Genesis 1:1-2

I was in a dissertation workshop today and what our module convener said there struck me. He said that thinking and writing should never be separated. And I heartily agree, perhaps my inability to think writing has been due to my lack of writing. So I am trying to pick this habit up again. 

Also, in one of my classes, we are translating Genesis 1-9 from Hebrew to English. Our lecturer guides us, and he makes comments about the Bible as we progress. So I thought it might be worthwhile to write out my translation and record some of his insights. 

I know this might be dry for most people, but learning Hebrew has been one of the most exciting things I have done. I am beginning to realise that I like languages and words because there is a peculiar kind of power there - this power is not visually displayed. It of course engages the mind, but I think its true strength lies in its visceral effect. So I would like to invite you on my journey of hearing God speak in Genesis 1-9.

Translation:

(v1) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

(v2) And the earth was formless/empty and void, and darkness was upon/over the face of the deep [lots of water], while [paratactic] the spirit of God was hovering upon/over the face of the waters.

Notes:

(v1)

There is no definite article in בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית (bereshit), but there are times when words about time are used in a definite sense, but do not have the definite article. (cf. Isa. 46:10; 40:21). Also, the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament which the NT writers referred to) translates 'In the beginning.'

Some would want to take v1 and 2 as the subordinate clause, making 'God said' in v3 the main clause. Their argument hinges on translating בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א (bereshit bara) as 'When God began to create.' This, however, is not supported by the text. People who translate thus seem to want to avoid saying creatio ex nihilo, because in this reading, there was not nothing (therefore something). I suspect they are going a bit too far in pushing their agenda. 

An interesting inter-textual reading (by earlier Jewish and Christian traditions) is to read this verse in light of Proverbs 8:22. There, wisdom is identified with 'the beginning.' Thus, God created with/by wisdom. I think the language is picked up in the NT, for example Col. 1:15-16.

(v2)

תֹ֙הוּ֙  (tohu) - the sense is not chaos but emptiness/nothingness (cf. Deut. 32:10). Thus the picture we see is that there was nothing - only darkness and the waters. (I haven't figured out why there is water - and what that might mean). Also, 'empty and void' is תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ (tohu vabohu), which has a nice ring to it. 

Brief preliminary thoughts on Wellhausen's Prologomena

Many Christians are skeptical, or even suspicious of what is called the Documentary Hypothesis developed by Wellhausen. Broad brush strokes: Moses did not literally write the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible, Hebrew Torah, meaning 'instruction,' rather than 'law'). Instead, there were four 'traditions' or 'sources:' the Yahwist (J in German), the Elohist (E), the Deuteronomist (D) and the Priestly source (P) - hence JEDP. Also, it is worth mentioning that this thesis falls under the category of historical criticism, or 'the historical-critical method.'

Within evangelical circles, even suggesting this proposal as a possibility is a step in denying the reliability (and therefore authority) of the Bible. I believe this is because there is an assumption that the Bible's reliability is contingent on a particular way of understanding Mosaic history, which is that Moses largely wrote Genesis to Deuteronomy in a chronological other, with at least one final editor or redactor who compiled everything. Well, even suggesting a final editor might already be controversial.

Anyways, my point is that many Christians automatically assume that the Documentary Hypothesis is a result of Enlightenment Rationalism, where human reason is set above God's word - judging it (in the case of the Torah) in terms of its history of composition. Thus, Christians assume that the method is inherently anti-Christian, but I think that this is quite an unfair view. Many evangelical Christians today would state that the historicity of the Bible is crucial to its reliability (and therefore authority). But Wellhausen's proposal shares the exact sentiment! He views history as important, therefore, he tries to find out how the Bible - specifically the Torah - reaches the final form we have now. His concern is also historical!

Therein lies an issue, both camps are concerned with history - but by the term, I suspect they mean different things; at the least, they are asking different questions, adopting different approaches. The solution? I have none yet - maybe in future once I have had more time to think about the issue, I can make up my mind.

Before I finish, an important point needs to be said: I hold to the complete reliability and authority of the Bible. So because the Bible is essential to the life and health of the Church, we must be willing to ask difficult questions - not because we think we are smarter than God - but because we want to better understand the God who has revealed Himself in word and in history; and we know that both are pretty complicated issues. Final question: why bother? Is this erudition born from a want of more 'useful' things to do? Perhaps, but if (generally) we encourage Christians to 'pursue their interests' in the areas of the arts and science, why not in this? Maybe there should also be extra brownie points because we are studying the Bible.

