It is with fear and trepidation that I enter this discussion. I have no
degree in theology and have never parsed a Hebrew verb. Also, I am certain
that Denis thinks of me as a concordist even though many of my friends and
enemies might be amused by that label.
I am writing on the road (vacation seems to be the only time I have to
think about this stuff any more) so I will not be able to respond
instantaneously as some of you who must sit by your computers waiting for
responses to your posts. (All right, I used to do that too, when life was
a little less hectic.)
Here's a couple of questions/observations mostly aimed at Denis and Jim who
seem so agreeable even though they're on opposite sides of the evolution
question.
1. While I'm quite open to the notions of recognizing the Ancient Near
Eastern (ANE) context for the Genesis documents, I'm uncomfortable with the
idea that their VCR would pick up anything different than ours. (I'm in no
way suggesting that Genesis describes VCR history.) Suppose that we have
God's knowledge of the situation (which we don't) in which case we have the
standard of actuality by which all our perceptions and interpretations
could be judged. Of course, even our VCR could not pick up all of God's
knowledge. So things happened in a certain way. It took billions of years
or it took 6 24 hr days...one or the other (or some other possibility).
Evolution happened or creatures were instantly created (or some other
possibility). Humans evolved just like other animals or they were created
de novo (or some other possibility). The point is that the events took
place in a certain way. No exegesis or eisegesis here. Although clearly
there is a certain view of reality espoused. When Glenn and Stephen talk
about VCR recordable history, I suspect that they are talking about the
ways things happened, the actual course of events.
2. Again while granting the textual horizon and the importance of the
metaphysical/theological message, I will quickly add that it appears that
Genesis is not just metaphysical/theological. I will focus on Genesis 2
even though that has not been the focal point in previous comments. I
believe that the best exegesis (yes, Denis, that's an exe- there) of
Genesis 1 results in neither a YEC or a day-age theory chronology, but what
is known as the framework hypothesis. Genesis 1 is not recording
chronology at all, but is using this ANE literary form of the suzerain
executing his decrees in the space of week. Kline, Ridderbos, Stek and
others have advocated this position. There is no concordist NEED here
because the Genesis text is not attempting to be a scientific (even an ANE
scientific) description of the course of events.
Genesis 2 is another matter however. These questions arise. Was Adam an
historical figure (VCRable, even if the description in the text is what
would appear on that VCR)? Did he live in space and time? Was he the
progenitor of the whole human race? Did he represent the whole race as
it's covenant head? I think that the answer to all of these questions is
yes. The decision to answer these questions yes is a theological and
exegetical one (BTW, part of exegesis is putting the text into its
covenental/Biblical historical context; that must sound awful to folks
steeped in professional Biblical studies although there are professionals
whom I respect a great deal (e.g. current Westminster Seminary folks). Now
here's the heart of the "concordist" problem. If the Biblical text
addresses questions that are addressed by scientific enterprises (history,
biology, archaeology, anthropology, etc.), then as much as those
enterprises address the same reality, then they ought not to conflict.
I don't believe that the Bible is concerned with evolutionary questions of
the sort that modern science is interested in and I'm convinced that
recording that Adam was created from the dust of the ground is quite
consonant with an evolutionary origin of man's body (although I don't think
that the Genesis actively teaches an evolutionary origin of man's body, at
the same time it doesn't preclude it). But having said those things which
make it possible for me to be a "concordist", there are some questions. If
genetics tells us that their Adam and Eve were really Adams and Eves (i.e.
a bottleneck involving a population of ~500-10000) which is what the
mitochondrial Eve data (and Y chromosome Adam) data *really* say, then this
produces a problem for me. If this is true, then Adam is no longer the
progenitor of the whole race. He could still be the convenant head.
Perhaps my reading the text to require that Adam be the biological
progenitor of the race is wrong. But here there is a point of contact
between what the text says and the reality that actually took place that
may be discernable by our methods of investigation.
Now you don't have to lecture me about the literary genre of Genesis 2 nor
the symbolic, literary, theological elements there. I've used those
aspects of the text in my defense of my own views. However, much of modern
Biblical scholarship wants to undercut the historicity of Genesis 2 even
more so that Adam is *adam* (everyman) and not a historical man, the
covenant head of the race. Or that Genesis 2 is true theologically, but
that its VCR veracity is largely irrelevant. I don't see it in the text
itself or in the way that the rest of the Bible and its theology takes up
this text. Now I've never been a YEC or a day-age theoriest for that
matter so Denis can't attribute my view here to some remnant viewpoint that
needs yet to be purged.
3. Concerning Genesis 1:1. I'll leave the Hebrew constructions to the
experts, but for the most part I don't see the importance of the
discussion. We all, even Denis, believe in an ex nihilo creation. Who
cares whether it comes from Genesis 1? I think Denis has said as much.
Genesis 1 doesn't preclude an ex nihilo creation, it just doesn't speak in
those terms because it is an ANE text. Now I would have a problem if the
Genesis 1 text did preclude an ex nihilo creation, i.e. if it dogmatically
stated that the watery chaos was co-eternal with God. I don't think that
it does so that this is quite conjectural, but let me ask Denis here, if it
did what would be our reaction especially in light of NT teaching.
BTW reflectorites, we've been treated to Phil Johnson's reaction to his
audiences. It looks like Phil will be at Calvin on January 11 in a
"debate/dialogue" with Niles Eldredge. You're all welcome to
come--Thursday evening (7:00 or 7:30) in our Fine Arts Center. If you
don't come, you'll not only get Phil's reaction, but also mine :-)
Terry G.