Waltke Crux Genre Genesis

8/12/2019 Waltke Crux Genre Genesis

1/9

Bruce K. Waltkestory and rightly understandt in the classroom,Genre dentificationdepends n a ext's contentsand function, GeorgeBrooke2 easoned: The de- )terminationof literary genres s assumed y mostliteratepeoplemostof the ime; however,when he 1debates heated,t is necessaryo be precise estwe Jmiss hewriter's point, for genreand ntentionoftengo hand in hand," In light of the biblical text's'literary genre, he readerwill be n a betterposition Ito decide hecompatibility or the ncompatibilityof ,this creationaccountwith scientific theoriesof on- Igin, jPart I: I~ Purpose

PrefaceT hecreationaccountofGenesis 1: 1-2:3needsdesperately to be heard today in the social-science classroom as a viable option in the

marketplace of world religions.1 This biblical cre-ation story provides the foundation for the biblicalworld and life views, its views about God, humans,the creation, and eachother, truths that the Spirit usesto convict sinners of sin, righteousness, and judg-ment and to point to Jesus Christ as the Saviour.Biblical values and ethics are basedon this account.Unfortunately, insteadof contending that its mes-sage be heard in the social science classroom as anoption to the paganworldviews that are coming moreand more to the fore in our post modern world, someChristians, led by "scientific creationists," are con-tending boisterously that it be taught in the hardscience classroom. This is due to their convictionthat the biblical story and scientific data must andcan be harmonized. For most, however, the attemptto harmonize the scientific data with a straight-forward reading of Genesis s not credible, and as aresult the Bible's message s rejected as a viableoption in the marketplace of competing world andlife views.Whether Genesis 1: 1-2:3 should be taught in thesocial sciencesor in the hard sciencesdependson itsliterary genre. If it be a scientific and/or straight-forward historical account, then it belongs in thelatter; if not, then Christians should be contendingthat it be given a hearing in the former. In this paperI will attempt to identify its genre with the hope thatit will encourageChristians, and especially Christianeducators, o see hat studentsagain hear this famous

A n author's purpose is determined in part by (his perception of his audience's need. Gen I1:1-2: 3 was originally addressed o Israel n "

the Wilderness of Sinai c. 1400 B.C. Both Psalm 8,by David c. 1000 B.C., and Psalm 104, a polemic .,.1against the Hymn of Aton dated c. 1350 B.C., Itransform our prosaic narrative into poetry and set t

Jo music. Empirical evidence confirms the traditionthat our text goes back to Moses, the charismaticfounder of Israel.3 "

Through Moses' mediation, Israel, after its Exo- ;dus from Egypt, entered into covenant with their jSaviour, the LORD," who promised o rewardhis I.faithful worshipperswith life and threatened he ,disobedient with death. To undergird this covenantan inspired Moses gave Israel this creation story,allowing only oneGod,Creatorof heaven ndearth, -who alone deservesworship, trust and obedience.Paganmythologies about the creation ever threat- jened o annihilate srael's witness o ethical mono. ~theism. Pantheism,not theism, universally informedtheir myths which demandedno moral rectitude.Believing n magic, heir liturgical personnel nnu. 'ally mimed their myths hoping that by re-enactingthe drama of their lustful gods they would re-createlife. Their myths and rituals, such as Babylon's

Bruce K. Waltke s ProfessorofOld Testamentat Regent College.

Crux: December 1991Nol. XXVII, No.42 J


2/9

The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter Oneday for rest (Ex 20:8-1 I)? Because he set it apart(Oen 2:2-3).Our text continues to speak to the ChristianChurch, the new Israel, and to separate it on itsjourney through the "Wilderness" to the "PromisedLand" from competing worldviews and values. Onthe one hand, t girds the pilgrim people against themyths of the Enlightenment: materialism (the philo-sophical theory that regards matter and ts motions asconstituting the universe, and all phenomena, in-cluding thoseof the mind, asdue to material causes),secularism (the system of political or social philoso-phy that rejects all forms of religious faith andworship), and humanism (that system or mode ofthought of action in which human interests, values,and dignity predominate)~On the other hand, it alsofortifies them against pagan New Ageism, whichfails to distinguish adequately between the Creatorand His creation and right from wrong.Part II: Its ContentT he Genesis creation story falls into five

parts: a summary statement (1: 1), the nega-tive state of the earth at the time of creation

