Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Land: Genesis 4

by

In this chapter אֲדָמָה (ground), שָׂדֶה (field), and אֶ֫רֶץ (earth, in this chapter) all occur. אֲדָמָה is the most frequent land word in this chapter.

At the beginning of this chapter Cain is the worker of the ground (4:2-3). Cain’s occupation is to cultivate the ground, but as the story unfolds he murders his brother in the field—in the place of cultivation.[1] Because Abel’s blood cries to God from the ground, the ground figures prominently in Cain’s punishment. He is cursed from the ground, which means that the ground will no longer produce for him.[2] In addition Cain is exiled from his land and becomes “a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth” (4:12). We see in this account something that will be expanded upon in the Mosaic code: murder pollutes the land. To avoid the consequences of polluted land, the law will set up mechanisms for dealing with the pollution.[3]

In many ways the punishment of Cain is an intensification of the punishment received by Adam.[4] The ground was cursed such that it would require extra work from Adam to make it productive; Cain is cursed (the person, not the ground this time) such that the ground will not produce for him. Adam and Eve were exiled from Eden, and at the eastern edge of the garden cherubim blocked the entrance; Cain is exiled from his land and moves further east of Eden to the land of wandering (Nod).[5] This exile in both cases involves moving from the presence of God.[6]

In these opening chapters of Genesis land plays an important role in the punishments given. This is likely due to the prominent place it holds in relation to God’s blessing and to the duty of man.

[1] Leupold, 1:206; Wenham, WBC, 1:107.

[2] Calvin, Genesis, 209.

[3] Mathews, NAC, 1:275-76; Craig G. Bartholomew, Where Mortals Dwell: A Christian View of Place for Today (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 33-34.

[4] Wenahm, WBC, 1:108.

[5] Currid, EPSC, 1:151.

[6] Matthews, NAC, 1:278.

On Reformed Rap

by

1. Joe Carter’s statement bears heeding: “Those of us who believe, as I do, that the medium of Reformed hip hop is defensible should give these men—and other critics—an opportunity to hear an informed defense of the genre as a genre. It’s not enough to condemn, we must also convince. But before we can convince others that the genre itself can have a positive—or at least neutral—influence apart from the message it carries, we should first be sure that we ourselves understand the medium we are defending.” One reason I’m not convinced of the legitimacy of rap for Christian purposes is that I’ve never heard such a defense. I’ve heard that it is more word-centered than other genres, which may be true―but it fails to address the issue of genre. I’ve heard that musical style is neutral, but that is theologically defective. And I’ve heard those who object to using Christian rap called names such as legalist and racist, but again no argumentation regarding the genre itself—which is necessary to properly evaluate the charges of legalism or racism.

2. The charge of racism seems especially uncareful. First, many of those who object to the use of Christian rap objected earlier to the use of Christian rock. If the objection to Christian rock was not racially motivated (and I don’t know that anyone claims that it was), why should the objection to Christian rap be racially motivated? Furthermore, what is to be made of John McWhorter’s concern that  “Hip-Hop holds blacks back” by giving them a template for anti-social behavior that “retards black success” and which corrupts many positive things that previously existed in black popular culture? Or what should the Christian think of hip hop artist KRS-One’s description of hip-hop culture in a Tavis Smiley interview: “Well, rap music, and I will say hip-hop culture in and of itself, but rap music as its calling card, offers to young white males a sense of rebellion, freedom, manhood, courage. That’s what it means when you see a 50 Cent or Snoop Dogg or someone on television just blatantly defying the law and doin’ what they’re doin’. No one sees the thug and the criminal. They see courage. They see, ‘This is my chance to wild out and be rebellious in the form of music’”? Is a Christian not allowed to critique such a culture?

3. Why is there such invective toward men who counsel against the use of rap music for Christian purposes? Do they not have the liberty to express and practice their view (an increasingly minority view at that) without being called Pharisees or racists? Some of the speakers on the recent video were not as articulate as might be hoped given the pressure of answering a difficult question on the spot, but was there nothing accurate or worthy of consideration in what was said? Both Scott Aniol’s and Joel Beeke’s responses were careful and well thought out—they deserve some thoughtful interaction in return.