Anyway, I would like to end with this quote from the editor of the English translation of Wellhausen's Prologomena to the History of Ancient Israel:

[…] our Hebrew students will have in their hands an admirable manual of what I may call the anatomy of the Pentateuch, in which they can follow from chapter to chapter the process by which the Pentateuch grew to its present form. But for the mass of Bible-readers such detailed analysis will always be too difficult. What every one [sic] can understand and ought to try to master, is the broad historical aspect of the matter. And this the present volume sets forth in a way that must be full of interest to every one [sic] who has tasted the intense pleasure of following institutions and ideas in their growth, and who has faith enough to see the hand of God as clearly in a long providential development as in a sudden miracle.

That closing sentence does not sound insidious.

Two more brothers in Christ

If pathetic fallacy was not derogatory, I would readily say that the weather tonight reflected my mood of the past few days – dark, chilly, stormy. Being Christian has not been easy.

Just now at iClub (an evangelistic programme my church runs on a weekly basis), we had to make last minute changes to the venue because the main building had heating issues. It was pretty hectic, and I was admittedly somewhat grumpy – though I thought I was quite good at hiding it.

Despite the weather, last minute changes to the programme and my weakness, a Chinese guy who has been a regular attendee – Stanley – decided to commit his life to Jesus. And just a week ago, his friend – Caso (also a Chinese student) – repented, and trusted in the gospel.

This week, we looked at the resurrection of Jesus and its significance for us. As we were discussing a few questions, Caso was asked why he decided to become a Christian, and as he answered, I noticed that his voice started to break – and I suspect it was because he was on the verge of tears. Stanley was also very comfortable answering questions; he agreed that Jesus’ death was able to save sinners and his resurrection signified that he had triumphed over it, giving us new life and calling us to live with his as Lord. When we challenged Stanley about what was stopping him from becoming a Christian, he had a few small misunderstandings. But after resolving those, and explaining the cost of following Jesus, Stanley eagerly – with childlike wonder – said he was ready to become a Christian! We prayed with him to confess his sins, ask for forgiveness, and commit to follow Jesus.

It felt surreal when these things were happening. For some reason, I failed to grasp the significance of these events. But now I am moved to tears thinking about the magnitude of what happened in a small room in a church, in a small city like Durham, involving insignificant people like us.

After all that, I witnessed a touching scene: Caso extended his arm towards Stanley, and called him – brother.  

Brother. This is probably an aspect of Christianity that I neglect, not because it is unappealing, but because it is so difficult to actually live out. Christians forget that in the gospel, natural enemies have been reconciled; Christians forget that the gospel transcends culture; and Christians hurt one another too often. But that does not diminish the fact that we are now part of God’s family through adoption (Mark 3:31-35). And so I have gained two more brothers in Christ.

I also want to consider one other thing: the Christian’s call to live in light of the gospel. So I would like to share this theologically-rich song. (I chose this song because another iClub helper was singing it as we were packing down. It also reminded me of my days serving with YFC.)

Hear the call of the kingdom

Lift your eyes to the King

Let His song rise within you

As a fragrant offering

Of how God rich in mercy

Came in Christ to redeem

All who trust in His unfailing grace

Hear the call of the kingdom

To be children of light

With the mercy of heaven

The humility of Christ

Walking justly before Him

Loving all that is right

That the life of Christ may shine through us

(Chorus)

King of Heaven, we will answer the call

We will follow, bringing hope to the world

Filled with passion, filled with power to proclaim

Salvation in Jesus’ name

Hear the call of the kingdom

To reach out to the lost

With the Father’s compassion

In the wonder of the cross

Bringing peace and forgiveness

And a hope yet to come

Let the nations put their trust in Him

I was rebuked for my slothfulness and complacency tonight; and I was reminded of the power of the gospel. Two more people have heard the ‘call of the kingdom’ and responded. So let us strive to keep responding, and to keep proclaiming this call to more people! God will work through our weak efforts to establish His glorious kingdom – such a great reason to be simultaneously humble and confident. 

