Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Theology based on Revelation

by

According to its etymology, Theology is the science concerning God. Other definitions either are misleading, or, when closely examined, are found to lead to the same result. . . . From this definition of Theology as the science concerning God follows the necessity of its being based on revelation. In scientifically dealing with impersonal objects we ourselves take the first step; they are passive, we are active; we handle them, examine them, experiment with them. But in regard to a spiritual, personal being this is different. Only in so far as such a being choose to open up itself can we come to know it. All spiritual life is by its very nature a hidden life, a life shut up in itself. Such a life we can know only through revelation. If this be true as between man and man, how much more must it be so as between God and man. The principle involved has been strikingly formulated by Paul: ‘For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God’ [1 Cor. 2.11].

Vos, Biblical Theology, 3.

Books and Articles Read in December 2013

by

Books

Morgan, Edmund S. Roger Williams: The Church and the State. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1967.

This is a very helpful interpretation of Roger Williams’s thought. It is not a biographical study, though biographical details are included when relevant to Williams’s thought. In sum Williams seems to have had true insights that were contrary to the customary thought of the time, but he held to these insights with such rigor that he drove himself into other errors. For instance Williams was correct to believe that the church needed a pure membership that was separate from the mixed state church. But he drove this to such an extreme that he could no longer fellowship with the Separatists at Plymouth because the church did not reprimand members who listened to Puritan (Anglican) preaching while traveling in England. Also, Williams was convinced that if worship was to be kept pure, unbelievers must not participate in any part of worship. This meant that unbelievers should not be permitted to listen to preaching in church because preaching was part of worship (the gospel could be proclaimed to the lost outside church). It meant that families should not pray together if some of the children were unsaved because prayer was part of worship. Williams also rightly recognized that a pure church ideal leads to a baptist position, but he left the Baptists in Rhode Island because he also believed in the necessity of apostolic succession for baptism to be valid and he believed that the Antichrist had ended that succession.

Williams is perhaps best known for his thinking on religious liberty. Morgan helpfully points out that the difference between Williams and the Puritans on this matter has its root in their different understandings in the way the Old Testament relates to the New. The Puritans thought their colony was like Israel. It was in a covenant with God. God would bless them if their colony obeyed God’s laws; He would judge them if they disobeyed. They copied the laws of Moses when writing their own laws. They thought the responsibility of Old Testament kings to keep idolatry out of Israel was the responsibility of their government also. Williams disagreed. He said that Israel was a shadow of the church. The Old Testament laws and the examples of Old Testament rulers were pictures of Christ and the church. Modern day rulers should not take those teachings literally. Williams said that the government’s only purpose was to protect people’s bodies and goods from harm. Rulers did not need to be Christians to that. Furthermore, most rulers in the world were not Christians. Williams did not trust rulers to make right decisions about what religion should be practiced in their countries. He said that people should be free to worship according to their consciences. It did not matter if they were Puritans, Quakers, Muslims, or atheists. Again, Williams saw some important things that the Puritans missed (though both of them erred in their relation of the Testaments), and yet Williams also seems to be a first step toward American secularism. I see no biblical problem in allowing freedom of worship within moral bounds for other religions, keeping the church and state distinct, while also requiring state officials to recognize Christianity as the moral compass for the nations laws. Many states adopted this approach even after the Constitution went into effect.

Shales, Amity. The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. Harper, 2007.

Shales’s title plays off of two uses of the phrase "the forgotten man." The first use of the phrase came from a nineteenth century essay by William Graham Sumner. Sumner identified the forgotten man as the one that bears the burdens that progressives and social reformers lay on him in their efforts to help others. Roosevelt uses the phrase to describe those in need from the programs of the New Deal. It is an effective title because it keeps the question before the reader’s mind throughout the book as to who the forgotten man truly was.

Piper, John. & David Mathis, eds. Acting the Miracle: God’s Work and Ours in the Mystery of Sanctification. Crossway, 2013.