(1:2), the six days of creation (1:3-31), a summaryconclusion (2: 1), and an epilogue about the Sabbathday (2:2-3). For our purposes we may treat the firsttwo gingerly,6 not develop the last two at all, andfocus on the process and progress of creation duringthe flfSt six days as recorded in this account ofcreation:Summarystatement v. 1)

Three lines of evidence validate that verse onesummarizes the rest of the chapter. First, "heavenand earth," is a hendiadys (a single expression oftwo apparently separate parts) denoting "the cos-mos," the complete, orderly, harmonious universe.For example, the hendiadys "kith and kin" indicatesall of one'sreJatives.More specifically, thehendiadysis a merism, a statement of opposites to indicatetothlity, like the compounds, "day and night," "sum-mer and winter."Now the elementsof a compound must be studiedas a unit, not in isolation. The hendiadys,8 "heavenand earth ," cannot be understood by treating"heaven" and "earth" as separate elements anymore than "butterfly" can be decoded by investigat-ing"butter" and "fly"in isolation. UmbertoCassuto9

famous Enuma Elish with its dramatic rubrics, sym-bolized the world and life views that animated theirpagan cultures. God's revelation annihilated themand evealed to Israel new and true symbols by whichto live. John Ste~ argues:His [the author of the Pentateuch] pen seemed; to break the power of ages-old religious no-

I~; tion that still held many in thrall. He was notI'~' grappling with issues arising out of modern"C : scientificattemptso understandhe struc-'\" ture, forces, and dimensions (temporal and.,, spatial) f thephysical niverse. e wasnot,;: interested n the ssues nvolved in the modern~~ debate over cosmic and biological evolution."" Moses aimed to produce through a true under-standing of God a right perception of the universe~d humans, ncluding their relationships to God and,one nother, and to proclaim that truth in the face of"false eligious notions dominant throughout he worldbfhis day. Conrad Hyer notes:'1 In the ight of this historicalcontext t be-~i; comes clearer what Genesis 1 is undertaking"';- and accomplishing: a radical and sweepingc, affmnation of monotheism vis-a-vis poly the-"~~, ism, syncretism and idolatry. Each day of~~t creation takes on two principal categories of

~I; divinity in the pantheons of the day, and~t') declares that these are not gods at all, but:i~7 creatures--creations of the one true God who@1'( is the only one, without a secondor third. Each~ day dismisses an additional cluster of deities,~" arranged in a cosmological and symmetricalg,;~ order.~~ On the first day the gods of light and'"~5~' darkness re dismissed. n the second ay,~' the gods of sky and sea.On the third day, earth

gods and gods of vegetation. On the fourthday, sun, moon and star gods. The fifth andsixth days take away any associations withdivinity from the animal kingdom. And fi-nally human existence, too, is emptied of anyintrinsic divinity--while at the same time allhuman beings, from the greatest to the least," and not just pharaohs, kings and heroes, are

i) granted a divine likeness and mediation.",-: The Genesis creation narrative gives the faithful,", a lnn foundation for their covenant with God. Whyhaveno other gods (Exod 20:3)? Becausehe alone s

,cMakerof heaven and earth (Gen 1:1). Why not,nturder (Exod 20: 13)? Because humans alone are,created n his image (Gen 1 26-28). Why set apart a


3/9

IIC I-ILCIGIJ UCIIIC ~I

ing the first verse, "In the beginning God created hecosmos," not "when God began to create the cos-mos." For the purposes of this essay, namely, todecide the literary genre of Genesis 1:1-2:3 and itscompatibility or incompatibility with scientific theo-ries of origins, the point of grammar need not bepursued here.In sum, verse 1 is adumbrated in the rest of thechapter.Earth's NegativeState v. 2)

