I’ve been particularly interested in the opening
chapters of Genesis, because there is so much contention about it; and as
Blocher puts it ‘the beginning unlocks
the principle, the constitution reveals the nature. The human race quite rightly feels
that it cannot find its bearings for life today without having light shed on
its origins’ (p. 15). This book (ISBN: 9780851113210) is an attempt to examine
carefully the first few chapters of the book of Genesis. I think Blocher has
done a fine job in highlighting certain aspects of the texts and he comes to
some good conclusions of which I will attempt to share a few.
Firstly,
the creation accounts shouldn’t be read literally. Chapters 1 and 2 argue for
an appreciation of the literary genre of the chapters and Blocher adopts the ‘historico-artistic’
interpretation of the week of creation (p. 49). The text doesn’t warrant a
literal reading, but this doesn’t mean we are compromising to the pressures of
science. The author of the creation accounts had a message to share, and that
was certainly not to establish scientific facts. Furthermore, Blocher suggests that
a ‘form-filling’ understanding of the creation week is probably the most
faithful interpretation of the stories. Also, the emphasis of the author is in
the orderliness and aesthetic goodness of God’s creation.
Secondly,
what is traditionally called ‘the Fall’ is perhaps better understood as ‘the
breaking of the covenant.’ It does not revolutionise our understanding of Genesis
3. But it does help us to be aware that no one approaches the Biblical text
without presuppositions. Blocher argues that this event is historical, but the
Biblical author has no qualms in using figurative (or symbolic) language in his
narration. We need not take ‘historical’ to mean ‘literal.’ Nevertheless, he
argues that we must affirm that there was indeed a historical man called Adam
(although the Hebrew wordplay allows the convincing argument that the chapter describes
the human condition, rather than explain its origins). This warrant is found in
the New Testament treatment of Adam, especially in Paul’s writing. Thus, Genesis
3 does try to narrate how sin originated in the world. Blocher argues that God
is not the creator of evil, but doesn’t necessarily locate its origin. Scholars
like Westermann and Moberly would argue that the reticence of the text hints
that the question of origin is probably one we should avoid. Nevertheless, Blocher
interprets the snake as a symbol of Satan, citing other Biblical usages as the
warrant for such a reading.
Thirdly,
Blocher does argue that Genesis 3:15 is the ‘protoevangelium’ – in other words,
the prototype of the Gospel message. He places emphasis on the curse as being a
long and extended warfare that ultimately ends in the triumph of the woman’s offspring
over the snake’s offspring. This is probably the safe Evangelical understanding
of the curse. Although many scholars do argue that this reading is difficult to
locate within the context, Blocher draws from other parts of Scripture to
support his assertion. For Blocher, and many Evangelicals, the punishments God
pronounces on Adam, Eve and the snake are not merely bad news. There is also
good news, for instance when God clothes Adam and Eve with garments of skins.
Evangelicals find the ultimate fulfilment of God’s grace
and mercy - where sin abounded as evinced in the chapters following Genesis 3 –
in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not outrageous for one to
come to this conclusion and I dearly hold onto this understanding of the
opening chapters of Genesis although my mind is torn between this
interpretation and the very convincing arguments of Biblical (and less traditionally-Evangelical)
scholars. It sometimes does seem like a battle between faith and the intellect.
I’m attempting to reconcile this dichotomy within myself but sometimes end up
more confused.
The opening chapters of Genesis is full of literary
and theological riches, but if I’m not careful, I might be swimming in waters
too deep. Perhaps this is why I often hear about Christians losing their faith after
being exposed to academic theology. In churches and families, we certainly need
a more robust theology that will help Christians cope (for overcoming is really
difficult) with the challenges to our understanding of Scripture that the outside
world offer. I have learnt from reading Blocher’s book a lot about God’s
character; but I have also learnt that a simplistic faith, that ignores the
importance of grappling with the Biblical text does more harm than good. I’d
rather be marvelling at the Bible than be illusorily (like Adam and Eve) thinking
that I’ve got the important things about the Bible and life sorted out.
No comments:
Post a Comment