Tag Archives: creation

Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part Three

Posted on by

This is the third part in a series explaining my position on the first chapter of Genesis. I believe the six days of creation are meant to be taken as a framework showing how God made the earth habitable and inhabited. You can read about the literary view of creation (part one) and the objections by the literalists (part two) here and here before reading my final conclusions presented in this third part.

THE RESPONSE

Let me summarize the four basic problems that literalists have with the literary view of the days of creation (which I brought up in part two of this series): 1. They believe the motive for the framework hypothesis is a desire to reconcile science and the Bible and not from pure exegetical discipline. 2. They believe it is inconsistent with Church tradition. 3. They believe the simplest reading of the days in Genesis should be understood as 24-hour units of time. 4. They believe the figurative nature of the seventh day would lead to a rejection of the fourth commandment and a belief that we can interpret the Bible any way we like. Each of these are serious objections so let me answer them seriously but briefly.

For the most part, the discussion about science has distracted us from the true beauty of the story of creation. To suggest that the framework hypothesis is just an attempt to marry modern philosophies and sciences together with the Bible is false. However, it is not too much to assume that at times God’s natural revelation will confirm and coincide with His special revelation. Henri Blocher says, “The sciences will stimulate the interpreter from without, driving him to verify his exegesis and test the evidence, or encouraging him by favorable convergences which bear witness to the common origin of the two Books of God [general and special revelation].”(17)  After all, this interpretation isn’t new. “Augustine predated the rise of modern evolution by fourteen centuries…his professed reasons for taking the days nonliterally were strictly exegetical.”(18)  Ridderbos concludes, “Therefore the situation is this that though natural science may at no point decree how Scripture should be interpreted, the views it proposes may occasion the question whether what we believed should and could be derived from Scripture is in fact teaching and whether we must not exegete the relevant Scriptural data in some other way.” (19)  When our exegesis is called into question by our modern observations, it is not an unworthy endeavor to study again the pertinent texts of our faith.

Second, the literalists argue that the literary view is inconsistent with Church tradition. That assertion is untrue and irrelevant. Ridderbos says, “There are interpreters who believe that the arrangement of seven days is intended as a literary form. This view was already current in the early Church (Philo of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine).”(20)  But this argument isn’t even relevant. The point is not to determine the who’s who of each position but to determine what the text actually says. We don’t cast aside church tradition but it is possible for our understanding of God’s Word to change as new light is shed on the subject. In Iron’s response to the rebuke from Duncan and Hall, he says, “Ironically, Duncan and Hall, who have accused us of engaging in exegesis motivated by outside factors (what they call ‘scientific eisegesis’), themselves engage in a type of exegesis driven by the outside factor of Church tradition.”(21)  Again, church tradition is important and we are “standing on the shoulders of giants”. As a result, we can see much farther into the text than we could if we didn’t have such men and women of faith going before us. But if we are to call the framework hypothesis “scientific eisegesis” then we must apply the same to those who boldly declared that the earth was round and later, to those who believed that the earth revolves around the sun.

Third, literalists argue that the simplest understanding of the word day means a literal 24-hour day. But are we to then believe that the week must be taken literally? As Hugenberger points out “A week is an unnatural (not earthly) unit of time.” (22)  The day is marked by the earth’s revolution, a month is marked by the movement of the moon and a year is marked by the time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun. Where did we get the week? Besides, it is not unprecedented for the Bible to use figurative language. In fact, what makes a metaphor successful is precisely that we know what it actually means. Lee Irons uses the metaphor of the fox for Herod in Luke 13. There isn’t another meaning for the word “fox”, we know exactly what Jesus means when He refers to Herod as a fox because we know the characteristics of an actual fox. Day is used to demarcate the framework that indicates the activity of a creating God.

