Summary of Genesis, Part 2

By | May 25, 2015
0 Comment

Seed: Each creation produces after its own kind. Mankind gives birth to people who are distinct from all other created beings. But with the introduction of sin, man may choose to honor his Creator, thereby acting in the image of God, or man may choose to follow the serpent, thus becoming the serpent’s spiritual seed. God provides hope to Adam and Eve by revealing that one of their seed will crush the serpent. In longing for the fulfillment of this hope, the book of Genesis traces the seed of the righteous line through a series of toledot (family lines). The promised seed will come from Adam, from Seth (not Cain), from Noah, from Shem (not Ham or Japheth), from Abraham, from Isaac (not Ishmael), from Jacob (not Esau), from Judah (not Joseph or his brothers). While the blessing of God promises numerous descendants, only a single individual is expected to crush the head of the serpent (3:15), conquer the land of his enemies (22:17), bless all nations on earth (22:18), and rule over an earth restored to its original blessed state (49:10-12).

Land: God made man from the dust, to live on the land, to work the soil, and to subdue the earth. Man is a physical being whose existence is tied to the land. When man rebels against God, the ground is cursed. When man dies physically, his body returns to the dust. Man was made for the earth and his future hope is on this earth. God did not reject the earth, but plans to redeem the earth through the seed of the woman. Man will one day rule over the earth in complete submission to the Creator. God judged and re-created the land through the flood, thus showing his intention to redeem it so that man may rule over it as his representative. God promised to give one portion of this land (Canaan) to one man and his seed. This land was located in the center of the world so that the seed living in the land would bless all of the families of the world.

Blessing: God loves to bless his creatures. His blessing is particularly given along with a command to multiply and fill the earth (1:22). He blessed Adam when he commanded him to fill the earth, as he did Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob (1:28; 9:1; 12:2; 17:16, 20; 22:17; 26:3-4; 35:9-12). God’s blessing is intended not for one family only, but for all nations of the world. These peoples would be blessed as they came into contact with God’s chosen family and as they blessed them (12:3; 22:18; 27:29; e.g., Abimelech, Potiphar, Pharaoh). Those who cursed God’s chosen family were effectively cursing God and would themselves be cursed (e.g., Cain, Ham/Canaan, Pharaoh, Abimelech, Laban). God gave the chosen family the ability to pass on the blessing to their seed. Ultimately the greatest blessing would come through a single seed who would crush the serpent, defeat God’s enemies, and bring peace and prosperity to all peoples submitted to God and the seed (3:15; 22:17-18; 49:10-12).

Summary of Genesis, Part 1

By | May 23, 2015
0 Comment

Here are my conclusions after spending the last year of my life in this most amazing first book of the Bible.

The book of Genesis fills 50 chapters and spans thousands of years, and though its stories are familiar to many, summarizing its essential message is more difficult. Genesis is often explained by a series of events (creation, fall, flood, Babel) and people (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph), but how do these fit together? What are the primary themes and how do they contribute to the author’s main idea? What is God doing in Genesis and what does he want the readers to understand?

God: God is. God exists before and apart from his creation. He alone has no beginning. He creates, and all that he creates is good. When man rebels, God provides the hope of restoration. God judges and God saves. God chooses Noah and God chooses Abraham. God’s grace triumphs over sin, and God’s purpose stands despite man’s failure.

Creation: God created the sun, the moon, and the stars, but the centerpiece of his creation is earth. God created waters, but his primary interest is in the land. God created animals, but only humans are made in God’s image. God completes his creation in six days, and God is satisfied with his creation. God’s creation is corrupted by man and God places it under a curse for a time. God intends to redeem his creation.

Humans: God created a man and a woman in his image in order that they might represent him on earth and rule over all creation. He blesses them and commands them to fill the earth and subdue it. When they refuse to submit to their Creator, they are separated from him and their mission to fill the earth and subdue it are made more difficult by God’s judgment. Most people follow in the way of the serpent rather than the way of God. God chooses a series of individuals to carry out his purposes.

Sin: What begins as one act in the garden soon fills the earth as mankind repeatedly rebels en masse against their creator. Every person is guilty of sin and faces judgment, but the hope that one can be restored to God is clear from individuals such as Enoch, Noah, and Abraham. As a result of man’s sin, every person dies, the world is destroyed by waters, and languages are confused. God’s judgments are intended to end worldwide rebellion and bring hope to a preserved remnant.

