The Legacy of Thomas

John 20:24-29 relates the story of “doubting” Thomas:

  But one of the Twelve, Thomas (called “Twin”), was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples kept telling him, “We have seen the Lord!”

   But he said to them, “If I don’t see the mark of the nails in His hands, put my finger into the mark of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe!”

  After eight days His disciples were indoors again, and Thomas was with them. Even though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them. He said, “Peace to you!”

  Then He said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and observe My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop your unbelief, but believe.”

  Thomas responded to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

  Jesus said, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Note that at the beginning of the passage, the other eleven disciples repeatedly urged Thomas to believe them, but like a good scientist, he refused to believe something so outlandish without direct observation of the critical details.

And so Jesus, in an act of extraordinary grace, obliged him. The Resurrected God Almighty condescended to reveal Himself personally to one of his twelve closest disciples when he couldn’t believe his compatriots.

Why did Jesus do it? 

Clothing Optional

“And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.” Genesis 2:25

“After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands…” Revelation 7:9

“’Let us rejoice and exult and give Him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His Bride, has made herself ready; it was granted her to be clothed with fine linen, bright and pure’—for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.” Revelation 19:7

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.” Revelation 22:14

The above parallel never occurred to me before tonight. We often talk about heaven being Eden restored—a new heaven and a new earth and all of that. Genesis makes a big deal about our nakedness being a symbol of our innocence and freedom from shame, yet strangely, Revelation doesn’t mention a restoration to innocent nakedness, and makes several references to our being clothed in robes. Ponder this for a minute.

There are several significant things to unpack here.

Vibrant Dance 2: Panel Discussion 4: Can Young-Earth and Old-Earth Christians Work Together to Build the Kingdom of Christ? What are the foundations for cooperation? What are the current impediments?

{RJW Note:  The fourth and last panel discussion was discussing the tensions among Christians that hold to different views of Genesis, 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. Due to some duties as a volunteer at the conference, I missed the first 20-25 minutes of this panel. My apologies, however, I think the gist is probably captured here.}

TB:  There are different levels of working together, and so many opportunities to cooperate, but we have need to be aware of and discuss those differences.

JR:  We need to get over worrying about wondering—if you are in love with someone, you are constantly in wonder of them. If you become skeptical or no longer filled with wonder, you no longer are in love {or love is decreasing}. We should always be in wonder about Christ and exploring and asking questions. We need to fight more and support those we agree with in their writing and research; ‘fight’ being a sincere non-acrimonious debate. Need to support young earth creationists with time and treasure to study actual scientific research to see what support exists there. We’re either nasty or wimpy. We need to disagree agreeably and agree disagreeably (i.e., keep things stirred up to keep up the wonder and keep exploring).

Vibrant Dance 2: The Implications of My Position on the Core Christian Doctrines

{RJW Note:  The second “panel” discussion was really each speaker taking 10 minutes to address the title issue. So this session was not a lot of back and forth but just a serial lecture by each panel member, 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. Not everyone took the full ten minutes, so some are shorter than others.}

CB:  Looking at the core Christian doctrines, is your view essential to the faith? In other words, if someone holds or does not hold your view, are they missing a core doctrine of faith?

WK:  Look at the Apostle’s Creed and as long as we stick to that, we’re fine. Yet a real implication of having an eternal God is a demand for non-eternal matter. Genesis IS important because it sets up the meta-narrative of the whole of Scripture. Atheists begin with a eternal universe, but the Bible begins with an eternal God, which offers meaning and gives the origin of universe. The universe cannot explain itself. Beliefs about age of earth and length of days are secondary to the fact that God created. By naming things, in ancient times, you claim authority and ownership of them. So therefore speaking things into existence, God claims ultimate authority and by creating us in His image, He imparts special status to us. Other (ancient near east) ANE creation accounts are very different and more materialistic, more like us, than the Bible. The God of the Bible is continuously active, not a Deist or Scientific God that winds things up and steps back to watch it unfold. The Bible makes enormous claims—Christ claims to have created the universe and now rules it. Creation was created for us—its pinnacle. Other ANE views are without purpose for the universe.