Finally, the seventh day in Genesis can be seen as figurative without believing that we should abandon the fourth commandment or consider the story of the Fall to be figurative. According to Noordtzij, “the six days of Genesis 1 are obviously intended as the sum of two triduums which consequently reveal a clearly pronounced parallelism, while the total arrangement is intended to place in bold relief the surpassing glory of man who attains his true destiny in the Sabbath…Given this plan of the creation account we may infer meanwhile that the author consciously used days and nights, evenings and mornings, as a literary framework.”(23)  Ridderbos says, “Does the author mean to say that God completed creation in six days, or does he make use of an anthropomorphic mode of presentation? Did he arrange the works of God in a given scheme (as Von Rad, for instance, has it), or a framework (as Noordtzij has it)? I may refer at this point to Genesis 2:7 and 3:21. Does the author mean to say there that God acted as a potter and as a maker of furclothes? These surely are anthropomorphic expressions. Another anthropomorphism is the saying in Genesis 2:2 that God rested; one may not infer from it that God had to exert Himself to create the world.”(24)  Lee and Kline refer to all the other nonliteral uses of the Sabbath and the number 7 in Scripture, referring to the 70 years of captivity (actually 66 or 67), the seventy “weeks” in Daniel (actually longer than 490 years) and the three uses of 14 in the genealogies of Matthew to indicate that the generation of the Messiah (some names were intentionally dropped so that there would be three sections of 14). Irons writes, “Use of the Sabbath concept to provide a literary scheme for conceptualizing redemptive history is a major feature of Scripture.”(25)

In conclusion, it is obvious that the framework hypothesis has merit on exegetical grounds. On the other hand, the 24-hour day view has a lot to explain. It cannot maintain its consistency. Either the day in Genesis 1 is an ordinary day and God used extraordinary means to give light on Day 1 and sustain vegetation on Day 3, or, the story is constructed in a framework that helps us see how God made the earth inhabitable and inhabited. The framework hypothesis is not merely a recent invention contrived by the fear that science will be proved right and God to be wrong. Rather, that God, being the Author of both has given us an account of His work to create. Even Calvin, in his refutation of the figurative or literary view, at least recognizes the presence of the framework. Rather than reject the framework hypothesis, modern interpreters should survey the evidence to see if it can stand. As for me, I believe the weight of the evidence falls to a literary interpretation and that the author employed a framework to articulate divine truths to his audience.

After reading part one, two and three of this series, what are your thoughts on the framework hypothesis?

[17] Blocher, Henri. In the Beginning (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984) 27.

[18] Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 90.

[19] Ridderbos, N. H. Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1957) 20-21.

[20] Ibid. 11.

[21] Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 90.

[22] Hugenberger, Gordon. “The Theology of the Pentateuch” GCTS. Spring semester 2007.

[23] Ridderbos, N. H. Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1957) 11.

[24] Ibid. 30.

[25] Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 227.

Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part Two

Posted on by

Was Genesis 0ne intended to be a literal account of creation? Or are the six days a literary framework helping us to see God’s power in creating the universe? I’ve got my own problems with the theory of evolution and I have no doubts that God is our Creator so I want to fairly represent the literal side of things in this 3 part series. Check out part one here.

THE OBJECTIONS

So how do we arrive at a figurative interpretation of the word ‘day’ when the simplest reading is so straightforward? After all, “The 24-hour view holds that God created the universe and all life in six sequential natural days marked by evenings and mornings. According to this view, God created the universe and all life in approximately 144 hours and in the sequence presented in Genesis 1.”(1) That seems to be the easiest way to interpret the text at first glance. Most holding this literal view are very firm in their convictions. Duncan and Hall, for example, before defending their theory, claim, “As we shall see, the intent of the author of Genesis 1-2 as to the nature of the creation days is so apparent that it is, frankly, beyond dispute.”(2) They continue, “Compelling exegetical evidence for reading the creation days as anything other than normal days is lacking.”(3)

However, theirs and many other literalists fall short in their refutation of the framework hypothesis. To begin with, many literalists start by attacking the motives of the proponents of the framework hypothesis. They suggest that the literary view arose out of a need to reconcile science and the Bible. A review of Hugh Ross’s book “The Genesis Question” by Publisher’s Weekly said, “Thus, [Ross] says, God’s creative activity can be substantiated by physical science. Ross has a faithful following who will welcome this book. Others may wonder why he is trying so hard to turn faith into science.”(4) Coming from a secular publisher, it’s amusing that it tends to be the literalists who try so hard to confront matters of science while the proponents of the framework hypothesis have been carefully exegeting the text for decades.