Land: Genesis 3

by

The land theme surfaces again at the end of Genesis 3 in the judgments that God pronounces on Adam and Eve.[1] Genesis 1:26-28 introduces the themes of blessing, seed, and dominion over the earth, they reappear in Genesis 2, though with the hint that the blessing can turn into a curse. In Genesis 3, due to Adam’s sin, the blessing does indeed become a curse. Fittingly, the curse focuses on seed (3:16) and dominion over the earth (3:17-19). Adam’s role as the cultivator of the ground is reaffirmed (see also 3:23). But the ground now resists human dominion.[2] It is painful to work the ground, and the geound produces thorns in thistles along with food. And in the end it seems as though the ground will have dominion over the man because the man returns to the dust of which he was created.[3]

Genesis 3 ends with mankind exiled from the Garden of Eden. As noted above, they were to extend Eden into the rest of the world, but now they find themselves exiled from the Garden. Later Scripture will hold out the hope for the restoration of Eden and its extension over the entire world.

[1] “אדמה, ‘land’ one of the key words of the narrative (cf. 2:5-7, 19) is mentioned at the beginning and close of the curse ‘until you return to the land’ (v. 19), thereby forming an inclusion.” Wenham, WBC, 1:82.

[2] “The ground will now be his enemy rather than his servant.” Matthews, NAC, 252. Leupold speaks of the “insubordination” of the ground. Leupold, 1:173; Waltke, 95.

[3] “Once again the judgment is related to the offense. Mankind had been given dominion over the creation when Adam and Eve were first formed. But now the ground claims victory—it brings mankind into ultimate subjection.” Currid, 1:136.

Land: Genesis 2

by

Genesis 2

Genesis 1:1-2:3 forms a prologue to the book of Genesis which describes the creation of the heavens and the earth. The remainder of the book is divided into sections with the phrase “these are the generations of . . . .” These section heading act as a hinge.[1] The named person is typically the subject of the preceding section and what follows recounts the genealogy or the “historical developments arising out of” from that person in his seed.[2] In this case we are told the historical developments that arise out of the creation of the heavens and the earth. In fact, there is a literal sense in which man is generated from the earth, for God forms him from the dust of the ground.[3]

The reversal of heavens and earth to “earth and heavens” occurs only here and in Psalm 148:13. McCabe notes, “By reversing the normal order of heaven and earth, attention is shifted to focus “on what happened on the earth after the creation of man, particularly in the garden.”[4] Bartholomew notes there is a progression here from Genesis 1: “Narratively, therefore, the move from Genesis 1 to 2, rather than indicating a juxtaposition of two unrelated sources, involves a movement of progressive implacement culminating in the planting of Eden as the specific place in which the earthlings Adam and Eve will dwell."[5]

One interesting fact about the land theme in Genesis 2 is the diversity of words used for land in the chapter. Genesis 1 primarily used the term אֶ֫רֶץ, whereas Genesis 2 uses אֶ֫רֶץ (earth, land), אֲדָמָה (ground), and שָׂדֶה (field).

From 2:5 onward אֶ֫רֶץ is probably best translated land rather than earth. In 2:5-8 it probably refers to the land of Eden. The interpretation of these verses is disputed, but the most likely interpretation is as follows. In the land of Eden no plants of the kind that grow in cultivated fields were yet growing.[6] The primary reason for this lack of growth is the absence of a man to work the ground. In connection with this, the Lord made this land of the sort where rainfall does not supply the water for growth. In this land an inundation from water that springs up from the ground (in this case, probably the river mentioned later in the chapter) provides the water. But this inundation needs a man to manage it if it is to be beneficial for growing these plants. These verses thus expand on the teaching of Genesis 1:28 by providing a concrete instance of the kind of dominion man is to exercise over the earth.[7]

Verse 7 indicates that the man who is to cultivate the ground is himself made from the ground. There is a play on words here between man (אָדָם) and ground (אֲדָמָה). As Wenham notes, “He was created from it; his job is to cultivate it (2:5, 15); and on death he returns to it (3:19).”[8] The point seems to be that God made man in a way that intimately connected him with the ground, thus emphasizing the role that God has given to man to cultivate the ground.

Once the cultivator is created God plants a garden in Eden and causes trees to grow from the ground (2:8-9). In this context, the two trees are introduced, which are trees either of a blessing or of a curse (2:9; cf. 2:16).

