Peter writes,
<< In "Genesis Reconsidered," PSCF 51/4 (Dec. 1999), 231-243, Armin Held
and I elaborated, in detail, a concordant interpretation of Gen. 1:1 -
2:7 based on these ideas. The text can also be found on the ASA website:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF12-99Held.html
Of course, it was attacked, both in PSCF and on this list, by those in
what you call the "big group". Nevertheless, I am still convinced our
concordant interpretation is at least as valid, theologically,
scientifically and philosophically, as the ancient-near-eastern-worldview
interpretation (or rather dismissal) of this text involving the feeble excuse
of divine accommodation to human errors (mistaken for kenosis). >>
There are several observations that should be made here.
One is that the "big group" which rejects the concordist interpretation of
Gen 1 is much larger than any group on this list. It is comprised of all
those who have given us the historical interpretation of the Church from its
beginnings up to the middle of the 19th century plus the overwhelming
majority of OT biblical scholars since then including the majority of
evangelical OT scholars.
Sine qua non to the concordist interpretation of Gen 1 is the interpretation
of Gen 1:1 as meaning that God put the sun, moon and stars into full
operating order prior to Gen 1:2. But, like the majority of commentaries, the
latest evangelical commentaries on Genesis reject this interpretation. Wenham
(Genesis 1-15) adopts the traditional understanding of Gen 1:1 as referring
to the creation of the raw material which is later formed into the heavenly
bodies on the fourth day, but clearly speaks of Day 4 as telling of the
"creation" of the sun, moon and stars. Mathews (Genesis 1-11:26, 143, 153)
also adopts the traditional view, and like Wenham says of Day 4, "On this day
the luminaries are created and placed in the heavens...."
Walton (Genesis, 70) denies that 1:1 is saying anything was actually created
and understands it to be a "literary introduction, a summary of what
follows." Waltke (Genesis, 58), Ph.D. in Semitics from Harvard and author of
a reference book on Hebrew syntax, says of 1:1 "Although some have argued
that 1:1 functions as merely the first event of creation, rather than a
summary of the whole account, the grammar makes that interpretation
improbable."
Secondly, Gen 1, particularly 1:6-7 with its division of the primeval waters,
reflects the Babylonian creation account inasmuch as Enuma Elish is the only
other creation account which has this unique feature. (Two other accounts of
the c. 150 creation accounts readily available have this feature but are
considered for other reasons to have been influenced by the biblical account
via missionaries.) Also, the order of events in Gen 1 is much more similar to
the order of events in Enuma Elish than in any other creation story (See E.A.
Speiser, Genesis or Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis). In addition, all peoples
before the rise of Western science believed the sky was solid, so that is not
unique to Gen and Enuma Elish, but placing the waters above the sky is rarely
found anywhere except in these two accounts. There is, therefore, an
objective basis for recognizing that Gen 1 is reflecting an ancient Near
Eastern view of creation. Hence no "excuse" is necessary for accepting this
fact. I think Calvin's view of accommodation, which I follow in principle,
explains why Gen reflects the Babylonian view of creation; but, it is not
necessary that one believe in accommodation to recognize that Gen 1 is
reflecting such a view.
It is evident that in back of concordism's rejection of the consensual
interpretation of the biblical data is the belief that Scripture is inerrant
whenever it touches upon science. This is the same "high view" of Scripture
which is at the root of creation science's rejection of the consensual
interpretation of the scientific data. Interestingly, each side considers its
rejection of consensual interpretation as a mark of its superior Christian
commitment. Given the objectively weak foundations upon which both sets of
idiosyncratic interpretations are based, I suggest that these
reinterpretations of the scientific and biblical data respectively are not
signs of superior Christian commitment but of a commitment to a merely human
doctrine of Scripture which is nowhere taught in Scripture.
The fact that the laws given in the Pentateuch directly by God include
concessions to divorce for any reason whatsoever, slavery, polygamy, blood
feud, and the inequality of women shows that inspiration does not exclude
concession to views which violate God's nature as Righteousness. Hence one
cannot simplistically rest upon the argument that God could not accommodate
his revelation to the mistaken science of the times because that would
violate his nature as Truth.
In short, I believe that concordism and creation science are each building a
private world upon a merely human foundation.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 04 2002 - 20:50:20 EST