Secondly, literalists tend to attack the theory, not on exegetical grounds, but by stating that it is not consistent with Church tradition. Duncan and Hall said, “Most of the great interpreters of the Church have construed the creation days as normal days.”(5) Even those like James Barr would agree, “So far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers…that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.”(6) No one wants to diminish the record of Church history but there are times when new light is shed on a subject. Besides, Barr’s hyperbole is simply not true. Theologians both historical and contemporary have found wisdom in understanding the 24 hour solar days as figurative.

When they finally confront the text, the argument falls flat. Literalists suggest that the days cannot be literary devices because they refer to normal days. The use of “evening and morning”, and the chronological use of “then” that begins each day and the “first day, second day,” language causes them to think these are normal solar days. Duncan and Hall said, “Calvin insists that the creation week was not merely a didactic tool or framework the Lord employed to reveal Himself intelligibly to His finite creatures. Rather, God actually performed His work of creation in an ordinary week out of love for His people, who could identify with the cycle of days.”(7) Rather than respond directly to the substance of Calvin’s statement at this point, suffice it to say that at least he sees the framework even if he believes God literally was bound by it.

Finally, the figurative view of the seventh day is disturbing to the literalist. They believe that the figurative view weakens the fourth commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. If the Sabbath is figurative, then why take the commandments literally? In fact, why take the story of Adam and Eve literally? Their view is that if we take Genesis 1 figuratively then the whole of Scripture is called into question.

For the most part, literalists stay away from defending their position on exegetical grounds and yet reject the framework hypothesis on those very grounds…ones which they seem unwilling or unable to articulate. Throughout my research, I found no satisfactory defense of the 24-hour view in light of modern exegetical discoveries. This is not a bias based on scientific discoveries of the past 200 years, it is a bias for the truth of God’s Ancient Word.

So the main arguments against the framework hypothesis are summarized as follows:

  1. The text uses concrete language, therefore it must be taken literally; (this is the only argument based on exegetical grounds and it seems very weak in my opinion. I would suggest the exact opposite, that the language of Genesis one seems highly figurative and uses something known – a 24 hour day – to provide a framework for something previously unknown.)
  2. Those who believe Genesis one is a framework for creation are simply compromising due to pressure from the scientific community; (Logical fallacy: argumentum ad hominem? For me, evolution could be conclusively proven or disproven tomorrow and I would still believe Genesis one is figurative.)
  3. Church tradition has largely supported literal 24 hour solar days; (Logical fallacy: Appeal to Tradition? My question: Has it? Did church tradition hold to a flat earth or that the sun revolved around the earth?)
  4. If Genesis one isn’t literal then why should we take the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy literally? Why should we take the story of Adam and Eve’s Fall literally? Etc. (Logical fallacy: Sweeping Generalization? It may be figurative but it is still theology and it is still teaching us something about God’s values and how we should live.)

What do you think? Do these arguments hold water? Do you have other thoughts for or against the framework hypothesis? How do you answer these objections (or contribute to them)? Part Three will be about my own response to these four issues.

1 Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 16.

2 Ibid. 23.

3 Ibid. 23.

4 Amazon.com. http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Question-Scientific-Advances-Accuracy/dp/1576832309/ref=reg_hu-wl_list-recs (accessed December 13, 2008)

5 Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 29.

6 Ibid. 23.

7 Ibid. 29.

Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part One

Posted on by

This was a position paper that I presented for one of my theology classes in seminary. Note that it is a position paper, not a research paper. As a result, this is not a thorough treatment of the subject, but just a summary of why I hold the theological position that I do.

For most conservative evangelicals, anything other than a literal, sequential, 24-hour solar day is incomprehensible. Arguing that the simplest reading must be correct and that a literary or figurative view of the days in Genesis bows to modern science. Having held, studied, and supported the literal view of the days in Genesis 1 for most of my life, I understand the arguments and the concerns of those who take the word “day” literally. However, I have recently become convinced that Genesis 1 provides a framework, rather than a literal six day creation week. This shift in my thinking didn’t come from any scientific discovery or because I wanted to fit in with my friends who happen to be scientists that are Christians. Instead, after hearing several lectures on the exegesis of the first few chapters of Genesis in the larger context of the Pentateuch, I now hold to, study and support the literary view of the days in Genesis 1.