Verses 10-14 provide a geography lesson. But this is a geography lesson with a theological point. It continues the second chapter’s expansion of the creation blessing. Up to this point Moses has emphasized Adam’s dominion in the garden, but 2:10-14 looks to possibilities beyond the garden. God never intended of human dominion to be limited to the garden; he intended for man to “fill the earth” (1:28). The river that provided water for garden (2:6, 10) also provides the highways into the lands beyond Eden.[9] This river is uniquely suited for transporting people to lands beyond the garden. All other rivers grow larger as tributaries flow into it. But this river is unity as it flows into the garden from Eden and divides in the garden into four rivers that flow out into various lands. In addition these lands have other resources that that humans will harness that will extend their dominion beyond gardening. Kidner notes, “There is a hint of the cultural development intended for man when the narrative momentarily (10-14) breaks out of Eden to open up a vista into a world of diverse countries and resources. The digression, overstepping the bare details that locate the garden, discloses that there is more than primitive simplicity in store for the race: a complexity of unequally distributed skills and peoples, even if the reader knows the irony of it in the tragic connotations of the words ‘gold,’ ‘Assyria,’ ‘Euphrates.’”[10]

Verses 15-16 wrap up this first section of chapter 2 by returning to the themes of dominion over the garden and of the blessing and cursing that stands before mankind in the two trees in the midst of the garden. The remainder of the chapter focuses on finding a helper fit for Adam. Genesis 2:4- 25 are thus a chapter length expansion on Genesis 1:28, with its themes of land, seed, and blessing. The first part of the chapter centers on exercising dominion over the earth, the last part centers on the wife necessary for man to be fruitful and multiply, and embedded in the middle are the trees that will bring blessing or cursing.

[1] Robert V. McCabe, "A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 2 of 2), Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 11, no. 1 (Fall 2006): 73.

[2] Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 43.

[3] Ibid.; Young, E. J. “The Days of Genesis: First Article.” Westminster Theological Journal 25, no. 1 (November 1962): 18.

[4] McCabe, 74; cf. Bartholomew, 24.

[5] Bartholomew, 25.

[6] שָׂדֶה does not always refer to cultivated fields, but it often does and this seems the best meaning in this context, which stresses the need for a man to cultivate the ground so that the plants mentioned will grow.

[7] Alan Jacobs aptly captures how a garden exemplifies human dominion over the earth in a way that brings God glory. “The gardener makes nothing, but rather gathers what God has made and shapes it into new and pleasing forms. The well-designed garden shows nature more clearly and beautifully than nature can show itself.” Alan Jacobs, “Gardening and Governing,” Books and Culture (March/April 2009): 18.

[8] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard (Waco: Word, 1987), 59. Of course, the death aspect only comes into view with sin.

[9] I am indebted to Bryan Smith for this idea.

[10] Derek Kidner, Genesis, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, ed. D. J. Wiseman (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1967), 61.

An Exegetical Note on Genesis 2:5-7

by

This section of Scripture contains a number of difficulties. Some of these difficulties have to do with the relation of this text to other passages of Scripture or to attempts to correlate the opening chapters of Genesis with evolutionary cosmologies. Critical scholars have claimed that these verses begin a second creation account that conflicts with the first because it teachers that no plants existed at the time that mankind was created in contrast with Genesis 1:11-13, which teaches that the plants were created on the third day.[1] Some Analogical Day theorists argue that these verses teach a functional hydrological cycle was already in place before the creation of man (thus indicating that the creation of humans occurred sometime after the first historical week of the earth’s existence).[2] Other difficulties arise from the text itself. Does אֶרֶץ mean “earth” or “land” in 2:5, what are the “bush of the field” and the “plant of the field” (esv) and most significantly, what is the אֵד of 2:6?

The central conundrum of this passage is why no rain is given as the reason that the bush and small plant of the field have not yet sprung up (2:5) given that the אֵד is “watering the whole face of the ground” (2:6). A number of proposals have been made. Kidner suggests that 2:4 and 6 refer to the period of Genesis 1:2. Verse 5 is a parenthesis that looks forward to the creation of plants and man.[3] אֵד on this reading carries the sense of flood or ocean. This approach alleviates the apparent contradiction between plants not growing because of lack of rain and ground that is well watered both due to the nature of the watering (an ocean that covers all the land) and the its timing (before the emergence of dry land).

Proponents of the Framework Hypothesis and Analogical Day Theory propose another reading. On this reading a particular land was at the end of the dry season (hence the lack of rain in 2:5) but a rain cloud is rising from the earth, and it will water the ground. אֵד on this interpretation carries the sense of mist or water vapor. The takeaway for proponents of this view is that seasons, the water cycle, and “ordinary providence” is already functioning at the creation of man. Thus man was not created in the historical first week of the earth’s existence.[4] This view alleviates the apparent contradiction between 2:5 and 6 by connecting 2:5 to one season and 2:6 to another. It also provides one reason for why “no bush of the field was yet in the land,” namely, no rain and why “no small plant of the field had yet sprung up,” namely, no man to cultivate them. Verses 6 and 7 then provide the solution: rain clouds and the creation of man.

