong. I participate. I share”.14
Both Genesis One and Genesis Two recognise the equality in nature of male and female, and yet also recognise a distinction between them.
Many of the considerations in the presentation of biblical texts in a teaching context would be similar to the considerations given to any other text. While the bible holds a particular and special status and authority within the church it is, nevertheless, a diverse collection of texts in a diverse selection of genres and styles and to fail to respect that is to fail to do justice to the text.
Students need to be introduced to the idea of reading them as stories and that stories, even stories of the same event, are written for a purpose and that purpose influences the way the story is told.18
The bible is primarily narrative in nature, and even those parts of the bible that are not explicitly narrative have a considerable amount of implied narrative and sit within the bible’s overarching meta‐narrative.
Biblical texts should not, therefore, be seen as sources of propositional statements to be extracted and rearranged in a more useful form, but as parts of the story of God’s work in creation.
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Rooker-Gen1Pt1-BSsac.htm
This article examines the theory of a period of chaos after creation (often called the gap theory) and the initial chaos theory, and the second article in the series analyzes the precreation chaos theory, the view endorsed by Waltke and other recent commentators on Genesis .4
https://www.kregel.com/books/pdfs/excerpts/9780825429415.pdfm,,,
No comments:
Post a Comment