I’m posting some excerpts of my class notes from Torah/Former Prophets. I do this only for those of you who enjoy sort of “peeking into” a doctoral course. I emphatically am not doing this 1) because I whole-heartedly agree with everything I heard; 2) because I completely reject everything and want everyone to laugh with me; 3) because everyone (or most, some, or even one other person) at this school agrees with this teacher; 4) because I want to have a big debate here. I do it for none of those reasons. In fact, I plan to not make one single comment. If you’re not sure what I believe, you might start by looking at the TMC doctrinal statement. Otherwise, see points #1, #2, #3, and #4 above. These notes are not complete, and I leave out parts of the discussion because of the nature of the blog. Again, my goal here isn’t to give you enough to convince you of a position (one way or the other), but to give you a taste of some things that I heard and to provoke your thinking. We now begin…
The Professor highly recommends James Houston, I Believe in God the Creator. Wonderful book; well written. His emphasis is that Gen 1 is not focused on creatio ex nihilo. That is shocking to many. It is almost a staple in evangelical circles that Gen 1 is about creation ex nihilo. Professor is going to argue that exegetically this is not the case at all. Houston says that even if this were true, that’s not the point. There is nothing in Gen 1 that requires ex nihilo – this is a statement of the church. What it does say is creation per verbum – creation by word. This is more far satisfying exegetically. Not how much creation was done in time as that it was done by the word of God.
Houston acknowledges the possibility of theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is not an anti-Christian view. Because after all it is theistic. That means that God is behind the evolutionary process. Professor would have thought when he graduated from DTS in 1968 and began teaching at Western in 1970 that you couldn’t be a theistic evolution and be a Christian. He was pretty sure that was the case. Houston argues against theistic evolution as a good idea because while the theism is commendable it is a distant theism and not a present theism and doesn’t matter in people’s daily lives.
Rad, Gerhard von. – when you alphabetize a bibliography, do it this way. von is an archaic sign of a family that is noble, from feudal times; honorific, and not really a name. von Rad – Lord of Rad. Alphabetize under Rad. But the same thing should be true in Dutch names, but the tendency is to alphabetize under “V”. Dutch name with de – that’s done under D. von rad is someone you really should read, not because of his understanding of origin of Bible text but because of his often unbelievably wonderful insights into meaning.
In 1983 there was a meeting of inerrantists, convened by Int ‘l Council of Biblical Inerrancy, in Chicago, and overall theme was hermeneutics. More than 2,000 participants, and all believed in inerrancy. At end of day, moderator (possibly Walter Kaiser) asked for a raise of hands because there was a lot of heat in the interchange of how many are in basic agreement on presentation on main paper, and also young earth view. Professor watched hands and he would guess 2/3 were for progressive creation view and only 1/3 for young earth view. He saw Henry Morris sink in his chair and start tearing. So Professor went over and invited him to lunch. When Professor asked him at lunch, he teared up again. Morris said that he believed these people didn’t believe the Bible. He said that they don’t believe the Bible is inerrant because if they don’t believe the Bible the way I do, then they don’t believe the Bible. This in Professor’s view is the biggest problem with young earth creationism – take it or leave it. This is Bush vs. terrorism. They believe that it is not a point of view, but the point of view.
The most important word in Genesis 1 is elohim (God). The most important word other than God is bara (created). There has been a lot of misstatement about this word. It is stated so loudly and strongly by so many people that to say that it isn’t true is to make someone think that you don’t know what you ‘re talking about. The word bara is stated by many to be created out of nothing (and they say it in Latin to say it strong). Word bara is used in topic sentence for the story of creation. Word bara is also used most significantly with reference to creation of man as male and female. V. 26 – alternation between asa and bara…Gen 1 describes Creation of man by using asa, but in v27 bara is used three times. If bara means to make out of nothing, then it means that man was made out of nothing.
Where did we ever come up with creation ex nihilo? It was not an exegetical decision. It was a Bible reader making a theological decision. Logically, creation must mean out of nothing, therefore since bara was used, that is what bara must mean. Not a lexical or exegetical decision, but purely theology. Eisegesis. Exegesis is not an evil act, but an innocent act of reading the Bible the best you can and in advertently bringing something outside in.
Years ago, Professor went to a evangelical gay and lesbian seminar at Denver Seminary. A guest prof at summer school had someone come and speak positively about homosexuality. By the time it took place it was on a Saturday 9-5 in the chapel with no administrator having any idea about it going on. But someone called a reporter and it was covered in the Rocky Mountain News: Denver Seminary invites gay and lesbian leaders to inform their students of the advantages of gay and lesbian lifestyle.
So Professor attended part of it, and a speaker was addressing Romans 1:26. He said that since homosexuality is the way that god has made me and it is my nature, this passage has nothing to do with me or anyone else on the platform. When we engage in homosexuality, that is our God-given nature. What this passage is against, he said (with a straight face) is heterosexuals experimenting with homosexual encounters because they are going against their natures and that is against God. So if you are a straight person, you cannot commit homosexuality. He said, if we were to engage in heterosexual relations, in marriage or out, that would be against our nature and condemned by God. Professor: that is metagesis – you don’t like it so you change it.
But I thought you were a young earth guy, Todd!!!!!
Kidding. Very interesting stuff. Still pretty tame relative to the secular Bible scholars out there, but definitely thought-provoking. Which is to say, it makes me want to do some homework and then start arguing. =) I love academia.
“Morris said that he believed these people didn ‘t believe the Bible.”