These two approaches suffer from a number of defects. It is not at all apparent that verse 5 is a parenthesis between verses 4 and 6, as Kidner’s view requires. Furthermore, why stress the existence of the primordial ocean in the account of the creation of man? The Framework/Analogical Day approach does a better job at showing how the passage coheres, but it depends heavily on a contested meaning of אֵד.[5] It also fails to present a compelling case for why the author would emphasize that man was created at the end of the dry season.[6]

The best interpretation of this passage recognizes that with Genesis 2:4 Moses shifts from the broad account of Genesis 1 to a more specific account of the creation and placement of man within the world.[7] In this context it makes sense for אֶרֶץ to refer to a particular land rather than to the earth as a whole (see the esv; hcsb).[8] This understanding alleviates the tension between 1:11-13 and 2:5. Moses is not saying in chapter 2 that no plant life existed on earth before the creation of man. He is saying that in a particular land particular kinds of plants had not yet begun to grow. The עֵשֶׂב (“small plant,” esv) probably refers to edible plants that a farmer cultivates.[9] The field (שָׂדֶה) does not always refer to cultivated fields, but it often does. This is seems to be the best sense in this context.[10] שִׂיחַ is a much more difficult term to define. It occurs only four times in Scripture, and in the other occurrences it seems to refer to a desert kind of shrub. It may be that an allusion exists here to Genesis 3:18. In that passage both cultivated plants (עֵ֫שֶׂב) and thorns and thistles appear. Thorns cannot be mentioned here, since they did not exist before the Fall. Perhaps שִׂיחַ is mentioned as the kind of plant that became thorny after the Fall.[11] Two reasons are given for why these plants are not growing in this land. First, God has not made it rain there. This seems to refer to the type of climate that this land has; it is not the kind of land that receives rainfall.[12] Second, there is no man to work the ground. Verse 6 does mention the אֵד which waters the whole face of the land. This probably refers to the river mentioned in 2:10, which is said to water the garden.[13] It rises from the ground and inundates the whole land like the Nile of Egypt. But for this inundation to be beneficial for the plants mentioned in 2:5, the inundation must be managed. Hence 2:7 and God’s creation of man.

This interpretation makes good sense of all the pieces of the passage. The main thrust is that a man is needed to cultivate the land in which God will place him. In fact, God ordered the land in which he will place the man to be of such a nature that it requires human cultivation. Thus the opening of this second major section in Genesis picks up the theme of the climax to the previous section—Genesis 1:26-30.

This is a complex passage. Several of the terms have a wide semantic range that leave them open to other interpretations, and several other terms are rare which means certainty about their senses is not possible and that several competing senses have been proposed. Nonetheless, the above interpretation is grammatically plausible and makes the best literary sense.

[1] S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, 4th ed. (London: Methuen & Co., 1905), 35-36.

[2] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006), 111; for a framework hypothesis approach to this text, see Mark D. Futato, “Because It Had Rained: A Study of Gen. 2:5-7 with Implications for Gen. 2:4-25 and Gen. 1:1-2:3,” Westminster Theological Journal 60, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 1-21.

[3] Derek Kidner, "Genesis 2:5, 6: Wet or Dry?" Tyndale Bulletin 17, no. 1 (1966): 110.

[4] Collins, 125-27; Futato, 14-15.

[5] The word אֵד occurs only in Genesis 2:6 and Job 36:27. Those who favor the translation “mist” or “rain cloud” appeal to Job (Collins, 104, n. 6): “For he draws up the drops of water; they distill his mist [אֵד] in rain, which the skies pour down and drop on mankind abundantly” (Job 36:27-28, ESV). The idea of mist and rain make sense in the context of the Job passages. However, this is not the only way of translating the Job passage. The NIV translates “He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams [אֵד]; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind.” Kidner notes, “‘Flood’ or ‘sea’ however would suit the context [in Job] equally, as in M. H. Pope’s translation: ‘He draws the waterdrops that distil rain from the flood’ (treating it as a modification of Accadian edû, and the preposition as meaning ‘from’ (cf. RV as in Ugaritic).” Kidner, 110; cf. John Hartley, The Book of Job, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 479; Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 404. Research in other Semitic languages points away from the translation “mist” and toward something like “flood.” Tsumura argues that it is related to the Akkadian edû “flood.” He concludes that “Both ‘ēd and its allomorph ‘ēdô mean “high water” and refer to the water flooding out of the subterranean ocean (1989:115).” David T. Tsumura, "Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood: An Introduction Part II," 9, no. 2 Bible and Spade (Winter 1996): 37; cf. Kinder, 110. The ancient translations also favor understanding אֵד as a river that emerges from the earth and inundates the land. Young notes the following translations: “LXX, πηγή; Aquila, ἐπιβλυσμός; Vulgate, fonts.” The Syriac is also in line with these other ancient translations. E. J. Young, “The Days of Genesis: First Article.” Westminster Theological Journal 25, no. 1 (November 1962): 20, n. 50; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 1:103 (Cassuto does note, however, that the Targums favor “mist”). The context, with its mention in verse 10 of a river that waters the garden, also fits the flood/inundation understanding better than the mist understanding.

