Vibrant Dance 2: Panel Discussion 3: Questions for Each Speaker About the Implications of Their Perspective

{RJW Note:  The third panel discussion was interaction based on the previous session, again moderated by Craig Blaising (CB). The panel members were:  TB(eall), JD(uncan), WK(aiser), JR(eynolds), BW(altke), JW(alton). Also Genesis 1 and 2 are abbreviated as G1 and G2 respectively. Again, this post will be in the form of a pseudo-transcript. It was also announced at the end of this session that there WILL be a Vibrant Dance 3 entitled, Created in the image of God: relationship between the brain and mind. No date has been set at this point.}

CB:  Do you see Adam & Eve as historical?

JR:  Yes. Both the Old and New Testaments say so. However, taking them as prototypes, while a bad move, would not kill Christianity, but it is not the way to go.

TB:  ABSOLUTELY. It is a grave problem for the faith if there is no historical Adam.

JW:  Adam’s presence in the genealogies present him as historical, yet the first couple are more importantly archetypal, but they can be simultaneously and without conflict archetypal and historical.

JD:  Yes, based on the New Testament and Genesis 1-3. We need to not find back ways around the text when run into scientific problems.

BW:  Yes. He sees Adam as the first human who had an awareness of God, and thus the need to worship, and an awareness of right and wrong, yet was not up to resisting the adversaries. He’s open to the idea there is more to the story about early humans than is explicitly given in the text. (e.g., Cain’s wife and those who wanted to kill him)

WK:  Yes. Genetics is the hardest challenge so far, but the interpretation of data is too early, and there will be interim problems, but it will shake out finally.

Vibrant Dance 2: Kaiser: Genesis 1 & 2: One or Two Narratives?

{RJW Note:  The third plenary session was by Walter Kaiser, the Colman M. Mockler distinguished Professor of Old Testament and President Emeritus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Again, when I asked for a copy of his notes, he graciously and instantly handed me his copy, complete with handwritten edits, which I have incorporated into this text. The first section below is from my notes from his talk, as it was a last minute verbal addition to comply with a request to share the epistemological and hermeneutical approach used in arriving at the position.}

{Kaiser said there has been an evolution in writing from author intent to reader interpretation, and “Bible Study” suffers accordingly. For example, the act of “reading between the lines” is not reading what is actually written. II Tim 3:16 says that “All {written (the sense given in the Greek)} Scripture is inspired”…so reading between the lines is not inspired. He launched into a brief and justifiable bit of a diatribe against how modern Bible studies consist of everyone just launching into what they think the text “means to them.” It is critical to full understanding of a text to search out and understand the author’s perspective and intent.

Kaiser’s premise is to question the view that Genesis 2 is an alternative Creation account or a contradictory account (a priestly view versus a Yahwehic view). He does not explicitly offer an opinion on age or “literal-ness” of the Creation account, but takes a slightly different tack, and does offer a hint or two regarding his view on the central topic. So without further comment, here is the text of Dr. Kaiser’s talk (all emphases in original, and single numbers in parentheses refers to the verse in the passage containing the quote).}

It appears as if a new or second account of the creation is about to begin in Genesis 2:4b-3:24, for having just completed the creation narrative in chapter one of Genesis, it looks as if all of a sudden we are in a time when plants, animals, and people had not yet been created on the third day as recorded in Genesis 1:11-12. Is this an alternate creation account? Or is this a contradiction between two accounts? What is the solution to this apparent problem?

The Dangers of Auto Pilot

I have finally arrived in Rockport, TX, on the Gulf Coast. Some family members have rented a cottage on the water for the week, and invited me to join them for the weekend. It was a slightly more eventful trip down than I’d anticipated.

As you may know from a post earlier this week, I put my back out on Monday, and it is much better, though not well, and so I’m not quite as alert as normal. It was a night drive because of an event tonight in Austin I had to attend. My ‘smartphone’ has GPS and maps, but not the audio to say, “Turn LEFT, you idiot!”

Dominion vs Stewardship, Chapter 2

Yesterday, I talked about dominion and rule in Genesis 1. It is time to look at Genesis 2, Adam in the Garden.

According to my friend, there is some evidence in the Hebrew phraseology that indicates that Genesis 2 is not a retelling of Day 6, but a subsequent event on one of the following days. (That topic is too huge to even begin covering in a single blog post, because there are a lot of controversial implications. I’ll wait to go there until his book is finished and published, and tell you where you can read up on it then.)

What is interesting is that in Genesis 2, when God charges Adam with the maintenance of the Garden, He uses a very different word, shamar. It means to nurture, protect, guard and so on. This passage does convey the stewardship idea that contemporary Christians have associated with Genesis 1 and 2.

The fact that Genesis 1 and 2 use such very different terms for what appears to be the same task, is actually evidence for my friend’s case that they are in fact, different events. In Genesis 1, God creates a wild Creation in need of conquering, taming and ruling by humans (‘pre-historic hominids”?) (‘adam’ in Hebrew). In Genesis 2, He creates a lush, pastoral garden in which to put the first fully modern human couple (‘Adam’ and Eve), where He can begin to build a relationship with them. Thus, His focus is different, so they are in a different environment, a pre-tamed one.

Why the difference? I am completely speculating here. Perhaps, in giving the first humans capable of spiritual responsibility the best opportunity in which to get to know Him and choose whether to love Him or not, a pleasant Garden was more conducive to that than the harsh world:  God’s Garden in which to nurture His people.

Once they chose their own sovereignty over His even when the deck was stacked towards making the best choice, then the consequence was expulsion back into the kabash, radah world from which they had been pulled/spared. Because God gave them every reason to choose Him and they didn’t, it is consistent with God’s desire in Scripture to give all some clear opportunity to make a conscious choice to follow Him so that if we choose not to, we will have no excuse.

While this scenario is speculation on my part, it seems to be consistent with what I understand of the Hebrew in Genesis 1-3, and the English translations. It isn’t the typical interpretation, so I am interested in thoughts from those who have studied the passage with more expertise and scholarship than I.

What are the implications for us today? I see several. First, it is a reminder that by only knowing the Scriptures in our tongues, we lose some of the richness of the original, having to depend on the translators to convey the original meaning properly through the evolutions of both Hebrew/Greek and the translated tongues.

Second, given that God gave us both the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture, they must both be correct, so inconsistencies must rest with our interpretations of either or both books.

Therefore, third, it is exceedingly wise to maintain humility about our understanding of theology and science, both, which implies that we should do a lot of listening to others’ interpretations and the whys of their interpretations before either subscribing or opposing them, or, refining them.

Fourth, we need to major on the majors and minor on the minors. If we are too wrapped up in our pet interpretations, and they are shown to be wrong, will that damage our faith or enrich it? Which do we want more—to be right or to know the Living God? That answer will reveal a lot about our teachability.

A final take home for me is that though I have read Genesis 1-3 many times, there is still much I have no clue I’m even missing. We simply do not realize how subconsciously we read our interpretation into the text and it blinds us to what God may really be saying. It isn’t until we hear someone give a different perspective that it even occurs to us that there might be a different one, regardless of whether it is wrong or right or somewhere in between.

This principle of humility in one’s interpretation is illustrated in II Peter 1:20-21: “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Does this mean we must be tentative and self-conscious when discussing the Bible? No! There is a difference between arrogance and confidence, between timidity and humility. Again, we turn to Peter, “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” I Peter 3:15-16

I look forward to learning more and more to know Him ever better. In that spirit, feel free to offer your insights, with gentleness and respect,…and the reasons behind them!

SDG