THE LITERARY VIEW

The literary view of the creation account has taken many forms throughout history. The best expression today is found in the framework hypothesis. The framework hypothesis states that the inspired author of Genesis offers us a story (or “saga”(1) as Barth would have it) of creation. He does not intend, however, to report the exact details of that event that would satisfy our naturally scientific and curious minds. Instead, his goal is to impress upon the reader that all that exists has been created by God. He does this by placing the eightfold work of creation into a framework of six days. The seventh day, then, is the day of rest, which encourages humanity to celebrate the Sabbath as our act of worship and as our imitation of God.(2) The framework that the author employs is not arbitrary. It is logical, not chronological in sequence. Therefore, the two main characteristics of the framework hypothesis is that it is nonliteral and nonsequential.

The problem is that such seemingly nonliteral phrases like “evening and morning”, “the first day”, and “then God said” are characteristic of the text. In fact, the main difficulty comes from the use of the word “day”. Karl Barth says, “At this point the saga tells us something very noteworthy: namely this, that God created also time and our time at that…and hence, concretely: time in its unity (day) and time in its coherence (week), and that he created in this manner that to the light he gave the name day.”(3) N. H. Ridderbos says “One must take seriously the possibility that the account of creation in six days is no more than a mode of presentation.”(4) It’s important to note, however, that this “mode of presentation” is not contradicting the historicity of the act of creation. Lee Irons writes, “We do not equate a nonliteral interpretation with a nonhistorical interpretation of the text.”(5)

A more detailed look at the days of creation might be helpful at this point. Ridderbos writes, “There is mention of eight works of creation. Four of these take place in the first triduum, and four in the second. Two works each are associated with the third and the sixth day.”(6) In order to understand the reason for the “triduums” or framework, we have to consider verse 2. Gordon  Hugenberger translates the text, “Now the earth was uninhabitable and uninhabited.”(7) As a result, the first three days show how God makes the land habitable and then makes the land to be inhabited. As was stated earlier, on the seventh day, God sets an example for humanity in that He rests from His creative activity. This is not to assume that we must literally believe that God needs to physically rest. Instead, Meredith Kline says, “God created the heaven and the earth to be his cosmic palace and accordingly his resting is an occupying of his palace, a royal session…Hebrews 4, Israel’s dominion-rest in Canaan…is expressly interpreted in terms of the Creator’s seventh day rest.”(8) According to Kline, and to the framework hypothesis, the seventh day is still happening. We are currently in the “seventh day” figuratively speaking because the seventh day was meant to be understood figuratively. Therefore, the days of Genesis 1 cannot be taken literally. To be consistent, we have to make a choice; either the days are literal and God’s rest is figurative, or the whole week is to be taken figuratively.

Advocates of the framework hypothesis also argue that there are several discrepancies in the stories of creation found in 1:1-2:4 and 2:5-25 if you take a literal view of creation. Day 6 would’ve been a very busy day. In addition to the animals, God would’ve created man, Adam would’ve named the animals, and God would’ve created Eve, etc. Not only does the 24 hours of day 6 pose a problem, but the orders are different in the second story. “It has often been said that there is a contrast in the order of the works of creation between Genesis 1 and 2, because Genesis 2 first posits the creation of man, then the plant-world, and last the animals.”(9) Exegetically, then, it seems that the literary view of creation is the best interpretation of the text.

What do you think of the word “day” in Genesis? Do you hold a literal or a literary view of the word? Do you feel that the literary view of creation is simply intending to reconcile science with the Bible or do you feel that the theory has an exegetical leg to stand on? Part Two will talk about the objections to the Framework Hypothesis.

1 Ridderbos, N. H. Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1957) 13-14.

2 Ibid. 45.

3 Ibid. 57.

4 Ibid. 30.

5 Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 220.

6 Ibid. 33.

7 Hugenberger, Gordon. “The Theology of the Pentateuch” GCTS. Spring semester 2007.

8 Kline, Meredith. Kingdom Prologue (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006) 35.

9 Ridderbos, N. H. Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1957) 25.

Are People Generally Good or Basically Bad?

