Vibrant Dance 2: Panel Discussion 1: Strengths and Tensions in Each of These Interpretations

{RJW Note: The second day of the conference was basically four panel discussions followed by another breakout session. The moderator for each panel was Dr. Craig Blaising (CB). I was able to get the gist of nearly all of the comments, and so will present them as a pseudo-transcript. 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.}

CB:  Do you see G1/2 as one or two accounts? How do they interact?

BW: Agrees with WK on idea that G2 is a continuation and refocus of G1. He discussed the 12 waw’s {a letter in the Hebrew alphabet with a disproportionately large impact on verb tense and meaning with the corresponding controversy as to how it impacts our understanding of the text. It can imply ‘and’ indicating a continuation of activity or thought, or it can change an imperfect verb to perfect and vice versa, akin to making past tense future and vice versa.} as continuous narrative, that there is a creativity present in the narrative and in God’s actions. G1 and 2 are an account based on historical fact, not myth, using creativity to convey spiritual truth.

JD:  G1 gives the “big picture,” and G2 “drills down” to the unique relationship between God and Adam, and said that all of the components of a covenant relationship are there.

JW:  The two chapters are talking about function, order and sacred space. In G2 we don’t need to worry about days, as time is not communicated in the text. God is setting up His center of sacred space in the Garden and setting up the relationships between us and the ground, plants, animals and each other, and setting us up as priests in sacred space where in G1 we are made rulers.

Vibrant Dance 2: Blaising: What Is At Stake: A Call For Gracious Discourse

{RJW Note:  This is the text of the first plenary session at this weekend’s Vibrant Dance conference. In an effort to accurately relate the views of the speakers, I tried to obtain their notes and permission to share them directly whenever possible. Every speaker I approached was more than gracious, even giving me from their hands their notes with handwritten modifications. I am most grateful to these gentlemen.

This talk is from Dr. Craig Blaising, the Provost and Executive Vice President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, TX. He has very graciously updated and emailed his 45 minute talk to me to share with you. I have only made the most minor of edits to be consistent with the format generally used here, issues of spacing and paragraphs mostly. Below is his text and work, so this amounts to a guest post. Again, I am grateful for his willingness to share it so generously.

Dr. Blaising also served as the moderator for the talks and panel discussion, so this talk served as an introduction and setting of format for the entire conference, so having it verbatim is particularly important.}

The biblical doctrine of creation teaches that God, acting alone, freely, by His own will and power created all things—the entire universe, the heavens, the earth and all that is in them. He brought all of it into being out of nothing—no preexistent material, no prior stuff, matter or energy. And, what he brought into being out of nothing, he has shaped and formed, preserved, ordered and upheld as the world and universe in which we live, inclusive of our very own selves.

            God acted alone in creation

                        I am the Lord, who made all things,

                        Who alone stretched out the heavens,

                        Who spread out the earth by myself.

Neither is the universe or anything in it including ourselves or anything about ourselves an extension or division from, or portion of, God's own being, which is simply to say that there is nothing in and nothing about the universe that is in itself eternal or ontologically necessary—none of its powers, processes, or component parts. No part or aspect of the universe functions as or constitutes its ontological ground. All of it exists by a will and wisdom that is ontologically separate from it.

Evidence?

Yesterday, I wrote about another interpretation of data showing that some regions of the brain seem to be responsible for religious experiences. The problem with my interpretation, an atheist would say, is that there is no evidence that such regions are a hardwired means for a spiritual God to interact with physical people.

I argue that there is also no evidence that it isn’t a plausible explanation. Hold on, let me explain.

If there is a supernatural dimension to existence, what would we expect evidence of that to look like?

That is a critical question. If we don’t know what to look for in terms of falsifiable data, then not finding it is not proof against it.

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