On 2 Dec 1995, Jim Bell wrote:
> I caught the last of an interesting discussion from Russ about the de novo
> creation of Adam. I agree with Russ entirely, for hermeneutical reasons.
What "hermeneutical reasons" are you thinking about?
> Some help comes from another discussion, in which Dennis D. wrote:
>
> <<The first step in hermeneutics is to consider the range of possible meanings
> a text COULD HAVE CONCEIVABLY HELD for its original hearers.>>
>
> This is absolutely right, as Denis L. agrees:
>
> <<Amen! And that implies leaving the 20th century baggage back in the 20th
> century.>>
>
> Double Amen!
Yes, Triple Amen.
> So...what would the Hebrews have thought about the original creative acts of
> God? As creation ex nihilo? Or as using some "pre-existing" material?
>
> The answer is unequivocally the former. We must place the creation of Adam in
> context. What is that context? Creation ex nihilo.
This is where you are very very wrong (I say this respectfully). It has
been acknowledged for a long time in Old Testament scholarship that creation
in Gen 1 is NOT ex nihilo, but creation out of a dark watery Chaos (v.2).
That is why I made the comment in the post you cited above about the
disjunctive waw in Gen 1:2. The creation account starts at Gen 1:2
with water earth in place and no mention of where it came from or who
made it.
> Since Scripture interprets Scripture, we see from Hebrews 11:3: "By faith we
> understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen
> was not made out of what was visible."
Now, is this an creatio ex nihilo verse? Definitely. Is there a clear
contradiction between Gen 1 and Heb 11? Definitely. The reason is that
when Gen 1 was written the epistemology was semitic, and when Heb 11 was
written it was hellenistic. The notion of creatio ex nihilo needs a
special mind-set, one which we in the western world all possess and have
inherited (in the non-biological sense). This
is not to say that the Hebrews were stupid!!! NO WAY. It is to say that
the intellectual tradition that asked "ex nihilo type" questions, that is
the mindset that does all sorts of neat intellectual gymnastics, is one
that was birthed in the greek agora, not one seen in the fields of
nomads.
So back to the contradiction. The Holy Spirit knew very well that in
inspiring the writer of Gen 1 that
that writer would be using a semitic epistemolgy, and same goes for the
hellenized writer of Hebrews 11. Now when we read the scriptures, we
have to rid ourselves of the ex nihilo question in reading Gen 1 because
it is just not part of the intellectual furniture of the day. And
that is a fact quite acknowledged by ANE scholarship. This
is the thrust of my comment about leaving the 20th century baggage behind.
However, because the notion is in place by the time of the Maccabees
(2nd centur BC; cf. 2 Mac 7: 28) we can ask about creation ex nihilo,
and proof of it is that it appears in Heb 11.
So what am I saying with regard to Heb 11? The writer, being steeped in
Hellenistic categories REINTERPRETED the non-ex nihilo Gen 1 into a ex
nihilo context. Don't let this make you uncomfortable. He did the same
in Heb 11: 11 with regard to Gen 11: 30--the Sarah story. In Gen 11 the
operative science of the day was the PREFORMATIVE THEORY--men had seed
and women were "fields" (and therefore like Sarah could be "barren").
However, by NT times the DOUBLE SEED THEORY
became operative (again, from those Greek guys), and Heb 11:11 ACTUALLY
SAYS THAT SARAH WAS ABLE TO HAVE--ARE YOU READY FOR THIS?-A SEMINAL
EMISSION. And if you don't believe me, go get a Greek NT, you will see
k-a-t-a-b-o-l-a-n s-p-e-r-m-a-t-o-s, the technical term for an
ejaculation. So, another contradiction in the Text? Yes, only if you
fail to appreciate the intellectual horizon of the writer.
To conclude, the principle of "scripture interpreting scripture" is a
helpful one, but not one that is to be slavishly employed or held on to.
The apparent contradictions between Gen and Heb melt away in the face of
proper hermeneutical theory.