The essays from this volume are drawn from sermons at a Desiring God conference. The conference seemed designed to address an antinomian tendency among some of the "young, restless, and reformed" whose conception of "grace-based," and "gospel-centered" leaves no room for Spirit-empowered personal striving toward Christlikeness. I found the essays by John Piper and Kevin DeYoung to be the most beneficial. Piper develops a theology of sanctification and DeYoung demonstrates that the Bible gives a multiplicity of incentives for sanctification.

Carwardine, Richard. Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power. New York: Knopf, 2006.

This is not a biography of Lincoln. Instead it looks at Lincoln as a politician. Carwardine examines his political viewpoint, objectives, and how these changed (or did not change) over time. He also looks at how Lincoln gained power through the party process and how he governed. I gained a greater appreciation for Lincoln’s skill as a political leader and as president. Carwardine also paid attention to Lincoln’s religious milieu and his own religious beliefs.

Jones, Mark. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest? P&R, 2013.

As a Puritan scholar and Presbyterian pastor Mark Jones is doubtless glad to see greater interest in Reformed theology. However, he is also concerned that many who identify themselves as grace-based and gospel-centered are actually more antinomian than historically Reformed. Jones provides a helpful history of antinomianism. He argues that the imitation of Christ and obedience to the moral law of God are appropriate guides to sanctification. He further argues that God rewards good works, and that good works are necessary for salvation, though not meritorious of it. Assurance of salvation involves not only reliance on the promises of the gospel but also a recognition of spiritual growth in obedience. In addition, Jones rejects the antinomian sentiment that our disobedience does not affect God’s love toward us because God only sees us in Christ and thus does not see our sin. Rather, the Puritans distinguished between an unchanging love of God for us based on our status in Christ and another aspect of his love that is pleased with or obedience and grieved and angered by our disobedience. This summary of positions, however, does not do justice to the exposition of the positions within the book. Well worth reading.

Articles

Miller, Perry. "Roger Williams: An Essay in Interpretation." In The Complete Writings of Roger Williams. Volume 7. 1963; Reprinted: Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007.

Perry Williams also helpfully treats the differences in the relation between the Testaments in Puritan and in Roger Williams’s thought:

"This secular interpretation of Williams is a misreading of his real thought. . . . It is his writings that reveal the true issue between Williams and the spokesmen for the New England theocracy; between him and Winthrop; between him and John Calvin. The issue was not at all the content of the four indictments. It was rather the broad, the undermining, the truly dangerous conviction from which he deduced these specific corollaries. The difference was an irreconcilable opposition between two methods of reading the Bible. ¶. . . Roger Williams was a ‘typologist.’ John Cotton and his colleagues were ‘federalists.’ Williams held that the historical Israel was a ‘type’ that had been absorbed into the timeless and a-historical ‘antitype’ of Jesus Christ. Cotton and his friends held that God had entered into a covenant with Abraham to nominate a chosen people, that Christ was the seal upon this covenant, which continued still to bind Him and His people together. They founded their social and historical endeavor upon the reality of this temporal and organic development from Palestine to Boston, out of which came a solid system of interpreting the growth, the step-by-step unfolding of Christianity. Without this demonstrable continuity human history would be meaningless; without it the Christian community would dissolve into chaos. ¶But Williams, by treating the Israel of Moses, Abraham and Isaac as a ‘figurative’ prophecy of a purely spiritual and invisible church (which by its nature would be utterly alienated from any physically embodied political order) was putting a chasm between the Old Testament and the New. He was cutting off the present from its origins. ¶Consequently, when he wrote that he would prove [Vol. III, 316] ‘that the state of Israel as a Nationall State made up of Spirituall and Civill power, so farre as it attended upon the spirituall, was merely figurative and typing out the Christian Churches consisting of both Jewes and Gentiles, enjoying the true power of the Lord Jesus, establishing, reforming, correcting, defending in all cases concerning his Kingdome and Government, Williams was hacking savagely at the root of every ecclesiastical organization through which Western civilization had striven to confine the anarchical impulses of humanity. If he was correct then all coherence was gone, not only theological but social; there could then be nothing but make-shift and fallible expedients, such as a ‘social compact’ too tenuous to claim any sanctions which a rebel need respect If he was correct, the colonization of New England was a gigantic and senseless blunder" (10-11).