[6] Futato says that the passage serves as a polemic against Baal worship for pre-exilic Israel. The point is “Yhwh God of Israel has been the Lord of the rain from the beginning!” Futato, 20. It is not clear, however, that the primary purpose of the opening chapters of Genesis are designed to serve as a polemic against pagan theology. There is certainly nothing explicit in the text that indicates this is the point of these verses. In contrast, the interpretation argued for here connects to the major themes of these chapters that are explicitly found in the text.

[7] Richard Hess, "Genesis 1-2 in Its Literary Context," Tyndale Bulletin 41, no. 1 (1990): 143-53; Collins 110-111; Young, 18-19. Note that the interpretation offered here agrees with the interpretations critiqued above at various points.

[8] Collins, Genesis 1-4, 110-111.

[9] Gordon D. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard (Waco: Word, 1987), 58; Kenneth A. Matthews, Genesis 1-11:26, New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Holman, 1996), 194; Robert V. McCabe, "A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 2 of 2), Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 11, no. 1 (Fall 2006): 88-89.

[10] BDB, s.v. שָׂדֶה 1a, 2a. It should be noted, however, that the use of this term in 2:19-20 is likely broader.

[11] “We will show, however, that 2:5-6 is best related to the judgment oracles of 3:8-24, indicating what the world was like before and after sin. . . . The purpose of this tōlědōt section is its depiction of human life before and after the garden sin; the condition of the ‘land’ after Adam’s sin is contrasted with its state before the creation of man. Genesis 2:5-7 is best understood in light of 38-24, which describes the consequences of sin. This is shown by the language of 2:5-6, which anticipates what happens to the land because of Adam’s sin (3:8-24). When viewed this way, we find that the ‘shrub’ and ‘plant’ of 2:5 are not the same vegetation of 1:11-12. ‘Plant (‘ēśeb) of the field’ describes the diet of man which he eats only after the sweat of his labor (3:18-19) after his garden sin, whereas ‘seed-bearing plants’ (‘ēśeb mazŕia’ zera‘), as they are found in the creation narrative, were provided by God for human and animal consumption (1:11-12, 29-30; 9:3). . . . The ‘shrub [śiaḥ] of the field’ is a desert shrub large enough to shield Hagar’s teenage son (Gen 21:15) and those seeking its protection (Job 30:4,7). Since ‘plant’ is best defined by its recurrence in the judgment oracle (Gen 3:18), shrub probably parallels Adam’s ‘thorns and thistles,’ which are the by-product of God’s curse on the ground (3:17-18).” Matthews, 1:193-94; cf. Cassuto, 1:101-2; Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 1:154; McCabe, 88-89.

[12] Harris, R. Laird. "The Mist, the Canopy, and the Rivers of Eden," Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 11, no. 4 (Fall 1968): 178. Similar, but somewhat different interpretations, found in Cassuto, 103-4 and John H. Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 165, 180.

[13] Harris, 178; Cassuto, 104.

Books and Articles Read in October

by

Books

Wilber, Del Quentin. Rawhide Down: The Near Assassination of Ronald Reagan. Henry Holt, 2011.

Articles

Hess, Richard S. "Genesis 1-2 in its Literary Context," Tyndale Bulletin 41, no. 1 (1990): 143-153.

He looks at the toledoth breaks in Genesis 4-5 and Genesis 10-11 and concludes that it is common in Genesis 1-11 for a toledoth formula to mark a point in which more a detailed account follows a linear account of the same events. This undercuts the view that Genesis 1 and 2 necessarily come from two different sources.