Verse two describes earth's threefold conditionwhenGod began o create he cosmos.First, it was Jtohu wabohu, "unformed and unfilled." Tohu Iwabohu s also a hendiadys, not a merism, like dribs 'and drabs. spic and span. hem and haw, signifying J"utter chaos." By chaos do not mean the earth wasunstructured in a scientific sense but that it wasuninhabi~ble and uninhabited. "Unformed and Junfilled"(= utter chaos") s theantonymof"heavenandearth"(= he "total cosmos"). E. JacobI3wrote: I"where t [tohu wabohu] s met (Is 34:11; Jer4:23), ..,[it] denotes he contrary of creation and not merelyan inferior stage of creation." Against Luther andCalvin, the text cannot mean hat God created he '"heaven and the earth" and what he brought intoexistencewas an "unformed and unfilled" cW. ..The cosmosof verse 1 and he chaosof verse2 cannothave co-existed. E. JacobI4 continued: "Evidently.we must regard Gen 1:2 as a parenthesiswhich seeksto describe the condition before creation and 1:1 asthe heading of the whole chapter." In sum. Genesisone represents he Heavenly King transforming thepre-existing chaos into the present cosmos.Second, there was "darkness was over the sur-face of the deep." The Bible does not explain theorigins of the darkness and of the abyss, both sohostile to life. Other Scriptures (e.g., lsa 44:24; Jer10:16; Ps 90:2) affirm that God, and nferentially notmatter, is eternal. Of JesusChrist Paul said: "He isbefore all things, and n him all things hold together"(ColI: 17). The Genesis creation account, however,teachesonly that God brought the pre-Genesisdark-ness and chaotic waters within his protective re-straints, not when or how they happened.The writerof Hebrews says: "By faith we understand that theuniverse was formed at God's command, so thatwhat is seenwas not made out of what was visible"(Heb 1:5). Butin Gen 1:2, n contrast to verses3-31,no divine command is heard. The first heaven and

commented:In language, as in chemistry, a compoundmay be found to possess ualities absent romits constituent elements. Anyone who doesnot know what 'broadcast' denote~,will notbe able to guess he connotation of the wordfrom its separateelements broad: and 'cast'.The Sumerian compound anki, composed of an,

"heaven," and ki, "earth," also signifies "uni-verse." The intertestamental book, Wisdom ofSolomon (11: 17), actually renders the merism bythe Greek word, "cosmos." In poetry the stereo-typed phrase, "heaven and earth" is often splitapart. Note how the trope standsas an equivalent of"all things" in Isa 44:24:I am the LORD who makes all things,

who stretched out the heavensby myself,who alone spreadsout the earth.If verse 1 were translated "In the beginning Godcreated the cosmos," one would see more clearlythat it is a summary statementabout what God madeduring the six days of creation, not about what Godmade before them.Second, he verb bara, "create," for both lexicaland grammatical reasons efers to the finished cos-mos, not a statebefore its completion. Regarding itsmeaning J. SteklOcommented: .It is silent as to the utilization of pre-existentmaterials or the time (whether at the begin-ning of time or in the midst of time, whetherinstantaneously or over a period of time) as

the means involved. In biblical language,bara afflTffis of someexistent reality that Godconceived, willed, and effected it."Create" in Genesis 1 embraces he process andprogress of creation over the six days of creation in

verse 3-31. Grammatically, it is a telic verb, that is,it refers "to a situation... that involves a process hatleads up to a well-defined terminal point, beyondwhich the process cannot continue" according tothe Cambridge linguist, Bernard Comrie.ll Othertelic verbs include "sell" and "die." Although"sell" and "die" include processes up to a defini-tive point, one has not sold until pro~rty is ex-changed or died until life finally ceases. Create"involves the processesnarrated for the six days ofcreation, but the cosmos was not created until, as hesummary statement n 2: 1 puts it, "the heavensandearth were completed in their vast array."Third, the grammar of the Hebrew text, as thewriter argued in detail elsewhere,l2 avours render-

Crux: December 1991Nol. XXVII, No.44


4/9

The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter Onegood," as William Dumbrell17 shows, instructs thateverything fulfills the divine intention for them.Humans should not fear the good creation but ratherthe Heavenly King, the universal and absolute mon-arch, who rules them. The chronologicalframeworkreveals that God created the cosmos in an orderlyand, aswill be seen n the discussion on "the progressof creation," ogicalway.

