eBook
Related collections and offers
Overview
The faculty of The Master's College come together to contend that the second and third chapters of Genesis are indeed historical, that there are excellent reasons for believing so, and that it is an essential issue within Christian thought and life. The contents of these chapters establish the history of how everything in the world came to be what it is today. This Scripture passage—-Genesis 3 especially—-explains what we observe in the legal system, literature, gender roles, education, psychology, and science. Far from irrelevant, the theology and historicity of Genesis are in fact critical to our everyday lives.
What Happened in the Garden? includes new scientific, literary, business, educational, and legal perspectives on creation. Through this multidisciplinary look at the debate, the contributors prove that to change our understanding of the fall is to change the way we understand reality, to revise the Christian worldview, and to reshape the faith itself.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780825478727 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Kregel Academic |
| Publication date: | 04/27/2016 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| File size: | 3 MB |
About the Author
His other works include I Saw the Lord: A Biblical Theology of Vision and a commentaryon Lamentations (Evangelical Exegetical Commentary).
Read an Excerpt
What Happened in the Garden
The Reality and Ramifications of the Creation and Fall of Man
By Abner Chou
Kregel Publications
Copyright © 2016 The Master's CollegeAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-8254-4209-4
CHAPTER 1
"Did God Really Say ...?" — Hermeneutics and History in Genesis 3
Abner Chou
The supposed conflict between Genesis 3, its historicity, and science presumes certain realities. For one, it assumes certain conclusions on the level of science which my colleagues cover in chapters 2–3 of this book. It equally assumes a certain interpretation of Genesis 3. Traditionally we view Genesis 1–3 as historical, describing particular events that happened in the past. Hence, we might read Genesis 3 as follows: At the beginning of human history, when there was only one man and one woman (Gen 2:22–23), a serpent tempted the woman and Adam to eat the forbidden fruit (Gen 3:1–8). Adam succumbed, plunging creation into the consequences of sin (vv. 14–24). Although the text seems to say this at first glance, the advent of modern science causes such a scenario to be questioned on a variety of fronts.
However, what happens if the interpretation I gave is wrong? What happens if we misconstrued God's intent and He never claimed what we stated? Perhaps this entire debate is misguided because we have drawn the wrong conclusions.
Before shrugging off these ideas, we need to understand that these issues are important. Do we really want to misrepresent what God has said? The Lord has demanded careful handling of His Word (cf. 2 Tim 2:15). False teachers are those who twist the Scripture to their own destruction (2 Pet 3:16) and we do not want to fall anywhere near that camp. Thus, we should never handle these accusations lightly. They should spur us on to take another serious look at the text and to make sure "thus says the Lord."
Accordingly, this raises the question much like the one the serpent posed to Eve, "Did God really say ...?" (Gen 3:1). Admittedly, this is a double entendre. On one hand, the question of this entire book asks whether God really said these words to Adam. Was any of that historical? On the other hand, particularly for this chapter, we also want to know what God really intended in these opening chapters of the Bible. Have we just assumed that our reading of Scripture is correct? How do we know if it is true?
This brings us to the subject matter of hermeneutics or the study of how the Bible works and how we read it. My goal in this chapter is for us to tackle certain hermeneutical issues that surround Genesis 1–3. Through this, we can have more confidence that the way we have read Genesis 1–3 is accurate. Even more, I hope that we will be able to better read the Bible as a whole as we understand how history and theology work together in the Scriptures.
The Hermeneutical Issues
What are the hermeneutical issues that surround Genesis 1–3? Why could we be mistaken in our reading of that text as history? Objections against interpreting Genesis 1–3 revolve around two major arguments. One concerns the nature and claims of Genesis 1–3 itself. The other discusses how hermeneutics works in general. The following will help us understand these issues better.
Exegetical Issues Surrounding Genesis 1–3
The first objection focuses upon the textual features of Genesis 1–3. Scholars contend that the author of Genesis never intended for the text to portray actual events. Instead, the writer used stories to communicate certain theological truths about man, the world, and the purpose of Israel. The story was not designed to show how people were made but rather the purpose and nature of their existence. Instead of formation the passage concerns function. Thus, people who read it as historical narrative miss what the text actually claims. Just as we do not believe a parable necessarily happened in history, we should not think that Genesis 1–3 occurred in the past. To do otherwise grossly misinterprets the text. In essence, these scholars argue that we have read the text asking the wrong set of questions.