Seely, Paul H. "The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis 1:10," Westminster Theological Journal 59, no. 2 (Fall 1997): 231-55.

The upshot of this article is that truly grammatical-historical exegesis of Genesis 1:10 must recognize that the earth spoken of there is a flat disc that floats on the single sea that surrounds the land since this is the view of all ancient peoples.

In a very brief postscript Seely raises the question of whether interpreting these verses "according to their historico-grammatical meaning impinge negatively on the biblical doctrine of inspiration?" (155). He appeals to Warfield to argue that it does not: "A presumption may be held to lie also that [Paul] shared the ordinary opinions of his day in certain matters lying outside the scope of his teachings, as, for example, with reference to the form of the earth, or its relation to the sun; and it is not inconceivable that the form of his language, when incidentally adverting to such matters, might occasionally play into the hands of such a presumption" (Warfield, "The Real Problem of Inspiration," in Works, 1:197).

It is important to note that Warfield makes two points in this quotation. Before the semi-colon Warfield is referring to what Paul thought apart from what he wrote in Scripture. Warfield is clear in the preceding context that Paul can err in his thinking in any number of ways , including his view of "the form of the earth, or its relation to the sun." After the semi-colon Warfield is referring to what Paul wrote in Scripture. Here he makes the more limited claim that Paul’s erroneous views could affect the wording of Scripture. Warfield does not say that Paul introduces error into Scripture on this account (since that is precisely what he is arguing against). Rather Warfield is saying the wording could be understood in harmony with the error while not actually being in error itself (this is the import of the phrase "play into the hands of such a presumption"). In other words Warfield is teaching that God did not correct all the popularly-held opinions of the day held by the biblical writers and that some of the wording of Scripture is compatible with those views, while being in itself free from error.

This reading is substantiated by Warfield’s earlier discussion of accommodation in the same article. There he notes, "It is one thing to adapt the teaching of truth to the stage of receptivity of the learner; it is another to adopt the errors of the time as the very matter to be taught. It is one thing to refrain from unnecessarily arousing the prejudices of the learner, that more ready entrance may be found for the truth; it is another thing to adopt those prejudices as our own, and to inculcate them as the very truths of God" (ibid., 1:194).

In this article Seely argues for the latter: he argues that the errors of the time are taught by the text when interpreted in a grammatical-historical manner. For this reason alone Seely’s interpretation must be rejected as inconsistent with the Bible’s own teaching regarding its inspiration. Seely’s interpretation should also be rejected for limiting grammatical historical interpretation to the human level. The words of Genesis 1:9-10 are not merely the words of Moses writing within his own cultural milieu. These are also the words of God. This is an especially relevant factor in interpreting Genesis 1 since the events of this chapter lie beyond human observation; God alone could reveal these truths to Moses. There is little reason therefore to insist that these words can only be rightly interpreted when understood strictly as someone of Moses’s time would have understood them. They may "play into the hands" of such an understanding (though even this is not a necessary conclusion), but they do not demand of the reader to be read in light of such an understanding.

Importantly, Seely’s argument is not that Genesis 1:10 necessitates this reading on the textual level, but rather that given that all ancient cultures held to belief that the earth was a flat disc surrounded by an ocean, modern interpreters must read the Bible through this ancient lens. To the contrary, historical background must play an ancillary role to the Scripture; it is the servant of the text rather than its master. Otherwise the sufficiency of Scripture is undermined just as surely as when tradition moves from an ancillary role to that of master. The historical background that Seely introduces provides a helpful window into the worldview of ancient peoples, but it does not determine the meaning the divine Author intended for Genesis 1:10. To say otherwise undermines both the doctrines of the inerrancy and the sufficiency of Scripture.

Sinclair Ferguson, "The Whole Counsel of God: Fifty Years of Theological Studies," Westminster Theological Journal50, no. 2 (Fall 1988): 271-78. [section on common grace]

Ferguson summarizes the views of John Murray and Cornelius Van Til on common grace. He notes that Murray defines common grace as “every favour of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God” (271). He also lists the functions of common grace according to Murray: Common grace "restrains human depravity"; God "restrains his own wrath"; "God restrains the influence of evil"; "the disintegration of life is contained"; "God has ordained good in the beauty and abundance of creation"; "good is attributed to unregenerate men"; "civil government provides peace and order for men"; "it is the precondition for special grace" (271-72). Regarding Van Til, Feguson brings out his emphasis that common grace must be understood to exist in the flow of history. In this Van Til counters those who deny common grace on the grounds that the unregenerate will receive judgment for neglecting and rejecting the grace given to them by God (thus, in their view, making it not grace but judgment). Van Til insists that history has real significance and that God can offer real grace to sinners in history.