"By this form of argument [Williams’s typological argument] David and Solomon are not to be condemned for executing Jewish heretics; in fact the justice or injustice of their administrative actions is irrelevant, except in a ‘figurative’ sense. They ruled over both the civil and spiritual kingdom. But no Christian magistrate since the Resurrection can play the dual role. No ruler, Spanish, English, or Bostonian, has any right to punish one who dissents form his idea of true Christianity, even if the offender appear irretrievably anti-Christian. All typical regimes have been abolished in the consuming light of the disclosure of their hidden secret; they have given way to the antitype, which is the true church, radically ‘separated’ form pretended religious institutions, such as the parish churches of England. . . .By treating the Old Testament as figurative he did not explicitly deny that it was also valid as a chronicle of facts. But in effect he demoted that aspect of the sacred books to virtual insignificance. The true thread on which they are strung was a sort of literary, a rhetorical, schematisation. Churches which in Christian times claim the right to act upon the precedents of Israel are confusing categories hopelessly. . . . We have only to contrast Williams’ approach with that of orthodox New England, with the conception of a legitimacy based upon the continuous covenant, to perceive why the orthodox had to see in Williams their most dangerous foe. He declared at the end of the chapter cited above, and elsewhere, a thousand times, that they who follow Moses’ church constitution, ‘which the New English by such a practice implicitly doe, must cease to pretend to the Lord Jesus Christ and his institutions.’ . . . If they saw him as a firebrand, it was not because he proclaimed the doctrine of liberty for all consciences, but because he set up a conception of cause and effect, within the framework of time, which made every Protestant assertion of the civil authority in matters of religion a blasphemy against their own Savior" (18-19).

Foulkes, Francis. "The Acts of God: A Study of the Basis of Typology in the Old Testament." In The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Edited G. K. Beale. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

Foulkes sees a twofold basis for typology. First it is grounded in the character of God, who acts consistently in history such that a pattern may be seen in his acts of judgment and in his acts of mercy. Second, typology is grounded in the progressive nature of God’s action, which means that God’s acts in the Old Testament are incomplete and find their climax in his acts in the New. Foulkes distinguishes between typology, which is grounded in history and tied to the context of passages and allegory which is word-based, ahistorical, and non-contextual.

Hesselgrave, David J. "Conversing with Gen-Xers and Millennials Concerning Law and Grace, Legalism and Liberty (An Open Letter to John and Joyce)."

Hesselgrave begins with definitions and settles on three variants of legalism (two bad and one good): "salvation by works legalism," "excessive conformance legalism," "reactive legalism/nomism" (the later indicating obedience to God’s law from a grateful heart of love). Hesselgrave then provides a brief history of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism in which he stresses the need to appreciate the strengths of Fundamentalism. He denies that the first type of legalism can be pinned on Fundamentalism. Whether the second or third (negative or positive) apply to Fundamentalists varies on a case by case basis. While seeming to agree with the evangelical assessment that Fundamentalists were too separatist, Hesselgrave seems to indicate that Evangelicals made the opposite error in their relation to the world. Hesselgrave concludes with nine guidelines: (1) "Salvation by works legalism" is always wrong, (2) "Christ himself must be the judge of" whether someone is guilty of "excessive conformance legalism," (3) "reactive legalism/nomism" is "highly pleasing to God," (4) NT faith "involves "belief(s), believing and behavior," (5) grace should provoke a response of gratitude that affects behavior, (6) a born-again Christian cannot be lawless, (7) "Christian liberty . . . means ‘set free’ not ‘self-serve,’ (8) the Great Commission invokes discipline people to observe all his commands, (9) the "essence" of the Kingdom of God is the rule of Christ. Regarding the particular issue of an institutional "code of conduct," Hesselgrave notes, "When it comes to surrendering personal liberty to meet the need for credibility on the part of corporate entities such as a Christian church, school, or mission agency, the weight of biblical principles and precedents clearly seems to be on the side of that Christian entity—provided that its requirements and regulations are clearly announced and biblically based. It is Western individualism rather than Christian conviction that recoils at the idea of serving by submitting. The Scriptures stress the testimony of the Church as a Body, not just or primarily the freedom of its members."