CassutolS oted the conscious, not the coinciden-tal, useof the mportant number sevenalong with thenumbers three and ten to structure our text and todetermine many of its details. Embedded in ancientNear Eastern literatures the number six representsincompleteness and the number seven representsresolution, wholeness,completeness.The sevendaysof creation are marked offby sevenparagraphs n theMassoretic text. The ten announcements, and Godsaid," are clearly divisible into two groups: the fIrstgroup contains seven divine commands in a ussiveform (e.g., "let there be," "let the earth bringfonh") enjoining the creation of the creatures, andthree imperatives in other grammatical forms forhumans. The evaluation, "it was good," appearsseven times, being omitted for the second day andrepeated wice for the third. The fIrst verse has sevenwords, and the second ourteen, twice seven, and sofonh. To theseHenri Blocher9 adds he sevencomple-tion formula, "and it was so," and the seven imes thata funher statement s added (God names or blesses).

I' earth, n which we eanhlings live, exists between her pre-creation chaos (Gen 1:2) and the new heaven and

earth in which there will be no night and no sea (Rev, 21:1-2, 22-25). If one wishes to form a concordI between natural theology and Genesis 1, which I for

one do not, then et it be noted that the age of the earthr cannot be decided by this text and that one must, commenceone's thinking about cosmic origins withI chaotic waters already in existence.Is Finally, "the Spirit of God washoveringover heI waters."Although the accountdoesnot specify he

origin of the waters, it instructs us that the Spirit ofj God was hovering over them to protect and prepare, the uninhabitable eanh for creation as an eagleI hoversover its fledglings (Deut 32:11) and as thef Spirit of God prepareshumans o receive the word ofGod that can make them into new creations n Christ

Jesus 2 Cor 4:6).The six daysof creation (vv. 3-31)a) The processof creation

b) Progressof creationSince the time of Herder (c. 1750 A.D.) students

have noted that Genesis 1: 1-2:3 represents the cre-ation as occurring in two triads of days, days 1-3matched by days 4-6:

God segregated he process of creation into sixdays,eachof which essentially consistsof six panels:an announcement, and God said"; a command,

} '.."let there be" or its equivalent; a report, "and so, Godmade"or its equivalent;a naming, estricted oj , the first three days, "and he called"; an evaluation,

'; "it was good"; and a chronological framework,

,."first day," "second day." As we shall argue;"'below, he language s anthropomorphic, represent-: ing God in human dress.16Moses does not intend to say hat God speaksand seesas a human. Behind hisf~; figurative anthropomorphisms lie the spiritual reali-i ties represented by them.The announcement, "and God said," teaches

that the whole world and all that it contains werecreated according to the plan of the One God and

"through an agency best represented by "word" (cf.In 1:1-18). The commandment, "let there be," ex-presses he truth that this cosmoscame nto existenceby God's will, which, operating without restraint,Overcame he chaos.The report, "and so God made,"or its equivalent, presents the creed that God istranscendent over everything, including the gath-eredseaand the darkness. y naming the elements,on the first three days, the life supportive systemsof

: sky and/or air, land, and water, God shows that he isthe Supreme Ruler over them. Even the elements ofthe uncreated state, the Abyss and darkness, areunder his dominion. His evaluation, "and it was

Unformed Unfilled4.5. LuminariesFish andFowlBeas~Humans

1. Light2. Sky/atmosphereandWater3. LandVegetation 6.During the first triad God separated he formlesschaos nto static spheres: ight and darkness, he sky

and/or abnosphere,water and and; and n the secondtriad he illed thosespheres hat houseand shelter ifewith moving forms; that is in the second triad hepopulates he first Each riad progresses rom heaven, ~. ~ .."".. ",-, VV"IO .,


5/9

IV ..,.v""l ~VIIIV v, , r--- -ism, and annual ecreation hrough magicalmythsand rituals, are not among hem.23

Myth?Is it myth? Here the answer may be "yes" or"no," depending on one's definition of myth. J. W.