Posted on by
DSB Logo

DSB Question 3 of 10

Michael Wittmer has asked some great questions in his book Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus is Not Enough. I’ve been reviewing this book chapter by chapter because the book closely identifies with the content of ChurchETHOS. I’ve been able to give away 5 copies of the book already and you can still get one for free here. So far, Wittmer has asked, Must You Believe Something to be Saved? and Do Right Beliefs Get in the Way of Good Works? In my posts I’ve tried to be fair to Wittmer’s thoughts and I’ve sprinkled the posts with some of my own responses to those questions as well. There have been some great comments so I hope you will go back and check out the conversation.

The Next Question

Today, I want to talk about chapter four of DSB. Wittmer asks, “Are people generally good or basically bad?”

The problem with this question is that we want to believe in the innate goodness of people. Since we want to believe it, we often do and we tend to ignore the more important  question of what God thinks about our goodness. This becomes a Big Assumption that holds us and keeps us from recognizing the truth that we are in desperate need of being rescued from ourselves (I don’t care how good you think you are).

There is certainly some goodness in our lives, but there is also some badness. In comparison to Bin Laden I’m a saint. In comparison to Mother Theresa I’m a sinner. But in comparison to God?

Universally Created By God to Enjoy Him Forever

The first question and answer of the Westminster Catechism is:

Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

There is something that all of us have in common: we were all created by God to glorify and enjoy Him forever. We were created in His image. Our first parents were placed in a beautiful garden. God looked at all that He had made and it was very good. Our common – and very human – love for life, for beauty, for creation, and for our fellow human are part of what it means to be human. Nothing we’ve ever done can remove those sorts of qualities (and others) from our human nature. I’m confident that I can find something good in ANYONE if I spent enough time looking.

Humans do good things. We write checks to charity. We help old ladies cross streets. We generally try and care for the defenseless, the helpless, the hopeless. People are generally capable of doing good.

Universal Rejection of God

We humans have all been created, therefore we are generally good, but we all have something else in common too. Wittmer writes, “Everyone possesses a relative goodness that enables us to help others. But when we lift our eyes above our natural level and compare our goodness with God, we confront a double problem: God’s higher standard and our sinful brokenness.” We were all created, but we also have ALL rejected God, something the Bible calls sin. Some do it willfully, some do it ignorantly, but the fact remains, we’ve all done it.

For those of us who have turned back to God and asked His forgiveness, we must realize that we are no better than anyone else. Wittmer encourages Christian humility and I strongly agree. Just because I’m forgiven and someone else isn’t doesn’t mean that that same grace and love and forgiveness isn’t extended to them by God too. God loves those He has created. He created all of us and He wants us to enjoy Him forever. He extends His grace to ALL who will receive it. He longs for us to be reconciled to Him.

The Fall is what happened when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Ever since then, humanity is living under a curse. Sure, we can do some good things every once-in-a-while, but we can also do some bad things. Some have more discipline than others and though they don’t know God they are able to listen more attentively to their God-given conscience and they restrain themselves from doing too much evil. But we all do it. We all have hurt someone. We’ve all let someone down. This world may be a better place thanks to you, but just barely. A lot of people feel like they’ve got to do more good to offset the bad that they’ve done. That’s noble and is advisable, but God is more concerned with your relationship with Him. You can make a bigger difference in the world if you obey Him.

Even though “obedience” doesn’t sound good what is God asking us to obey? Jesus summed it up into “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength…and love your neighbor as yourself.” (Luke 10:27) If you could do that perfectly, then you would truly be good with no shred of evil in you. Jesus is the only one capable of that kind of obedience. When we confess our disobedience to God and ask His forgiveness, He begins the process of healing us from the evil that permeates our nature. He begins to show us how to be good again.

So What Is Good?

A lot of people don’t want us to bring up sin and the Fall. They want us to simply celebrate the good that we find in others and accept the bad that sometimes happens. This weakens the need for forgiveness and lets us just live our lives however we deem best (and that’s often not as good as we think). That kind of goodness will never measure up.

Wittmer gives a good example of this:

Yesterday my six-year-old pounded out his first recognizable tune on the piano, and I made quite a fuss about it. “Landon, that is ‘Mary Had a Little Lamb’! You are playing the piano! Good Job!” And it was – especially good for a beginner and far better than anything I can play. But compared to my wife or a concert pianist, it was not very good at all. Goodness is a relative term. It depends on what we are talking about.