Kevan, Ernest F. "Legalism: An Essay on the Views of Dr. Emil Brunner," Vox Evangelica 2 (1963): 50-57.

Rebuts Brunner’s existentialist-based contention that any obedience to a pre-stated law is legalism.

Articles on "Body," "Anthropology," and "Image Doctrine" in Allan D. Fitzgerald, Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Hamilton, Jim. "Does the Bible Condone Slavery and Sexism?" In In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture, ed. Steven B. Cowan and Terry L. Wilder. Nashville: Broadban and Holman, 2013.

Hamilton answers the titular question in the essay’s second sentence: "Of course not!" Regarding sexism, Hamilton notes that much depends on proper definitions. The Bible does teach an "ontological equality" between male and female while also demonstrating "a righteous hierarchy in edenic gender relations." Hamilton understands sexism as both "feminism, the female desire to control, and Chauvinism, harsh male abuse of females." Hamilton argues that both slavery and sexism result from sin. In answering the charge that the New Testament authors condone slavery because they command slaves to obey their masters, noting "The authors of the New Testament are not out to revolutionize the existing social order but to make disciples of Jesus. . . . As day will come when social justice will be achieved, when Jesus will establish his kingdom, but the authors of the New Testament expect tribulation and affliction, the messianic woes, until that day comes." This is a mostly correct answer. However, it would have been stronger if Hamilton had acknowledged that when Christianity spreads and disciples of Jesus have political power, they ought to rule righteously. This would include social reforms such as ending slave trade and slavery. Justice will only fully arrive when Christ returns, but he will judge kings for not ruling justly in the meantime.

Books and Articles Finished in November

by

Books

Witvliet, John D. The Biblical Psalms in Christian Worship: A Brief Introduction and Guide to Resources. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

The title describes the book. It introduces the Psalms in the context of Christian worship. It then provides guidance for effective ways to use the Psalms in worship services. The book has two major weaknesses: it is undiscerning both with regard to styles of music and to ecumenism.

Wilson, N D. 100 Cupboards. Random House, 2007.

Wilson. N. D. Dandelion Fire. Random House, 2009.

Wilson, N.D. The Chestnut King. Random House, 2010.

This is probably the only series of Random House children’s books which promotes the Federal Vision’s thesis of the objectivity of the covenant. More positively, this is an engaging series written by someone who obviously enjoyed the Chronicles of Narnia, drew on that enjoyment (traveling through other worlds through cupboards), but did not slavishly imitate. The books are full of fun allusions to other books (the Bible, the Chronicles, the Wizard of Oz, etc.). These books are definitely darker, however, than Lewis’s.

Speare, Elizabeth George. The Bronze Bow. Houghton Mifflin, 1961.

I recalled enjoying this in high school. However, this time around I was struck with the presumption of making Jesus a character, giving him words other than his own, and, in the end, giving him a message that is different from that in the Gospels.

Articles

Manetsch, Scott M. "Problems with the Patriarchs: John Calvin’s Interpretation of Difficult Passages in Genesis," Westminster Theological Journal 67, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 1-21

Problem passages in the Old Testament in particular—passages that conflicted with common philosophical understandings or that portrayed the patriarchs acting sinfully—propelled patristic commentators toward allegorical interpretations of Scripture. Calvin firmly rejected the allegorical approach, and this article looks at how Calvin interpreted some of these same kinds of passages. The article shows a commitment to literal interpretation as opposed to allegorical interpretation, a willingness to see the text as accommodated to the audience rather than scientifically precise (but nonetheless the words of God and without error), and a willingness to critique the sinfulness of the patriarchs (though with perhaps still too much of a tendency to hold them up as ethical models). Calvin also demonstrated a willingness to acknowledge mystery and human finitude.

Henry, Carl F. B. God, Revelation and Authority. Waco: Word, 1979. [Thesis 9: The Mediating Logos, pp. 164-247].

Henry argues against dialectical theologians that revelation cannot be reduced to non-propositional, personal encounters. When Henry insists that Biblical revelation can be reduced to propositions, he is not ignoring biblical genres or saying propositions exhaust the biblical revelation. He is instead insisting that revelation is logically coherent and not relative to the person.

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,