Pennings, Ray. "Can We Hope for a Neocalvinist-Neopuritan Dialogue," Puritan Reformed Journal 1, no. 2 (July 2009): 229-37.

By Neopuritan Pennings means those who have rediscovered Puritan literature and who emphasize the sovereignty of God and Reformed soteriology. By Neocalvinist Pennings means the heirs of Abraham Kuyper who stress the sovereignty of God over all of culture. Pennings thinks that both groups have strengths that they can contribute to the other. He notes four strengths among Neocalvinists: (1) recognition of the goodness of the creation order which grounds a right understanding of natural law and which explains positive developments of human culture, (2) the idea of antithesis which recognizes that the effects of the Fall touch on every aspect of creation and culture, (3) the idea of common grace which preserves the goodness of creation and allows the unregenerate to contribute positive insights to society, (4) the concept of sphere sovereignty. He notes two strengths of the Neopuritans: (1) a high view of the church and worship in the church which can balance the Neocalvinist emphasis on cultural involvement, and (2) an eschatology which emphasizes the judgment of God, which balances the right emphasis of the Neocalvinists that grace restores nature.

McCune, Rolland. A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity. Volume 2. Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009. [Section on Common Grace, 297-303]

McCune defines Common Grace as "an operation of the Holy Spirit, based on the atonement of Christ and God’s merciful and benevolent attitude toward all, by which He immediately or through secondary causation restrains the effects of sin and enables the positive accomplishment and performance of civic righteousness and good among all people" (297). According to McCune, common grace serves to restrain the effects of sin, to enable civic good, to direct people to God, to promote a fear of God even among the unsaved, and to enable many natural blessings (wording modified only slightly from McCune).

Kuyper, Abraham. "Common Grace." In Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader. Edited by James D. Bratt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Pages 165-201.

Kuyper emphasizes the role of common grace as a necessary precondition for special grace. Without common grace earth would be hell and the church could not grow. Kuyper also sees common grace in the growth of civilization, but he warns against equating the progress of civilization with the growth of the kingdom. Interestingly, Kuyper also argued that common grace is necessary for the great evil of Antichrist. He notes that Revelation 18 reveals that all the developments of culture made possible by common grace are placed in the service of sin. Thus sin takes what is made possible by grace and twists it to evil.

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. Edited by John Bolt. John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. [Chapter 5: The Church’s Spiritual Essence]

Covers the origin of the church, the church as visible and invisible, the marks of the church, and the attributes of the church.

Apologetics and Holiness

by

In our defense of Christianity, as in the entirety of our Christian lives, we are to be a holy people. . . . It seems to me anecdotally, that this may be one of the most neglected aspects of Christian living currently. Someone whose ministry is focused exclusively on college-aged people recently said to me that the burning need among that age group of Christians is holiness. It may just be that the cultural pressures are winning a subtle victory in this regard. If that is true, then it is serious indeed. Scripture is clear that without holiness no one will see the Lord (Heb. 12:14). In wanting to be ‘relevant’ to those who are not in Christ, we may be displaying more of a life ‘in Adam’ than we might think. This bodes ill for the art of persuasion in covenantal apologetics. If Christianity makes little difference in the way we walk and talk on a day-to-day basis, we should not think that there will be any obvious reason or others to want to consider a life in Christ.”

K. Scott Oliphint, Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith, kindle location 2737,

The Word as the Soul of the Church

by

“That the Reformation rightly sought the key mark of the church in the Word of God cannot be doubted on the basis of Scripture. Without the Word of God, after all, there would be no church (Prov. 29:18; Isa. 8:20; Jer. 8:9; Hos. 4:6). Christ gathers his church (Matt. 28:29), which is built on the teaching of the apostles and prophets, by Word and sacrament (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:20). By the Word he regenerates it (James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23), engenders faith (Rom. 10:14; 1 Cor. 4:15), and cleanses and sanctifies [the church] (John 15:3; Eph. 5:26). And those who have thus been regenerated and renewed by the Word of God are called to confess Christ (Matt. 10:32; Rom. 10:9), to hear his voice (John 10:27), to keep his Word (John 8:31, 32; 14:23), to test the spirits (1 John 4:1), and to shun those who do not bring this doctrine (Gal. 1:8; Titus 3:10; 2 John 9). The Word is truly the soul of the church.”
Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:312.