Again, when we talk about good things people do, I think we can all agree that we are generally good, but in comparison with the God who created us, we all fall short. There is a chasm that we ourselves have dug with our sin that separates us from God, not because of God, but because of us! That’s not good.

Picture 1Wittmer quotes Tony Jones, another “postmodern innovator” who said, “a common metaphor showed God on one side of a diagram and a stick figure (you) on the other; the chasm between was labeled ‘Sin,’ and the only bridge across was in the shape of Jesus’ cross. But emergents ask, ‘What kind of God can’t reach across a chasm? Chasms can’t stop God!’” Wittmer replies brilliantly to this naive comment: “I am not sure what Jones is objecting to here, for the metaphor’s point is that while the chasm prevents us from coming to God, it does not stop God from reaching across. Perhaps he means that God should be able to reach us in some other way besides the cross? Or perhaps that our sin does not separate us from God?”

For those of us who believe the truth of the Bible, we can already see how God has reached across the chasm. Hey, I don’t like simplistic, cartoon versions of the gospel either but the basic truth is that we ARE sinful and we ARE separated from God. Thanks be to God that He HAS reached across the chasm to reconcile us to Himself!

Is Our Good, Good Enough?

We have to realize that we may do some good things but when it comes to loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and loving our neighbor as ourselves, we just aren’t cutting it. We are in need of an overhaul of our sinful system and God lovingly provides the answer through His Son Jesus. Our good may help a person in need, or bring a smile to someone’s face, but our eternal relationship with God depends on our willingness to give up and confess that we can’t do it without His help.

Wittmer writes, “People are created, and so we may unreservedly love them. People are fallen, and so there is a difference between those who are running their own lives and those who are striving to follow Jesus. Our common creation enables Christians and non-Christians to cooperate, and our response to the Fall explains why we often compete.” Let’s learn how to love each other God’s way. He is the only One who is ultimately Good. We need to be restored to Him and that relationship with Him will help us love others and enjoy Him forever.

“In the Beginning” by Henri Blocher

Posted on by

41fjpd8hg1lHenri Blocher is a Professor of Theology at Wheaton College. His book: In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis is both helpful and informative. It is academic, yet accessible to those of us who aren’t specialists. Blocher does a masterful job of explaining not only the purpose of Genesis, but also deftly maneuvers the controversial difficulties that have arisen especially in the modern era as science has advanced.

In Chapter 1, Blocher talks about the approach to Genesis. Dominating the discussion is the question of whether to approach Genesis literally or figuratively. Before reaching his conclusions, however, Blocher spends some time talking about the role of science in the interpretation of Scripture. Blocher presents the main approaches to this question: Concordism which seeks to rectify science with the Bible, “anti-scientism” which is Blocher’s view of creationism (the alternative to evolutionary theory), and fideism which seems to suppress the issue altogether. Blocher proposes a new way that allows science to “serve” our approach to studying Genesis, but not authoritatively. God’s Word is the authority and Blocher tries to take the positive advances of concordism, anti-scientism, and fideism and use those positives to help understand the book of Genesis. When he concludes the chapter talking about the literal or literary interpretation of Genesis 1, the reader can see that this is a unique story unlike any other story ever written.

Chapter 2 is a specific look at the week of Creation and it is Blocher’s view that the seven days are a literary device used to show the framework of God’s creating act. He writes, “The proofs we have given [in chapter 1] of the author’s careful structuring of his material would be enough to warn us not to suppose that the sevenfold shape is either imaginary or incidental.” (39) In this chapter, Blocher approaches four major interpretations of Genesis 1 in order of probability. Opponents may disagree, but the order in which Blocher organizes the probability of these theories begins with the reconstructionist theory as the least probable. This theory believes God reconstructed His creation after the fall of the devil. Next comes the concordist interpretation which is the idea that the days in Genesis 1 are ages or geological eras. Thirdly, Blocher deals with the literal interpretation that says the days are literal 24 hour days. Finally, Blocher believes the literary interpretation to be the best and he spends the rest of the chapter making the case for this interpretation.

