Re: A NT doctrine of creation (was canon within the canon)

From: Jonathan Clarke (jdac@alphalink.com.au)
Date: Tue Feb 06 2001 - 16:05:02 EST

  • Next message: Ted Davis: "Lecture series on "Intelligent Design""

    Hi George

    Thanks for your erudite responses to my scattered thoughts.

    george murphy wrote:

    > Carrying this further & also expressing some differences from your
    > comments:
    >
    > 1) Recall that I suggested that we "focus on relevant NT texts
    > (reflecting, of course, on related OT passages when necessary for
    > interpretation)." In many cases such reflection is essential if the NT
    > passage is to make sense. What would the reference to "Adam" in Rom.5 or
    > the quotation of Ps.8
    > in Heb.2 mean if we had no knowledge at all of the OT? But in these cases
    > the OT is interpreted by the NT & carried further. The NT doesn't simply
    > cite or validate the OT.

    OK I was been a little ironic. My sense of humour baffles even my wife at times
    :-)

    It would be interesting to see what we could reconstruct of Genesis 2 and 3 from
    the NT, a fair bit of the essentials of the fall I suggest, but not the specific
    context. The quote in Hebrews 2 of Psalm 8 would be totally opaque I suspect.

    The NT use of the OT is very complex and I am only just starting to come to
    terms with how complex it is. It seems to use it in many different ways, simple
    citation as evidence, quotation as illustration, and development and expansion.
    The apocryphal works also seemed to be regarded as authoritative as well and
    even the rabbinical accretions have their place.

    >
    >
    > 2) One significant feature of some NT writings is the eschatological
    > orientation of creation. The emphasis is on what God will do with creation
    > in the future rather than how God created it in the past. Ephesians 1 & 4
    > and Col.1:15-20 are especially noteworthy in this regard. & this future of
    > creation is Christ, "for whom" all things are created & "in whom" all things
    > are to be gathered up.
    > But we shouldn't move too quickly to speak of God's purpose as
    > "salvation". Eph.1:10 says that God's plan for creation is to unite all
    > things in Christ. That is God's purpose before sin and the need for
    > salvation are considered. I think that the answer to old question of
    > whether the Incarnation would have taken place if humanity had not sinned is
    > "Yes."
    > Related to this is the fact that what it means to be genuinely human
    > is known from Christ, not Adam and Eve. In the first place, the only thing
    > that the NT tells us about A&E is that they sinned! (& the OT doesn't tell
    > us a lot more!) But we're also told nothing about being conformed to the
    > image of A&E or "growing up" into their stature - as we are with Christ in
    > Rom.8:29, Eph.4:15, &c.
    > & in line with this, the use of Ps.8 in Heb.2 makes it clear that it
    > is through & in Christ that humanity is given true dominion over creation.
    > It is true that the NT does not have nearly the emphasis on care for
    > creation, & especially for the land, that we have in the NT - e.g., Lev.25.
    > But the fact that true dominion is possible only in Christ tells us a great
    > deal about the _kind_ of dominion we are called to - one of care & service
    > rather than simply exploitation.

    I agree. If Christ is head over all things and yet came to not be served but to
    serve, this says something very interesting about human "dominion" of creation
    in Genesis 1 and Psalm 8. In what way are we to serve creation?

    >
    >
    > 3) We should be careful with statements like "Creation is temporary and
    > will come to an end (2 Pet 3:5-10)". That passage is followed by the
    > statement that "we wait for new heavens and a new earth, in which
    > righteousness dwells." By itself this suggests complete discontinuity
    > between the present creation & the new creation. But there are other texts
    > which suggest continuity - e.g., Rev.21:24-26. The whole picture seems to
    > be one of transformation, as Paul's discussion of the resurrection in I
    > Cor.15 indicates.

    > I agree.
    >
    > 4) Your comment on the apparent lack of a cosmic role for the Holy
    > Spirit in the NT is interesting. What the NT does is to speak of a cosmic
    > role (& "role" is really yoo weak a word) for Christ, & Christ can't really
    > be spoken of without the Spirit. So the connection is somewhat indirect.
    >
    > Shalom,
    >
    > George

    GB

    Jon



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 06 2001 - 16:04:06 EST