Book Reflection: Gospel-centred Hermeneutics - Graeme Goldsworthy

Since being introduced to biblical theology about three years ago, I have been passionate about studying it and encouraging others to see its importance. However, articulating why it is important often eludes me. I know that it affects how, as Christians, we read our Bibles - and therefore how we live as Christians. But when questioned, I often flounder trying to find a good reply.

Reading Graeme Goldsworthy's Gospel-Centred Hermeneutics: Biblical-theological Foundations and Principles (ISBN: 978-1844741458) has been extremely helpful in enabling me to evaluate my own presuppositions. I have learned the supporting arguments underlying important Evangelical hermeneutical axioms, been challenged by blind spots, and been exposed to further questions related to the practice of Biblical interpretation. These have helped me to form a clearer 'frame of reference,' or 'worldview,' or - using the name of this blog - construct a better set of 'gospel lenses' through which I perceive the world and understand reality in light of the Ultimate Reality - Jesus Christ. 

The book is tough to read. I started reading it sometime in June, but only just finished it. Perhaps it is because I am asking questions about how to read and understand at this point of time, that the book is particularly pertinent. Nevertheless, I would still highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to understand Goldsworthy's approach to biblical theology. I must say that I would largely associate myself with his version of the discipline - at least for now. 

Right, but going back to my first point about the importance of biblical theology for the life and health of the church, Goldsworthy sounds a clarion call: 

The main hermeneutical goal is the relating of the text to the person and work of Jesus Christ. This necessitates consideration of all the dimensions of the biblical revelation, and especially biblical theology. I cannot stress too much how important biblical theology is to the process of understanding and applying the Bible. It should be taught to children at home and in Sunday schools. It belongs in adult Bible groups, and it should be intentionally preached from the pulpits. Above all, it should be a required course in every theological seminary and Bible college. Biblical theology provides the link between any part of the Bible and its centre in Christ. This is an essential perspective for valid application of ancient texts to modern readers and hearers. Even those texts, especially in the New Testament, that are written specifically as directions to Christians, are derivative of the place of Jesus Christ in the scheme of things (p. 312, italics mine).

Goldsworthy is also very articulate here

Gospel-centred hermeneutics is above all the endeavour to understand the meaning of any aspect of reality, including the Bible, in the light of him who is the Light of the World (p. 315).

For him, Christ is the interpretive key to everything. I agree, and I pray that his Spirit will enable me to do so, to the glory of God the Father.

Reflecting on Truth and Historicity (I)

Since starting my English degree in Durham, one of the biggest issues that has challenged my trust in the Bible is the issue of its historicity. Dictionary.com defines the word as ‘historical authenticity.’ And here’s a line from Wikipedia: historicity focuses on the truth value of knowledge claims about the past (denoting historical actuality, authenticity, and factuality).

I remember reading Henri Blocher’s In the Beginning. He suggested that the literary approach to reading the creation account in Genesis 1 is the best, because it is the method that seeks to understand the Bible on its own terms. In other words, since the Biblical author was not concerned about (modern) scientific questions, reading Genesis 1 for scientific truths is anachronistic (and I would suggest – eisegetic). Perhaps we can find scientific truths in the Genesis account, but if the goal of Biblical interpretation is finding out what the Author/author intended, and how to live in light of that intention, then I am happy to read the creation account in a non-literalistic way. I am not discounting (most) other interpretations, but how we approach Genesis 1 is an indication of our hermeneutical presuppositions.

Let us ask this question: what makes the Biblical account of a historical event true? Many Christians I know and respect will reply that historicity is an essential element. However, modern Christians have a modern understanding of history. We equate history with fact. I think this imposition of modern standards of historiography on Biblical narrative should be questioned – did the Biblical authors share our view of historiography? I am inclined to say ‘no,’ although I will have to read up more. But I agree with the gist of Robert Gundry’s point here:

“I do not deny that events reported in the Bible actually happened, but only that the Biblical authors meant to report events, or historical details in connection with events, at points where Geisler and others think they did so mean. I deny in some texts what would be the literal, normal meaning for a reader who assumes a modern standard of history-writing, but not what I believe to be the literal, normal meaning for the original audience, or even for a modern audience that is homiletically oriented.”¹

Here are two more quotes from Goldsworthy’s Gospel-Centred Hermeneutics:

“Attempts at harmonising the Gospels, it seems to me, have usually ignored the way history has been narrativised” (p. 232).

I think the key idea here is narrativised history.