Rogerson24 atalogued twelve different definitionsof the term. If one meansby myth nothing more thana story that explains phenomena and experience, ora story about God/gods, or a story about him/them asworking and having his/their being in this worldamong humans n the same mode as men speakandwork, then Genesis 1 can be labelled "myth" for itsatisfies thosedefinitions. In its popular sense,how7ever, "myth" has come to be identified with a fairytale, imaginary and fantastic events that never hap-pened. As will be shown the narrator of Genesis l'connects his creation account with real history, andso the designation, "myth," is best rejected. Petersays, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories[Gr. muthois] when we told you about the power andcoming of our Lord JesusChrist, but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty" (2 Pet 1:16).

to earth: from light to dry land, from heavenlyluminaries to earth creatures. Each triad progressesfrom a first day with a single creative act, lightmatched by luminaries, to a second day with onecreative act with two aspects, sky and seas pairedwith fish and birds, to a third day with two separatecreative acts, dry land and vegetation coupled withland animalsand humans.Each riad endswith the Iearth bringing forth: first flora and then fauna. Theinhabitants of the second triad rule over the staticspheres of the first: luminaries over the light, birdsover the sky, fish over the sea, beasts over the landthat houses hem and the vegetation that feeds hem,and humans over all living things.20In sum, the Genesis account's remarkably sym-metrical representation of the process and progressof creation supportsHenri Blocher' S21laim that it isat the least a magnificent literary-artistic representa-tion of the creation. Is it more?Its Genre

We will judge its literary genre by criticallyappraisingother suggested ossibilities.History?Hymn?

Is it a hymn? Hardly, for the poetic mode, thelinguistic conventions,anddoxological toneofknownancient Near Eastern hymns are notably absent inGenesis I.Cult liturgy?

Is it a cult liturgy composedor a New Yearfestival ike other pagancosmogonies?o. Thereconstruction of such a ritual in Israel is a hypotheti-cal fiction. In fact, this account polemicizes againstthe magic that made hose rituals cogent within theirsocial structures. Nahum Sarna22 aid:

The inextricable tie between myth and ritual,the mimetic enactment of the cosmogony inthe form of ritual drama, which is an essentialcharacteristic of the pagan religions, finds nocounterpart in the Israelite cult. In this respecttoo, the Genesis story represents a completebreak with Near Eastern tradition. To be sure,there are points of contact between ancientNear Eastern cosmogonies such as creationout of chaos, creation by separation, andcreation of opposites, but pantheism, poly the-

Is it history? Here our answer is both a qualified"yes" and "no." The Genesis creation account setsforth as historical fact that God created the universewith its vast array of moving forms. Furthermore, theauthor of Genesis inks this prologue to the rest of hisbook structured about ten historical accounts byclearly linking it with his first two accounts.The firstaccount, "the account of the heavens and earth,"recounting the origin, development and spreadof sin(2:4-4:26), is unmistakably coupled with the pro-logue by the addition, "when the LORD God madethe earth and the heavens." Likewise, he clearlybinds his second account, "the written account ofAdam's line" (5:1-3), with 1:26-28 by repeatingsuch crucial terms as "image" and "likeness," and"male and female."On the other hand, he is ust as clearly not givingus in his prologue a straightforward, sequentialhistory. Henry Morris2Smisleads us when he claims:"The creation account is clear, definite, sequentialand matter-of-fact, giving every appearance ofstraight forward historical narrative." If not, heargues, t is a blatant deception. The text, however,is begging us not to read it in this way.