Critique of Paul Seely’s Hermeneutical Approach to Genesis 1:10

by

Seely, Paul H. "The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis 1:10," Westminster Theological Journal 59, no. 2 (Fall 1997): 231-55.

The upshot of this article is that truly grammatical-historical exegesis of Genesis 1:10 must recognize that the earth spoken of there is a flat disc that floats on the single sea that surrounds the land since this is the view of all ancient peoples.

In a very brief postscript Seely raises the question of whether interpreting these verses "according to their historico-grammatical meaning impinge negatively on the biblical doctrine of inspiration?" (155). He appeals to Warfield to argue that it does not: "A presumption may be held to lie also that [Paul] shared the ordinary opinions of his day in certain matters lying outside the scope of his teachings, as, for example, with reference to the form of the earth, or its relation to the sun; and it is not inconceivable that the form of his language, when incidentally adverting to such matters, might occasionally play into the hands of such a presumption" (Warfield, "The Real Problem of Inspiration," in Works, 1:197).

It is important to note that Warfield makes two points in this quotation. Before the semi-colon Warfield is referring to what Paul thought apart from what he wrote in Scripture. Warfield is clear in the preceding context that Paul can err in his thinking in any number of ways , including his view of "the form of the earth, or its relation to the sun." After the semi-colon Warfield is referring to what Paul wrote in Scripture. Here he makes the more limited claim that Paul’s erroneous views could affect the wording of Scripture. Warfield does not say that Paul introduces error into Scripture on this account (since that is precisely what he is arguing against). Rather Warfield is saying the wording could be understood in harmony with the error while not actually being in error itself (this is the import of the phrase "play into the hands of such a presumption"). In other words Warfield is teaching that God did not correct all the popularly-held (but erroneous) opinions of the day held by the biblical writers and that some of the wording of Scripture could fit some of those views, while not affirming those views and thus remaining free from error. (It is important in this regard to remember that the Bible teaches that the text of Scripture is inspired and not that the authors were inspired.)

This reading is substantiated by Warfield’s earlier discussion of accommodation in the same article. There he notes, "It is one thing to adapt the teaching of truth to the stage of receptivity of the learner; it is another to adopt the errors of the time as the very matter to be taught. It is one thing to refrain from unnecessarily arousing the prejudices of the learner, that more ready entrance may be found for the truth; it is another thing to adopt those prejudices as our own, and to inculcate them as the very truths of God" (ibid., 1:194).

In this article Seely argues for the latter: he argues that the errors of the time are taught by the text when interpreted in a grammatical-historical manner. For this reason alone Seely’s interpretation must be rejected as inconsistent with the Bible’s own teaching regarding its inspiration. Seely’s interpretation should also be rejected for limiting grammatical historical interpretation to the human plane. The words of Genesis 1:9-10 are not merely the words of Moses written within his own cultural milieu. These are also the words of God. This is an especially relevant factor in interpreting Genesis 1 since the events of this chapter lie beyond human observation; God alone could reveal these truths to Moses. There is little reason therefore to insist that these words can only be rightly interpreted when understood strictly as someone of Moses’s time would have understood them. If the prophets did not always understand the spiritual import of what they wrote (1 Peter 1:10-12), must we insist that they always understood the physical import? Their words may "play into the hands" of an erroneous understanding from their time (though I think that would be an overstatement in this case), but they do not demand of the reader to be read in light of such an understanding.

Importantly, Seely’s argument is not that Genesis 1:10 necessitates this reading on the textual level, but rather that given that all ancient cultures held to belief that the earth was a flat disc surrounded by an ocean, modern interpreters must read the Bible through this ancient lens. To the contrary, historical background must play an ancillary role to the Scripture; it is the servant of the text rather than its master. Otherwise the sufficiency of Scripture is undermined just as surely as when tradition moves from an ancillary role to that of master. The historical background that Seely introduces provides a helpful window into the worldview of ancient peoples, but it does not determine the meaning the divine Author intended for Genesis 1:10. To say otherwise undermines both the doctrines of the inerrancy and the sufficiency of Scripture.

Doriani on the Beatitudes

by

 

Grace also holds the Beatitudes together. The first three beatitudes describe a disciple’s knowledge of his spiritual need. The fourth states God’s promise to meet that need. The fifth through seventh describe the results of the fourth beatitude.

Daniel M. Doriani, Matthew 1-13, Reformed Expository Commentary, ed. Richard D. Phillips and Philip Graham Ryken (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008), 109.