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: Duncan: Six 24-Hour Days, A Reformed View

{RJW Note: The final plenary position paper was given by J. Ligon Duncan, the Senior Minister at First Presbyterian Church, Jackson Mississippi, and Distinguished Visiting Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary. For whatever reason, I didn’t ask him at the conference for his notes. I emailed him a couple of days ago, and have not yet heard back, so tonight’s summary will be exclusively from the notes I took during the talk. I apologize for not getting the something from him at the time. Starting tomorrow, coverage will be over the breakout sessions and panel discussions.}

All Christians must be committed to some form of realism—correspondence and coherence and revelation are all important. Inerrancy is also important. We do have different ways of knowing things, and it is important to be aware of them and their reliability. We need to recognize that ontology precedes epistemology. {The fact that we exist takes precedence over how we know it.} For example, “I know my wife knows me” but sometimes it is hard to explain why I know.

It is impossible not to admit the presence of supernaturalism in Genesis 1, but it doesn’t mean the functions of this world are not capable of study by human activity. In other words, just because I say God sent a thunderstorm, doesn’t mean it is wrong to study meteorology. The fact of God’s action in the world as either an ultimate cause or even a specific one doesn’t preclude the fact of the orderly laws of nature, which we are able to study and have a responsibility to study.

Vibrant Dance 2: Waltke: Genesis 1: Science and Holy Scripture

{RJW Note:  The fourth plenary session was by Dr. Bruce Waltke, Reformed evangelical professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, currently at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Dr Waltke handed out copies of his slides to everyone, so I did not ask him for a copy of his talk text. Thus, today’s post is a merger of my notes and the information from his slides, which were in two parts to meet the syposium request to share the epistemological and hermeneutical approach used in arriving at his position. Note:  errors in the Hebrew symbols are mine, not Dr. Waltke’s.}

{Note:  the highlighted “Hebrew” is the unedited result of scanning the notes. I will come back and edit it to something much closer in a few hours. I apologize for any inconvenience.}

Part 1:  Waltke’s Epistemology for Knowing Reality

I.                    There are 2 sources of knowing reality:  Revelation and Reason

A.      Reason (aka science) is used for knowing physical ontology by experiment—for example, how can I get to the moon?

I can believe what science says but not believe IN science

B.      Revelation (aka the Bible) is used to know metaphysical ontology (mystery) by faith and Spirit—for example, why is the moon there?

But I do believe IN Scripture

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?

Vibrant Dance 2: Beall: Genesis 1-2: A Literal Reading

The first position paper presented at Vibrant Dance, Theology Edition, was by Dr. Todd Beall, Professor of Old Testament, Capital Bible Seminary, Lanham, Maryland. An apparent late request to each speaker was to start with a brief overview of their epistemology and hermeneutics in the presentation of their specific interpretation. Dr. Beall provided some notes to the audience to aid in his talk. Due to time constraints, he skimmed some sections. He supports the idea that the earth is a few thousand, rather than billions of years old, also known as “young-earth creationism.”

I have debated over whether to present the position papers with or without comment, and have concluded without. At the end of the series, I will offer commentary on the symposium as a whole, which you are welcome to bronze or tar and feather, at your pleasure.

First, there are some things Beall said in the talk that were outside his notes, so I share them here in the order he shared them, but not in the context of his notes. Beall began by affirming his subscription to the Chicago Statements presented by Blaising, primarily Articles 20-22. Also, he commented that he is less concerned with the age of the earth than with reading Scripture clearly, and that he believes that Origins is a subject area outside of the purview of science, so trying to reconcile science and Creation is pointless {my word not his}. Dr. Beall started off college as a pre-med, so has taken a large amount of science classes. He talked favorably about Darwin and Darwin’s passage on the mystery of the eye. He believes Christians can be of any of the three views (young earth, old earth and theistic evolution), and is willing to fellowship with them—we’ll get to heaven and then someone will have to apologize. (tongue-in-cheek tone)

(Incidentally, let me plug the ABBYY Fine Reader OCR software for its amazing job at converting the scanned image to text with very few corrections—it even got most of the Hebrew mostly correct in one pass!! There do seem to be some places where font and formatting have gotten corrupted. I apologize for any confusion.) Here begins Dr. Beall’s notes.