What is the evidence for this? To begin with, one might compare Genesis 1–3 with other ancient near eastern (ANE) myths. Scholars observe that ANE stories do not concentrate upon material origins. For example, in some ANE stories, pagan gods create lesser gods (or humans) who represent different vocations. This would communicate to the ancient audience the different tasks in the world and how they were to operate. Such "creation stories" are really trying to explain the way the world works. This is function over formation.
Even more, the Genesis account seems to parallel these stories in a variety of ways. For example, Enuma Elish, a Babylonian myth, records the presence of a firmament with waters above and below like in Genesis 1:6. The same story discusses a goddess named "Tiamat" which sounds a lot like the word for "depths" in Genesis 1:2 ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], tehom). On top of this, we observe that both Genesis 1–3 and ANE stories deal with agriculture by irrigation (Enuma Elish; cf. Genesis 2:5) as well as describe plants that confer immortality (Gilgamesh Epic; cf. Genesis 2:9), serpents (Gilgamesh Epic; cf. Genesis 3:1), and how man angers the gods (Atrahasis; Eridu Genesis; cf. Genesis 3:8–11).
Since we are covering the issue of Adam, we can specifically note parallels between ANE myths and the formation of man in Genesis 2:7. In Atrahasis, humans are made out of clay, flesh, and blood to serve the gods. In Enki and Nimah, Enki, the god of subterranean waters, makes man from some excess clay. The Gilgamesh Epic also makes reference to how man was made out of clay. Does this not sound somewhat similar to Genesis 2:7?
These parallels are substantial. If ANE stories are meant to explain the order of the world (as opposed to its origins) and if the biblical record sounds like these tales, then why would the original audience ever have thought that Genesis 1–3 concerned the origins of the world? Based upon this, scholars argue that reading Genesis 1–3 as history would be foreign to the audience. They would never have read the text with that in mind and neither should we.
Evidence for a more parabolic reading is not only based upon external evidence (ANE background) but also upon internal factors. For instance, the organization of days seems to indicate that the text's emphasis is on the functionality of creation. Days 1–3 provide differing locales, which days 4–6 respectively fill. By the stars filling the heavens (Gen 1:16), the fish occupying the sea (Gen 1:20–21), and man and animals living on the land (Gen 1:24–26), we observe that God shows how creation is to operate. Thus, scholars suggest that Moses intends to communicate function over formation.
In addition, Walton argues that words like "create" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], br'), "make" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 'sh), and "form" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], ysr) all pertain to the notion of shaping something for a purpose as opposed to material creation. Of particular interest is the term "create" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], br') since the word in its English translation would seem to indicate how God made the world materially. However, Walton points out that God creates immaterial entities (like a "pure heart," Ps 51:10, or a "new thing," Jer 31:22), which may imply that the Hebrew idea may not fundamentally be "to create" as we think of it. The word may not refer to making something but rather giving something purpose. Again, the stress would be on function over formation.
Advocates of reading Genesis 1–3 ahistorically would also point out that the text has rich theology. To them, Eden appears to be like a cosmic temple and, indeed, the tabernacle and temple seem to draw from the imagery of Eden. In fact, Postell observes some fascinating parallels between God's work in Eden and Moses' labor on the tabernacle. In addition, Adam seems prototypical of great kings like Solomon. Both of them share knowledge over trees, cattle, flying creatures, creeping things, and fish (1 Kgs 4:33), which mirrors the language of Genesis 1:26–28. Thus, the story of Adam appears to be about the theology of a true king. Some also suggest that Adam's and Eve's expulsion from the Garden may parallel Israel's expulsion from their own land. Scholars, observing such great theology, conclude that this is the main point of Genesis 1–3 and say that concentrating on the historicity of Genesis 1–3 misses the point.