Genesis Commentaries

By | May 21, 2015
6 Comments

I recently finished teaching a class on Genesis at the college (which somewhat overlapped co-teaching Genesis in Sunday School). My preparation included reading five commentaries each week, besides notes I had from a commentary I had read previously. I thought I might just summarize my opinion of each in case anyone might have need in the future.

Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1:1–11:26, New American Commentary, 1996.
Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 11:27–50:26, New American Commentary, 2005.

Of those I read, this one is hands-down the best commentary on the book. It is also one of the longest, so it may not be best for you. Mathews is very conservative, thorough, and generally comes to what I regard as the best conclusion.

Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 1967.

Kidner is on the other end of the spectrum with regard to length, but he regularly captures the main ideas and expresses them beautifully. Kidner is also terrific on Psalms, and this morning I discovered his brief commentary on Isaiah (in the New Bible Commentary, 4th ed.). I will read them all.

Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, JPS Torah Commentary, 1989.

Sarna gives the Jewish perspective and he often serves as the source for later commentators (esp. Waltke). Not only does he provide helpful language and rabbinic insights, he is strong in ancient Near Eastern background. Though this one wouldn’t be ideal if it was your only commentary, it is ideal when read with others.

Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary, 2001.

I read Waltke years ago and had my son type out my notes. So each week I would review particular insights that had stood out to me. They are often good and certainly worth enduring his occasional Reformed interpretation. (Waltke is a man of the text and so it is interesting to watch him contradict himself, giving his theological view in one place and what the text says elsewhere.)

Robert Alter. Genesis: Translation and Commentary, 1996.

Alter is another Jewish scholar, a longtime professor of Hebrew literature at UC Berkeley. He brings a fresh perspective to the text and while I often don’t agree with him, I also often find him saying things I hadn’t thought of or read anywhere else.

Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing, 1996.

Ross’s commentary is expositional, so he is not going verse by verse. Instead his approach is to help the pastor or teacher understand the passage and how they can present it to their congregation. His great contribution is in application.

I close with three “honorable mentions,” none of which I read completely or recently for these classes, but which I have found to be valuable.

T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land, 2012.

This work is a general introduction to the Pentateuch and it was my required text for the college Genesis class. While Alexander has quite a few problems with regard to higher critical issues, he is very strong in understanding the main themes of Genesis. I recommend chapters 9-12 (in the third edition).

Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty, 2003.

This work covers the entire Old Testament, but since getting that right is so dependent upon getting Genesis right, he spends a lot of time here. He too is strong on understanding what the book is saying. If you ‘re looking to go beyond the stories or the individual chapters and verses, you ‘ll appreciate this. (The title gives away what he believes Genesis, and the OT, is all about.)

James Montgomery Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary, 3 vols., 1998.

These are collected sermons, edited for publication. Boice is a good interpreter and while his sermons aren’t always close to the text (but whose are?), they are quite good at application. Since this is weak in the above list, I thought it would be a good closer.

I have not posted my teaching handouts here, but I am willing to share them with friends who inquire.

Quotes from The Devil’s Delusion

By | February 3, 2015
0 Comment

Here are a few interesting quotes from The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski (2nd edition, 2009). Thanks to Katie for typing them out for me.

“Is there a God who has among other things created the universe? ‘It is not by conclusions, ‘ C.F. von Weizsacker has written in The Relevance of Science, ‘but by its methodological starting point that modern science excludes direct creation. Our methodology would not be honest if this fact were denied… such is faith in the science of our time, which we all share ‘ (italics added)” (61).

“Many physicists have found the idea that the universe had a beginning alarming. ‘So long as the universe had a beginning, ‘ Stephen Hawking has written, ‘we could suppose it had a creator. ‘ God forbid! Nonetheless, there is a very natural connection between the fact that the universe had a beginning and the hypothesis that it had a creator. It is a connection so plain that, glowing with its energy, it may be seen in the dark. Although questions may be raised about what it means, the connection itself cannot be ignored. ‘The best data we have concerning the big bang, ‘ the Nobel laureate Arno Penzias remarked, ‘are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole ‘” (70-71).

“‘Scientists, ‘ the physicist Paul Davies has observed, ‘are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth—the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient ‘coincidences ‘ and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal ‘” (110-111).

“We do not have a serious scientific theory explaining the powers and properties of the human mind. The claim that the human mind is the product of evolution is not unassailable fact. It is barely coherent. The idea that man was created in the image of God remains what it has always been: And that is the instinctive default position of the human race” (179).