“[…], while there are grey areas in which evangelical opinions over the historical truth claims may differ (e.g. ‘Is Job historical or parabolic?’ ‘Is Jonah a factual missionary story?’), the preaching of such as historical fact is only problematic when the concern for historicity overshadows the concern for the theological message. Some of Jesus’ parables may well be drawn from real life, but their significance does not depend on their being ‘historical.’ The same may be said (cautiously) of Job. The issues, then, is not whether we can accept only what can be tested by scientific historical means, but what relationship the narrated events bear to the gospel. In one sense the history/fiction debate is important to remind us that history writing in ancient times was creative in a way that was not calculated to be deceptive. The crafting of accounts that some may call fiction is not designed to reduce the historical value, but to emphasise it” (p. 232-33).

I lean towards Goldsworthy’s willingness to accept that significance (or truth) does not depend on historicity. I will readily admit that if I do not proceed with caution, I can easily stumble onto the path of liberalism. But I do not think that fear should stop Christians from thinking seriously about the Bible.

1. Robert Gundry, “A Surrejoinder to Norman L. Geisler,” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 26, no. 1 (March 1983): 113-14, quoted in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy.  

Some Thoughts on Horton's Review of Wright's book

Michael Horton raises a few important issues in this book review. 

1) Modern misunderstandings about the gospel abound. The gospel divorced from history (the Old Testament) becomes just another philosophical thought. Hence, the importance of Biblical Theology. 

The traditional presentation of the gospel—e.g., the “Romans Road”—has little contact with the story the apostle is telling in that famous epistle, Wright argues. Abstracted from the story of Israel, the gospel becomes reduced to “Jesus bore God’s wrath in your place so you could go to heaven when you die.” That old-time religion had some legitimate pieces of the puzzle, but it didn’t put them together properly. Consequently, evangelicals have moralized the problem (sin merely as violations of a code), paganized the solution (an angry Father punishing his Son), and platonized the goal (going to heaven when we die).

 2) There's more to the cross than Penal Substitution. Many evangelicals say this, but for us, it is practically only about how propitiation. I understand the concern to be clear in the face of increasing denial (even among Christians) of this aspect of the cross, but we risk moving to the other extreme of the spectrum.

3) The intermediate state.

Finally, I have some questions about Wright’s solution to the “platonized” eschatology. Here as well, his criticisms of the whole Christian tradition are sweeping, encompassing the Reformation as well. However, these same critiques have a long history in Reformed theology. Luther pledged to put Origen “back under the ban” for his Platonic speculations, and no one emphasized more than Calvin the significance of Christ’s glorified humanity as the guarantee we will be raised bodily to share in a renewed creation. Harman Bavinck, Geerhardus Vos, Herman Ridderbos, John Murray, Meredith Kline, Richard Gaffin, and others showed me the differences between Plato and Paul. In fact, some, like G. C. Berkouwer, overreacted against “Platonism” by denying the intermediate state altogether—which Wright, happily, is careful to avoid. But what do we do with the passages that teach, explicitly or implicitly, a distinction between heaven and earth?  

I am currently reading a book about the relationship between Israel and the Church. One aspect of the discussion touches on our theology of the end times. I am an ammillenialist, and one thing we emphasise is inaugurated eschatology, in simpler terms, the already-but-not-yet aspect of Christian eschatology. Perhaps the implications of this issue for the average Christian is not glaringly direct, but how we view eternity (and therefore the present) will certainly shape how we live today. 

Writing is Difficult

I spent the whole morning writing a blog post on my two months back in SMACC 2, then spent the early part of my afternoon contemplating taking the post down.

Despite making every effort to watch my tone and examine my purpose and motivation for writing, I feared that what I wrote could be taken wrongly. I cannot explain away that feeling of unease, so I guess it was better to take the post down.

And so I conclude that writing is difficult. Although it is what I spend most of my time doing now, there is a weighty responsibility to anyone wishing to have words permanently inked on paper – in this instance – the treacherous sea that is the internet.

Sometimes I wonder if the mental exhaustion of writing well is worth experiencing. But then again, when we do catch those glimpses of the ineffable, it makes the previous sufferings worth it. This reminds me of what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 4:17 ‘For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison…’ (I am not interpreting the verse, I am drawing an analogy.)

For now, I guess I should just keep working at articulation.