Overall, scholars point to the historical backgrounds of Genesis 1–3 as well as internal evidence to suggest that historicity is not the text's focus. The original readers would never have read it that way. We should not read these chapters to learn how mankind was formed but rather how humanity functions in this world. For certain scholars, that is the way to read the text per the author's intent.
Hermeneutical Issue of History and Theology
The second camp of scholars does not disagree with what has been said above. Nevertheless, they not only see exegetical issues surrounding Genesis 1–3 but they also take issue with traditional hermeneutical methodology. This pertains to how we deal with history and theology. Traditional hermeneutics gives equal weight to both of these things. It cares about the history that a text supposedly described and to the theology it communicates. However, these scholars would say that such an interpretative methodology is flawed based upon how God wrote the Bible. They assert that God accommodated His message to the ancient readers so that they would understand His truth. Thus, He communicated His ideas in the stories, cultural practices, language, and even the (flawed) worldview of the writer and his audience.
Based upon this, scholars argue that stories, like in Genesis 1–3, were merely an accommodation to the audience. They were just a vehicle that communicated truth but were never meant to be taken as the truth. Thus, our hermeneutical practice must separate the "incident" or "story" from the eternal message. This is not only the case in Genesis 1–3 but is also to be applied across the Scriptures.
According to these theologians, this new methodology is not as drastic of a shift as one might think. They would contend we already do this quite frequently. For example, do we believe that the heavens are a solid dome? I think most of us would answer negatively. However, the Bible uses the word "firmament" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], raqia'), which may denote that idea. Similarly, do we believe in a three-tiered universe of heavens above, the earth, and the underworld? The biblical texts seem to assert that very paradigm (Phil 2:10). We could also cite instances where the Bible describes how the sun rises and falls (2 Sam 23:4; Ps 104:22) and the earth does not move (Ps 93:1). One scholar cited Jesus' parable of the mustard seed as an illustration since our Lord claims that the mustard seed is smallest of the seeds (Matt 13:32) when it actually is not. Should we accept His claim about the size of mustard seeds or see the truth He is trying to illustrate? Thus, it appears that those who take Genesis as history are inconsistent. On one hand, we argue that Genesis 1–3 is history and must be accepted as the account of our origin. On the other hand, we reject other texts' claims about the nature of the universe. To these scholars, this is evidence that we ought to separate theology from the accommodation that God made to His original readers.
My intent in discussing these theories is not to scare or overwhelm the reader. I also am not claiming that I adhere to these ideas. Rather, my point is that the hermeneutical objections against historicity are real and substantial. They pertain not only to Genesis 1–3 itself but also to broader questions of how God wrote the Bible and how we ought to read it. It is with this background that we can better see how to evaluate our own understanding of hermeneutics and sharpen our reading of Genesis 1–3.
Indivisibility of History and Theology
Thesis: History as Grounds of Theology
In approaching these issues, I will first deal with whether or not we need to adjust our overarching hermeneutic. Should we separate the event described in the text from its message? Does the Bible divorce history from its theology? As discussed, these types of questions presume that the Bible works a certain way. Namely, God views the stories of Scripture as merely a vehicle that illustrates or communicates the truth. The following discussion seeks to address whether that is the case. How do the biblical writers define the relationship between history and theology?
Within this, our first step is to gain a working definition of how history and theology interact. To do this, I suggest we look at several examples where the inspired authors present their rationale of how history and theology operate. From there, we can see if this initial idea plays out through the rest of Scripture.
Undoubtedly, Paul's view of the resurrection is the clearest example of how Scripture associates history and theology. He argues that if the resurrection never occurred, then our faith is in vain, our preaching is false, we have no hope, and thus are to be most pitied (1 Cor 15:19). Notice that the apostle's logic is not that the theology of the resurrection can still be true even if the historicity of the resurrection is false. Rather, in Paul's mind, if the history fails, so does our faith. I would suggest that such a concept is at the core of how the Bible relates history and theology.