“Suspicions about Darwin’s theory arise for two reasons. The first: the theory makes little sense. The second: it is supported by little evidence” (187).

“Of those important issues, I would mention prominently the question whether natural selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not” (190).

“The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: it is unpersuasive. Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests. ‘Darwin? ‘ a Nobel laureate in biology once remarked to me over his bifocals. ‘That’s just the party line ‘” (192).

“Whatever the degree to which Darwin may have ‘misled science into a dead end, ‘ the biologist Shi. V. Liu observed in commenting on Koonin’s paper, ‘we may still appreciate the role of Darwin in helping scientists [win an] upper hand in fighting against the creationists ‘” (197).

Berlinski is a secular Jew. I recommend the book.

September 2

By | September 2, 2014
0 Comment

I’ve collected these links over quite a long time. As long as you don’t limit your reading to the most recent, you may find something of interest here.

Is this the next (honest) Lance Armstrong? This Washington Post profile will teach you more about the sport of cycling.

What a Difference Six Years Can Make – this short article by Kevin DeYoung asks how one’s rejection of homosexual marriage can be acceptable one day and mindless bigotry the next.

Was Bonhoeffer Gay? And Other Adventures in Missing the Point – short and insightful article by Trevin Wax.

How Can I Be Sure I’m a Christian? Andy Naselli provides a helpful summary of Don Whitney’s book.

If you thought that Psalms was the longest book in the Bible, you might want to check out this chart.

Millennial Views: More Misconceptions about Dispensationalism

By | March 4, 2014
0 Comment

Sometimes I think that dispensationalism is represented out of ignorance, but other times I am not so sure. In any case, it is one thing for students of the Scripture to reject dispensationalism when they understand it correctly and something else when they are rejecting a caricature. Here are four more misconceptions:

5. The escape from all trials. Dispensationalists do not believe that Christians will not face tribulations and even suffer martyrdom. They do believe that the Church will not be on earth when God pours out his just wrath on an unbelieving world during a seven-year Tribulation prior to Jesus’s return to establish his kingdom.

6. A wooden literalism in the interpretation of Scriptures. Dispensationalists accept figures of speech and symbols according to the author’s intention. They deny that what all would have understood as literal in the OT became symbolic because of NT revelation. They believe that NT revelation is consistent with the OT and no change is necessary or permissible. (For example, Ezekiel’s temple should be understood as a physical building in Jerusalem and not as some spiritual symbol of the church or New Jerusalem.)

7. An inherent preoccupation with timelines and date-setting. Because the dispensational view takes Scripture literally there are lots of details which they believe God has revealed. (By spiritualizing these details, the other views know very little about the future.) This provokes greater study in an effort to understand God’s plan correctly. Some untrained or unbalanced individuals have made sensational claims but these are not intrinsic to dispensationalism.

8. The newness of the system. Opponents frequently try to bias others against the view by claiming that dispensationalism was only first begun in the early 1800s. But it is very similar to the writings of the early church. And a similar charge could have been made by the Catholics against the Reformers in the 16th century. The real issue is whether it is correct to interpret the Bible according to the author’s intention or whether some passages must be re-interpreted (changed) in light of later revelation.

If you want to read more about this issue, I would recommend Dan Phillips ‘ article, Twenty-five stupid reasons for dissing dispensationalism.

If you would like a copy of this Millennial Views series, you can download a pdf of it here.

Millennial Views: Misconceptions about Dispensationalism

By | March 2, 2014
0 Comment

Perhaps without exception, dispensationalism is not accurately understood or described by those who do not accept it. One common failure is to emphasize features that were articulated by one person 100 years ago but which are not widely held today. Opponents often stress aspects that dispensationalists do not believe. This includes:

1. The significance of dispensations. Dispensationalism no more needs dispensations than any other view. (All believe that God’s ways of working have changed with time; for instance, no one believes sacrifices are required today.) Proposals about “tests” and “failures,” as well as the number (4, 5, 6, 7, 8), are at best peripheral to the view.

2. A distinction in salvation. Dispensationalists do not believe that Israel and the church are saved in different ways. They insist that all people in all times are saved through faith in God’s provision of the death of Jesus on the cross.

3. A contrast between earthly people and spiritual people. Israel is just as earthly as the church and just as spiritual. Both Israel and the church live on the earth and will live on the earth in the future kingdom. Both Israel and the church are spiritual to the degree that they are submitted to God’s will and living by his Spirit.