> The universe (for the Heberews, everything that has material existence) was
> formed out of nothing, coming from the WORD of God.
I disagree. And I call to the fact the Hebrews did not even have a word
for our word "matter". You have to have the concept of matter if you
want to think about creating matter out of nothing.
> "By the word of the Lord
> were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth." (Ps.
> 33:6).
I disagree. There is nothing exclusively supportive of the idea of
creatio ex nihilo in the verse. Besides this is a song, and like
poetry it is very figurative. I would be careful in build systematic
theology from song verses. In the light of my previous remark,
I think it is fair to say that you are the one who has brought this notion
from the 20th century to interpret a 10th century passage.
> This is orthodox theology, both Catholic and Protestant. The First Vatican
> Council states that God created everything, including life, "by entirely free
> design *formed out of nothing* from the beginning of time at once both the
> spiritual creature and the corporeal, that is to say, the angelic and the
> worldly, and thereafter the human, as if jointly constituted of spirit and
> body."
Remember when this document was being written, and by whom. These are all
hellenists with hellenistic epistemology that lived well after the
writing of Gen 1.
> Louis Berkhof, one of the 20th Century's foremost Protestant theologians,
> wrote: "Creation in the strict sence of the word may be defined as that free
> act of God whereby He, according to His sovereign will and for His own glory,
> in the beginning brought forth the whole visible and invisible universe,
> *without the use of preexistent material* and thus gave it an existence,
> distinct from His own and yet always dependent on Him." (Systematic Theology,
> 1939, p. 129).
Remember this a SYSTEMTATIC theology, as opposed to a BIBLICAL theology.
This makes all the difference in the world. Do I believe in creatio ex
nihilo?
Yes, 100% yes. But I deal with the issue by going to texts that deal
with the question proper. And Gen 1 is not the place to go.
> Donald Bloesch states: "On the basis of the scriptural testimony the church
> through the ages has affirmed the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (out of
> nothing). This means that the world was created by divine fiat; God did not
> have to mold the world out of a material that was preexistent or coeternal."
> (Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 1, p. 25).
Same comment as above--this work is a SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
> Thus, the context of creation ex nihilo ruled for the ancient Hebrews. The use
> of "preexisting materials" for the creative acts of God in early Genesis were
> not entertained.
Absolutely incorrect. For that matter, the scene in Genesis starts from
a dark watery chaos and there is no mention of who created it. The
creation of the first three days are form forming days and creation by
separation of opposites (very typical of ANE creation stories).
The important question then arises, "Is this a dualistic situation?"
That is, is there preexistent matter and God before the creation account?
YES--that is exactly what Gen 1 says.
This by the way drove Barth crazy because he realized what Gen
1:2 said, but his 20th "ex nihilo baggage" refused to accept it.
But you err if you, like Barth,
bring in the "baggage". Leave the ex nihilo concept at home (like your
VCRs and tapes) when you enter Moses' tent.
> This interpretation is even stronger given the literary style of Genesis 1.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Please explain. Thanks.
> The majesty of God (Elohim) cannot be captured in mere prose. We are lifted
> out of corporeal paradigms by this chapter. That is exactly what it intends!
>
> So, yes, the Bible in context affirms the de novo creation of man. Praise the
> Lord for his creative power!
I appreciate and agree with the eulogistic side of your comment, but not
its propositional content. For if what I
have previously said stands, then you haven't got an argument for de novo
creation of man. CREATION EX NIHILO IS NOT PART OF GEN 1-2.
For that matter, Gen 2 asserts that man was made out of
dust, not ex nihilo . . . and woman out of man's side (the Hebrew is not
"rib"), again not creatio ex nihilo.
I hope I have not been too critical, and that my comments are taken in a
constructive spirit, for God's glory.
As I said at the beginning of this post, your post was great! It
triggered off a ton of thoughts! Many thanx.
In Christ,
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------