Does our view of Genesis 1 really matter? Yes, it does. Creation is a powerful witness to God (general revelation: Rom 1:18-21; Ps 19:1). That is why the first few chapters of Genesis are under such attack today.

1.            What does Genesis 1 (and subsequent chapters) actually say?

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.

Vibrant Dance 2011: Day 1 Recap

Today was the first of the two day conference on the Vibrant Dance of Faith and Science, Theology Edition:  Creation—Biblical Options. All of the presenters come from more of a theological or philosophical background rather than a science background, so it was a change for me. I plan to give a short recap of each day’s sessions and in future posts discuss each of the talks I attended, so that it can be delivered in blog-sized bites.

There were seven plenary sessions and a breakout session interspersed with times of worship, breaks and meals. The first, by Dr. Craig Blaising, Provost and Executive Vice President of Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary, set the tone by establishing a framework for discussion in terms of generally accepted principles of Biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) and understanding knowledge (epistemology). He also laid out the importance of Creation as a Christian doctrine and the key questions that tend to come up in debate.

Young Earth/Old Earth

At today’s Christian faculty lunch, the topic of Science and Faith came up, particularly in the context of Genesis and the old earth/young earth debate.

My friend and colleague Sarah Salviander has started a ministry called Six Day Science, which I’ve written about before, and in spite of the appearance of the name, she is an old earth creationist. I asked her how things with that ministry were going and she was a little frustrated with the complete lack of response to email introductions she’d sent out to local pastors. We as a group sympathized, and shared that many pastors, not trained in science, tend to automatically take the young earth position. Furthermore, since many young earth creationists believe that is the only inerrant interpretation of Genesis, anyone holding a different view has a doctrinally weak view of Scripture. Consequently, many pastors try to insulate their congregations from those who hold different views, especially if that church has a school affiliated with it. This really helped her understand the dynamic involved.

The Church and Sex

A friend posted the following link on the ubiquitous facebook:  “$28-Billion-Crime: New film shows the dark connection between sex addiction and sex trafficking.” I had to really think through whether and how to cover this deep of a subject without diluting it by overhype or platitudes. The topic of sex and sexual sin is both over- and under-exposed in the Church. Because the topic seems so private, it can be hard to realize the global implications of one’s personal choices.

C.S. Lewis put the topic of lust and pornography in his typically unique way by comparing it to gluttony. He described both hunger and the sex drive as natural God-given aspects of being corporeally human, yet, we would think it quite odd for someone to drop a coin in a machine to have pictures of a roast turkey or ice cream or pizza pop up in a titillating fashion for a few seconds before disappearing until the arrival of the next coin. Such a person would rightly be viewed as mentally unstable or not quite right in the head, needing professional help. Why would we consider porn any different?

Conquering and Having Dominion

In recent posts (here and here), I shared some things I was learning about what the ancient Hebrew appears to really be saying in Genesis 1 about God’s command to “Be fruitful and multiply; replenish the earth (or fill it, depending on your translation) and subdue it.” I shared how it appears the God created the world to be wild and adversarial and that our job was to tame it.

This has all new meaning as I look at the disasters that have befallen Japan and the Pacific Rim. According to geologists I’ve heard, if the earth didn’t have the plate tectonic action it does (which causes the earthquakes), continents never would have formed and we wouldn’t be here. Nonetheless, it is a hazard of the planet.

Such disasters as earthquakes, tsunamis, and hurricanes are often referred to as ‘natural evil.’ I disagree. They are not evil, except to the degree that they inconvenience, harm or kill us. It is, in my opinion, just a matter of perspective; as such forces have no forethought, malice or intention.