4. A claim that the church is outside of God’s original plan. God always planned to bless the nations (Gentiles) through Israel. But God did not reveal prior to Israel’s rejection of their Messiah that he would establish a single body of Jews and Gentiles in order to provoke Israel to jealousy. This lack of revelation in the OT is why Paul called the church a mystery (Eph 3). It’s not surprising that God would not reveal this reality given the sincere desire that Israel would embrace its Messiah.

I ‘ll finish this series tomorrow with some additional misconceptions.

Millennial Views: How It Affects Your Life Now

By | February 28, 2014
0 Comment

One’s view of the millennium affects more than the way one would draw an end-time chart. As is clear from the previous posts, some see “end times” events as occurring right now whereas others believe they are yet future. This has a significant impact on what one believes about God’s work in the world today and the role of the church in society.

Amillennialism: If you believe that we are living in the millennial kingdom today, you see the spread of the gospel as bringing God’s kingdom to more people. The church is now fulfilling God’s promises to bless the world. Your future hope is in heaven in eternity, not in the fulfillment of God’s purposes on this earth.

Postmillennialism: If you believe that society will ultimately become entirely Christian, you view the church’s mission as one of permeating society in order to bring it in submission to God. The return of Jesus is dependent upon the transformation of this world into what God originally intended in the Garden of Eden.

Dispensational Premillennialism: If you believe that society will ultimately unite against God and the people of Israel, you will focus on personal evangelism so that individuals are saved before God’s wrath falls upon this earth. Because you believe in a pretribulational rapture, you do not fear the awful days predicted in Revelation. Israel is usually treated with kid gloves because God’s promises to bless his people will be fulfilled in the future.

Historic Premillennialism: If you believe that only Jesus can establish a righteous kingdom on earth, you will not put great efforts in transforming society through politics. Though you do not believe that the rapture will occur before the tribulation, you trust that God will keep his believers from apostatizing during the outpouring of his wrath. Israel has no future as an entity but individual Jews who trust Jesus will be saved in the church.

Millennial Views: Two Types of Premillennialism

By | February 25, 2014
2 Comments

I am convinced that premillennialism is the best interpretation of the biblical texts of God’s plan for the future, but I am much more comfortable with what is known today as the dispensational variety of premillennialism. What’s the difference between what I believe and what someone like John Piper would affirm?

Historic premillennialism sits on the eschatological spectrum between amillennialism and dispensational premillennialism. It shares with dispensationalism the belief that Jesus will return before the millennium to establish his kingdom on earth. It shares with amillennialism the belief that Israel’s future is solely as part of the church.

Dispensationalism makes the divide between church and Israel sharper by (1) emphasizing the literal fulfillment of OT promises to ethnic, national Israel; (2) seeing Daniel’s 70th week as part of God’s purpose for Israel and thus (3) placing the rapture of the church before the 70th week (the 7-year tribulation).

Historic premillennialism agrees with amillennialism in uniting the rapture with Jesus’s return: the church is called up to heaven in order to greet King Jesus and usher him back to the earth to rule. Dispensationalism separates the rapture from Jesus’s descent because of (1) the belief that the church will not face God’s wrath on earth; (2) the belief that during the tribulation God will work directly with Israel without the intermediate agency of the church; (3) the belief that a rapture only in order to return immediately to earth is unnecessary.

Historic premillennialism is so called because this view was held in the early church. Dispensational premillennialism is alleged to have only begun in the early 1800s. It is poorly named because (1) every view acknowledges dispensations in history; (2) the presence and character of dispensations is not a central feature of the view. Dispensational premillennialism has one major tenet that distinguishes them from all other views: Scripture is to be interpreted literally according to the author’s intention in a consistent fashion. This accepts the presence of figurative language and symbols, but it requires textual evidence for such.

They argue that just because a number may have symbolic value (e.g., 7 and 12 have significance throughout history), this does not necessarily mean that the number is not also literal. (For example, the 7 churches of Revelation may represent the church as a whole, but they also refer to 7 specific congregations.) 1,000 years may refer to a complete period of time, but there is no textual evidence that it is not actually 1,000 years long. Dispensationalists fault the other views for being inconsistent in their interpretation of Scripture and allowing logic and theology to change the meaning of texts.

Next time I plan to look at the effects that one’s eschatology has on your view of the world and the church.