Chapter 3 is about the content of Genesis 1. Rather than focusing on the framework and what that means, Blocher encourages the reader not to lose sight of the real purpose of Genesis. He suggests that if we get too caught up in science and creation then we may forget all that God is communicating to us. We can be distracted from the fact that God created ex nihilo, we can forget the work of all the members of the Trinity in the act of creation – including the Spirit, we can forget some of the characteristic nature of God (like He is a God of peace, not of disorder), etc. It is important to consider the purpose rather than just the conflict with modern science when we study Genesis.

Chapter 4 has to do with the Image of God and how humans are image bearers, unique among all the animals in their relationship with God. Blocher first makes sure we are sufficiently humble in our understanding of being “in the image of God”, in that we are “only an image.” “Mankind is infinitely lower than his Creator.” (82) With that humility as the backdrop, Blocher then turns to the privileged status we have over the rest of creation and talks about what it means to be made in the image of God.

In chapter 5, Blocher writes about the relationship between man and woman. The man and the woman are different sexually, with differing roles and yet they are connected. He treats “from the rib” as figurative language for their connectedness and relationship with one another Blocher supports this assertion when he says, “The Arabs apparently use the expression ‘He is my rib’ to mean ‘He is my close friend.’” (99) Blocher concludes the chapter by talking about the institution of marriage and that “the charter of marriage is summarized in Genesis 2:24″ (108), that is, at least implicitly.

Chapter 6 focuses on covenant. Even though that word doesn’t exist in Genesis 2, Blocher believes it to be of primary importance for understanding that chapter. The outline of the covenant is found in the text according to Blocher. “Eden is the covenant gift.” (120) The two trees in the garden become “the chief provisions of the covenant agreement.” (121). “You shall surely die” is the penalty for breaking the covenant. This outline implies a covenant between God and Adam.

Chapters 7 and 8 deal with the breaking of the covenant and the penalty for Adam and Eve’s disobedience. Blocher suggests that at the heart of their disobedience was the desire to claim autonomy. This disobedience “overthrows the created order.” (154) As a result of breaking the provisions of the covenant agreement, Adam and Eve must die. However, they don’t “cease to be” as is our normal understanding of death. Instead, our understanding of death must “broaden and diversify”. It is not mere physical death but it is of a spiritual nature. Blocher writes, “As soon as the disobedience is committed, the beauty and harmony of existence is shattered, and in their place come shame, fear and pathetic excuses.” (173) Their death is a result of their “claim to be like God in their autonomy.” God curses the man, the woman, and the snake and sends them out of the harmonious existence of Eden (the covenant gift).

Finally, Blocher concludes in chapter 9 by talking about the nature of the aftermath of Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the garden of Eden. Much is written here about Adam and Eve’s son Cain who killed his brother Abel. “Sin proliferates along with mankind.” (197) but God is merciful and though it seems that only God’s justice is on display in the opening chapters of Genesis there is an element of grace. For one thing, Blocher writes that God kept Adam and Eve from eating from both trees because that would’ve been unthinkable. He hinders the completion of the Tower of Babel by confusing their language. This is to prevent the unthinkable from happening. Therefore, God’s justice is merciful. But ultimately, it is through the promise of the seed of the woman that we see the grace of God on full display.

Blocher concludes with a very helpful appendix on “Scientific Hypotheses and the beginning of Genesis”. Several scientific theories are given and this appendix helps to show that there is some harmony in science and the Bible. Taken together, every chapter of this book is both descriptive of events as found in the opening chapters of Genesis and relevant for many of today’s controversies surrounding those chapters. Blocher’s work is a commentary on Genesis that is helpful to the pastor, the theologian, and the general laity.

“On the Incarnation” by St. Athanasius

Posted on by

41qq3xagoqlC. S. Lewis’ introduction to On the Incarnation by Athanasius might be the most important introduction to a book that I’ve ever read. Lewis first makes the case that reading old books are more important than reading new ones. If you can only have time to read an old book or a new one, he encourages the ordinary reader to read the old one. He reasons that, “A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it.” (4) He suggests that, if possible, you should read an old book for every new book that you read.