It is further argued that we set ourselves up for disaster by living and building cities in areas prone to flooding, earthquake, volcanic activity and so on. Yet we do this because of the beauty and/or resources such perilous areas provide.

So the question that rises to the surface is, should we take it literally to subdue the very earth itself? Is that part of our charge as a race from God? If we were able to, what would be the long term impact? We have a tendency to look at the short-term and fall victim to the Law of Unintended Consequences—in effect sawing off the branch on which we sit.

If we conquer even the geology and meteorology of the planet, what then will be our fate?

In the meantime, as we meditate on the opportunities God gives us, let us not neglect to pray for and serve those that are suffering as a result of what we cannot yet control. Such ministrations are very much in our control, and we are responsible for acting upon them. We have the opportunity to be the compassion of Christ to fellow human beings, as we would have them do unto us.

May mercy and grace be upon them, and the overflow of bounteous help sustain them.

SDG

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

Dominion versus Stewardship

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’”                                  Genesis 1:27-28

I, and many contemporary Christians have interpreted the ‘dominion passage’ as to basically refer to the idea of good stewardship, that the harsh ruling connotation of the words was just that, modern connotations of a more pastoral intention by God.

A Christian colleague of mine in the biological sciences has been studying the original Hebrew of Genesis, in preparation for a book he’s writing. He presented some of his thoughts to our faculty group recently. I learned from him that in fact, the original Hebrew is correctly translated, connotations and all.

According to him, the word for subdue is kabash. Yes, in the sense of putting the kabash on an idea. It does mean subdue as in putting down an enemy or a rebellion. This has an even more profound implication:  that Creation is harsh and an enemy in need of being subdued. But wait, it gets better—God declares that this harsh, untamed Creation is good, and that humanity’s charge to tame it is very good!

This awareness of the Hebrew has rocked my image of God. If you’ve read this blog for very long, I have often commented that our definitions of the words ‘goodness,’ ‘holiness,’ and ‘righteousness’ are far too tame. Yet here again is another indication that God is no mere benevolent grandfather in the sky, but something far wilder, far more…, well more, than we can possibly imagine. He is no urbane metrosexual, but a living Being of Power, who demands we conform to His image, refusing to conform to ours, even delighting in shattering our views of Him because they are too small.

Then the word for rule (‘rule over the fish in the sea…”) is radah. This means to rule as a king. It has a royal connotation to it. In order to interpret it properly, we need to look at what God demanded of kings. Look up all of Psalm 72 on your own (homework), but here are the first seven verses:

Endow the king with your justice, O God,

   the royal son with your righteousness.

May he judge your people in righteousness,

   your afflicted ones with justice.

May the mountains bring prosperity to the people,

   the hills the fruit of righteousness.

May he defend the afflicted among the people

   and save the children of the needy;

   may he crush the oppressor.

May he endure as long as the sun,

   as long as the moon, through all generations.

May he be like rain falling on a mown field,

   like showers watering the earth.

In his days may the righteous flourish

   and prosperity abound till the moon is no more.

If this is indeed the kind of behaviour God expects from a king, then radah in Genesis 1:28 does convey the idea of lifting up, taming for better use, almost in the sense of bringing out the perfect gem hidden in the rough stone. Therefore, taken together, God’s commands for us to kabash and radah the Creation form a vastly richer picture of what our work on Earth is meant to be. It is no mere idyllic scene, neither is it merely survival of the fittest, but a great work, with meaning, purpose and reward.

{For a more thorough article on the Hebrew words, read this.}

As Christians, we need to stop making apologies for God as if He’s some quirky or misunderstood uncle. We need to understand what He says about Himself and get to know Him, proclaiming rightly all of His character. He says that He will offend people, that they will stumble over Him, and consequently set themselves over against Him.

But how can we give them the opportunity to make that choice in an informed manner if we ourselves don’t know Him? He is not a tame God. He commanded us to tame nature, and that He would tame us. Yet, instead we often try to have nature tame us (i.e. radical environmentalism) and then we try to tame God. That is the heart of paganism.

SDG