That’s unfortunate. Personally, I believe the Progressive Creationists [PC] just don’t understand the level of scientific assumptions that comprise Evolutionism. If they did, they wouldn’t work so hard to force the Bible to conform to it (e.g., that animal deaths preceded Adam’s sin, & that statements such as “world” in Roman’s 5:12 embrace only humans; this fails to take into account the future world we glimpse in Isaiah 11:6-9, 65:25, & Hosea 2:18; I don’t understand why any PC would want to hope for a Heaven filled with animals hunting/killing each other).
“This in Professor ‘s view is the biggest problem with young earth creationism – take it or leave it.”
Oh, that has to be the dumbest argument against it–Dumb with a bold capital “D”–like as if the Bible isn’t full of take/leave situations! Honor your father & your mother sometimes. And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him; and the LORD left the door half-open/half-closed. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, had the option of residing in a lakeside cottage. I have set before you life & death, blessing & cursing; therefore choose something halfway in between these options so you won’t offend anyone.
WOW…it sound like you accidentally stumbled into Dr. Fred Bush ‘s Pentateuch class at Fuller Seminary, not DTS. For what it ‘s worth, I do think he ‘s on to something.
I find that people who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 don ‘t hold that literal standard to everything else in the Bible. How many of them insist women cover their heads when they pray or believe that the witch of Endor literally conjured up the real Samuel.
What ‘s important is that Gen 1 shows that God created everything that is with purpose and intention. After that, 7 days or a billion years is just a side discussion.
BTW, remember that the best professors stretch you.
Al,
Paragraph 1: I think it’s probably true that lots of conceptions about various schools/seminaries are inaccurate.
Paragraph 2: Give me a break. Literal interpretation doesn’t mean that you deny context, cultural situations, or figurative language.
Paragraph 3: You only say that because of apparent conflicts with modern science. Without modern science, Gen 1 seems to be all about chronology.
BTW – Amen!
>You only say that because of apparent conflicts with modern science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I do think that faith and science are two different disciplines that run by different rules, so evaluating one by the other often simply doesn’t work because they start from completely different assumptions.
That said, I think there are times when science has changed everyone ‘s interpretation of a Biblical text. It ‘s likely that when an ancient Hebrew read (or, more likely heard) Joshua 10:13, they assumed the literal text was right and that a sun that revolved around the earth had stopped it ‘s motion.
I wonder if there is a Biblical scholar anywhere that would say that was true today. Even if you assume a literal interpretation, you would have to say that the earth stopped it ‘s rotation – not that the Sun stopped. And the only reason you would adopt this view is “because of apparent conflicts with modern science”.
Welcome Todd, welcome. Meta-gesis. I love it.
Al – I think it is appropriate to distinguish between the “language of appearance” and false statement. What I feel that many mean when they talk about faith and science being separate is that you can’t trust the Bible whenever it talks about something related to science. When the Bible talks about the “sun setting,” I don’t think it’s in error any more than when the NY Times uses the same phrase. In the same way, I think one could believe that the biblical writer can refer to the sun standing still even if in reality it was the earth’s rotation that was stopped. Back to Genesis, I am not comfortable with the view that Genesis 1 was written to teach only theology (God is really great) when it says so much more. I much prefer the approach that says that the biblical writer thought it was true but was mistaken, to the view that wants to make it all a grand fairy tale. All that said, I know I have a lot to learn and I plan to make the most of my class.
From what I can gather from the this post the Bible reader doesn ‘t know if God created out of nothing, or if God had something to create the universe or use a process to develop creation which we would call Theistic Evolution. It is in interesting point, that is, the bible reader has read into (Eisegesis) the creation account and as a result came up with ex nihilo. What the bible reader has to look at, is the ramification for believing either view:
The Theistic Evolutionists have to believe the following:
Matter is pre-existing
Mutation and selection
Long ages required
Death is essential
Present is key to the past
The Biblical Creationists have to believe the following:
Matter is not pre-existing
God created ex nihilo
Universal flood explains geology
Death is a result of sin
Past is key to the present
Which one agrees more with the bible?
These were notes taken form Dr. Francis in a class lecture in Foundations of Science.
Awesome post Todd. I just wrote a little research paper for an astronomy class I took during winterim, on the same subject, but more about the astronomical ideas encompassing the young-earth vs old-earth business. In any case, Bobby A, you brought up one of my concluding points on the matter. The trouble I have with the Creationist viewpoint is that it automatically deems itself to be based on the foundation of the “the Truth” (two definite articles and capitalization purposeful). Anyway, an interesting post, and I hope everything is going well at DTS.
Todd,
Thanks for the good discussion. Perhaps academia has been too influenced by theories of “higher criticism” but I ‘m amazed that few consider the thematic development by Moses in explaining to the Israelites of the Exodus about the God in their midst in the pillar of cloud/fire. Coming through polytheistic cultures it appears in Genesis 1 Moses is declaring:
1) The God they follow is the Creator God, not simply a “local god.” Therefore identifying God as Elohim, since “El” was known among various peoples as the creator God.
2) The unique relationship this explains between God and creation thus requires that all creation obeys God perfectly. So chapter one stresses the commands of God as the mechanism of creation. (He commands the earth to bring forth animal life and it does, etc.) This is preparing for the contrast of man ‘s response to His command in chapter two/three.
3) The purpose for which God made man, soon shown to be disrupted by the fall, which redeemed man will eventually return to as restated in Revelation 5:10.
These seems to be the big “don ‘t miss this” points of chapter one. I don ‘t mean to dismiss the importance of the other detail that is given, since Jesus uses that detail in regards to the error of cursing man, the permanence of marriage, etc. However, there is thematic development of a purposed argument, and recognizing that helps us see the inerrancy of scripture, seeing the details as used contextually in the argument development.
Of course, chapter 2 begins the theme of man ‘s interactive relationship with God, making the YHWH name of God entirely appropriate to that chapter. If only the developers of JEPD had focused on the underlying argument…