To better understand the emphasis Lewis places on old books, Lewis wrote, “People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us.” (5) A steady diet of old and new books is helpful to keep us from being led astray.

After making the case that we should add old books to the new ones to balance our diet, Lewis goes on to introduce On the Incarnation. He comments on the masterful way in which St. Athanasius uses the classical Greek to communicate his ideas. He calls him a “master mind”. After such an introduction by such an important Christian thinker of the modern era, the reader is inspired to begin reading Athanasius.

In chapter 1, Athanasius finds it important to return to the story of the Creation and the Fall to discuss why the Incarnation was necessary. He writes, “It was our sorry case that caused the Word to come down.” Athanasius reasons that the Word became incarnate in order to bring about a recreation within humans precisely because it was the Word who created humans in the first place. In this first chapter Athanasius also writes about how we bear the Image of God within us, though he spends much more time on this later.

In chapters 2 and 3, Athanasius begins by writing a fascinating paragraph about the goodness of God. He writes about how God couldn’t simply back down from his promise that Adam and Eve would “surely die”, but neither could He just let humanity perish with no hope of redemption. Both options seem “monstrous and unfitting”. He then asks, “What, then, was God to do?” (32) His answer is to discuss how “the incorporeal, incorruptible, and immaterial Word of God entered our world.” This incarnation proves the goodness of God with which Athanasius began these two chapters. However, humanity still rejects the Incarnate Word of God. In fact, “So burdened were they with their wickedness that they seemed rather to be brute beasts than reasonable men, reflecting the very Likeness of the Word.” (40) At this point, Athanasius revisits the Image of God that was impressed on humanity from the beginning and “renew[ed] His Image in mankind.”

Chapter 4 talks about the death of Christ and of the importance of that event. Clearly, humans deserved death as Athanasius pointed out in chapter 1. He writes that it is in the death of Christ that God is proven to be good. He even takes great care in explaining why Jesus must die, why it must be a public death, why it must be a dishonorable death. Athanasius even uses the imagery of the cross that made it necessary for Jesus to stretch out His arms for us. He writes, “it was that He might draw His ancient people with the one and the Gentiles with the other, and join both together in Himself.” (55) This may not have been THE reason for Jesus’ outstretched arms on the cross but it illustrates an orthodox position and it is emblematic of the type of imagery of which Athanasius is capable in this book.

Athanasius begins chapter 5 which deals with the resurrection, by talking about the perfect timing of the resurrection. It wasn’t too short that people doubted whether or not Jesus really died, but it wasn’t too long that people would doubt whether it was in fact the same body. It is the resurrection that truly and fully proves the power of God and His power over death. That was the curse in the garden and that is the hope of our Savior, that death will be defeated in Him. He inspires us not to be afraid of death but even as young children we should train ourselves to die.

But obviously, not all believe in the Incarnation of God and wouldn’t understand the necessity of His death on a shameful cross and would scoff at the idea of a bodily resurrection of our Savior. It is for this reason that Athanasius turns to the unbelief and ridicule of both the Jews and the Gentiles in chapters 6, 7 and 8. Athanasius turns first to the Jews and declares that the evidence against the Jews unbelief lies “in the Scriptures which even themselves read.” (64) He uses 18 direct quotes from the Hebrew Bible and several other allusions to confirm that Jesus was in fact God as a refutation against the Jews unbelief. Then, Athanasius confronts the Gentiles. The Gentiles, to Athanasius are “utterly astonishing” in their disbelief because they seem to laugh at God and “yet fail to see the shame and ridiculousness of their own idols.” (75) Through a series of questions, Athanasius deconstructs the unbelief of the Gentiles: “What is there in our belief that is unfitting or ridiculous?” (76) When did the worship of idols become foolish and “spurned under foot”? Athanasius answers this with, “when the true Wisdom of God revealed Himself on earth.” (83) Truly, God Incarnate accomplished much while on earth and Athanasius enumerates many of the deeds of Jesus. He asks, what king or tyrant ever accomplished as much as Jesus did?

In his conclusion, Athanasius sums up the Incarnation and states his purpose to Macarius: “This will give you a beginning, and you must go on to prove its truth by the study of Scriptures.” (95) This is a good reminder to all the readers of this short work of the importance of the Incarnation of God to our lives.