Although Paul's discussion of the resurrection may be the clearest, it is not the only text in which the Bible demonstrates such logic. Peter's view of the Flood similarly follows Paul's logic about the resurrection. In his second epistle, Peter confronts false teachers who are indifferent to God's eschatological judgment (2 Pet 3:3). They base their indifference upon the fact that the earth has continued on as it was since the beginning (2 Pet 3:4). Peter argues that a precedent for judgment actually exists: the global judgment of the Flood (2 Pet 3:6). In context, Peter's point cannot be that the Flood is merely a metaphor for how God hates sin. That would not disprove the false teachers' supposition. Rather, the apostle contends that the world has not continued as it was since the beginning. God actually judged the whole earth and that historical reality supports that He can do it again. In sum, Peter reasons that the historicity of God's past acts is the grounds for His promises about the future, a logic parallel to Paul's.
God seems to have the same paradigm in discussing the Exodus. In Deuteronomy, the Lord warned His people that if they disobeyed, they would be exiled (Deut 4:27). Nevertheless, God promised to deliver them in the end because of His great compassion (Deut 4:31–32). What assurance did Israel have of such future redemption? God compares Himself with the other "gods" and states that no one else has delivered a people with signs and wonders (Deut 4:34; cf. Exod 7:14–12:51). God alone accomplished this in the Exodus and thus Israel should trust Him. His amazing work in the past guarantees that He can do a repeat performance in the future. Such logic seems to mirror Peter's and Paul's. Even more, God portrays that the Exodus event actually makes the theological point of God's uniqueness. If God did not do this work, then He would not be distinct from the other gods and would lose the basis of His claims.
In addition, the apostles tightly intertwine history and theology. Christ's life and death provide an example of godly suffering and humility for us to follow (Phil 2:5–11; 1 Pet 2:21). God demonstrated His love in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom 5:8). Christ died on behalf of the ungodly so that we would become the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21). His death demonstrates that God is both just and justifier (Rom 3:25–26). His resurrection conquers death and gives us hope for a new creation (Rom 6:5–8; 2 Cor 5:17).
In these passages, the historicity of Christ and His work is essential. We can ask the following question about the texts just cited. If Christ never came, did God actually love us in the way Paul describes? If Christ never died, then did God forgive sin? If Christ never atoned, is God still just and justifier? If Christ never rose and conquered death, why would we rise from the dead? These passages seem to argue that when we take away the history, we also take away the reality of the theology. Paul's presentation of the gospel is case in point. He does not claim that we are saved because God is kind and gracious. Rather, he argues that Christ's death for our sins and His resurrection on the third day is the gospel that saves (1 Cor 15:2–4). Theology is worked out in history itself.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from What Happened in the Garden by Abner Chou. Copyright © 2016 The Master's College. Excerpted by permission of Kregel Publications.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Contents
Contributors, 9,Preface and Acknowledgments, 11,
Introduction: Abner Chou, 13,
Part 1: Reality of Genesis 2–3,
Chapter 1: "Did God Really Say?" — Hermeneutics and History in Genesis 3: Abner Chou, 19,
Chapter 2: Adam and the Animals: Todd Charles Wood and Joseph W. Francis, 47,
Chapter 3: Genetics of Adam: Todd Charles Wood and Joseph W. Francis, 75,
Chapter 4: Genesis 3 — A Map of Misreadings: Grant Horner, 101,
Part 2: Theological Ramifications of the Creation and Fall,
Chapter 5: Genesis 3 and Original Sin: Paul R. Thorsell, 121,
Chapter 6: The Seed and Schaeffer: William Varner, 153,
Part 3: Worldview Ramifications of the Creation and Fall,
Chapter 7: After the Fall — Three Effects on Human Enterprise: R. W. Mackey II, 175,
Chapter 8: Thermodynamics and the Fall — How the Curse Changed Our World: Taylor B. Jones, 187,
Chapter 9: In Re Adam and Eve: Reflections on the Creation and Fall of Man-A Legal Perspective, 207,
Chapter 10: The Significance of Sin for the Psychologies: Ernie Baker, 221,
Chapter 11: "He Made Them Male and Female" — The Image of God, Essentialism, and The Evangelical Gender Debate: Jo Suzuki, 247,
Chapter 12: The Historical Adam in Education — Why Keeping Him Real in Our Curriculum Matters: Alexander Granados, 273,
Chapter 13: A Sin of Historic Proportions: John MacArthur, 287,
Conclusion, 299,