6/9

The LIteraryGenre of Genesis, Chapter OneFirst, consider how such a reading createsan Ii"econcilable contradiction between he prologue I

a/Genesis and the supplemental creation account inGenesis2 :4-25. According to the prologue, the flfstcreation narrative, God created vegetation on thethird day, fish and fowl on the fifth, and beastsandhumans on the sixth. According to the second, asupplemental, creation account (2:4-25), however,between he creation of man (2: 7) and the creation ofwoman 2: 18-25), God planted a garden 2:8); caused Iits rees o grow (2:9); causeda heavenly river to flowfrom the top of Mount Eden through the gardenwhereupont divided into four rivers flowing to thefour corners of the earth (2:10); put the man he

I formed into the garden to work it and keep it andI placed him on probation (v. 15); and apparently,I before he built the woman, formed the birds and I

animals (v. 19), and the man named them all (v. 20).Gleason Archer26 exclaimed: "Who can imagine. iliat all these transactions could possibly have takenplace n 120 minutes of the sixth day (or even withintwenty-four hours, for that matter)?"Take the trees alone. Even if the orchard in viewwas planted three days earlier, are we to put ourimaginations in fast-forward and see its trees as

) growing to maturity and bearing fruit within three" days?Unlike chapter 1, where one could appeal to

apparent age with reference to such things as the istellar bodies, one cannot make a similar appeal to iilie planted trees. To be sure God could have causedilie trees to grow instantaneously, even as Jesus n amoment turned water into wine (In 2:1-11), but theGenesis narrative, using the verbs "plant" and"cause o grow," gives no indication that an extfaor-

linarily quick growth of trees is intended, whereas"John abels Jesus' work as "the flfst of his miracu-..lous igns." A straightforward reading of the Gen-esisprologue is improbable in ligh t of its supplemen-

"tary account of creation.As so often happens n Scripture, historical events

have been dischronologized and reconstructed fortheological reasons.For example, the nations listedin Genesis 10 came nto existence after the confusionof anguagesat Baby on recounted n Genesis11, butthewriter hasdischronologized events n order to putthe nations under Noah's blessing, not under the'.Babyon's curse.27According to Genesis 35: 16-18Benjamin was born in Canaan, but less than ten;versesater it lists Benjamin among the Jacob's sonsborn in Paddan-Aram, presumably to represent theYoungestpatriarch as taking part in the return of all

"7

Israel from the exile in Paddan-Aram. Biblical writ-ers display a freedom in representing historicalevents for theological reasons.Second, he creation of light on the first day andof luminaries on the fourth, conflfffis our suspicionthat Genesis 1 ought not be read as straightforwardhistory. John Sailhamer28argues, "the divisionbetween the day' and the night' ...leaveslittleroomfor an nterpretation of 'the light' in v. 3 as other thanthat of light from the sun." A straightforward read-ing of Genesis 1:4 and 14 leads to the incompatiblenotions that the sun was created on the irst day andagain on the ourth day. The suggestion that the sunwas created on the first day and made visible on thefourth is unlikely.29 If "let there be" in v. 3 means"let there come into existence," it should have thesame meaning in v. 14, not "let them be visible."More plausibly, Moses, representing God as theUltimate Source of light and the luminaries as itsimmediate sources,separates he two sources n thismatching pair of triads to educate ts audience thatGod is transcendent, not dependent on means.Furthermore, verse 14 cannot be reconciledreadily with verses5,8 and 13. Our narrator begs usnot to read him in a straightforward, sequentialaccount by marking off three days (vv. 5, 8,13), eachwith its own "evening and morning," before narrat-ing that on the fourth day God created "the luminar-ies ... to separate he day from the night, and ... omark ...days" (v. 14). A sequential reading of thetext lacks cogency. How can there be three dayscharacterized by day and night before the creation ofthe luminaries to separate he day from the night andto mark off the days? Are we clueless?3OFinally, the language of our creation narrative isfigurative, anthropomorphic, not plain. The writer'svantagepoint is with God in His heavenly COurt.31sa representation of what has transpired in that tran-scendent sphere, the narrative must employ meta-phor. John Stek32 bserves:

What occurs in the arena of God's action canbe storied after the manner of human events,but accounts of 'events' in that arena arefundamentally different in kind from all fonnsof historiography. As representationsof whathas transpired in the divine arena, hey are ofthe nature of metaphorical narrations. Theyrelate what has taken place behind the veil,but translate it into images we can grasp--asdo the biblical visions of thf heavenly court.However realistic they seem, an essential 'as


7/9

The Literary \,jenre 01 uene~I~, ""11~pL~1 ""'IV

ity of a First Cause. with which philosophy or itheology might deal. and second causality. which is \causality confined to finite factors." When our text 1says."and God said. 'Let the water teem with living:creatures'" (v. 20). and. "Let the land produce:living creatures." it traces the origins of living icreatures back to their ultimate Source. God, not Iexplaining how the proximate sources. water andland. produced them. Genesis does not attempt t()link phenomenon with phenomenon but with thecovenant keeping God. It is as mischievous to pitascientific theory of evolution against Genesis Qpitting David's account of his Ultimate origin, "YoU[0. God] created my inmost being" (ps 139:13), I;againsta geneticist's account of his contingentbirtJ1;;Third. its language is non-scientific. The account ireports dIe origins of the cosmos phenomenologi~ (cally. not mathematically or theoretically. From a Igeocentric perspective. the sun. moon and stars are

"in the expanse f the sky"; :from a heliocentric perspectivethey are not. Scientific and bib-~ - - theology and lical anguagesbout rigins,. 1 h 10 like heir ontents.lso upple-,a eo gy ment. not oppose. each other.hindered by Peoplerr.however.henheyntinued thinkscientificlanguageism"correct" than the Bible' s. Both~nce o the languagesarerelatively.nic principle solutely.orrect r incorrect.

id scienti ifilC depending ~n their p~ses.Fourth. Its purpose IS non-es must be scientific.Whereasciencetent with a aims rimarilyo answerith. as much mathematicalreci-~nly hteral sionaspossible uestionsboutof Genesis. the "when" and"how" of the

origin of physical things, Gen-esis aims primarily to answersquestions about "Who" and "why" they wereformed. and passes the value judgment. "it was

good." To be sure. it tells us that God created thecosmos "in dIe beginning" and by his word. but itsaim is theological. not mathematical precision. Be-cause he ntentions differ so radically one can safelysay hat Genesisdoesnot attempt to answer scientificquestions. and scientists cannot answer dIose ad-dressed n the biblical creation account. Augustinesaid of that account. "The Spirit of God who spokethrough them did not choose to teach about the. . "heavens o men. as It was of no use for salvaUon.

if' quality pervades hem.H. Ridderdos33 oncurs:Is ... the author not under the necessity ofemploying such a method, because his is theonly way to speak about something that isreally beyond all human thoughts and words.Even the very conservative theologian E. J.Young34admits: "It is certainly true that God did not

speak with physical organs of speechnor did he utterwords in the Hebrew language." If the other panelsin the process of creation are anthropomorphic rep-resentations of creation, is it not plausible to supposethe same s U'ueof the chronological framework, thesix days? God lisped so that Israel could mime him,working six days and resting the seventh (Exod20: 11). To be sure he six days n the Genesiscreationaccount are our twenty-four hours days, but they aremetaphorical representations of a reality beyondhuman comprehension and imitation.Science?

Is t science?heanswers a Natural ~qualified "yes," but finally exegeti("no." To be sure t dealswiththe ife supportiveystems,ir, are bothwater,and,with heavenly od- a coies, sun,moon,stars,andwithspecies f plantsand animals, adher~but t treatshemn awayunlike epistemscientificit~rature. o~traryo that valHenryMoms's35ssertionhat"the Biblical record,accepted theoriin its naturaland iteral sense, consislgives the only scientific and sat-isfying account of the origins of woodEthings," we argue t cannot give readinga satisfying scientific accountof origins for it is not scientificliterature.36

First, the subject is God, not the forces of nature.The canons of the scientific method do not allowsuper-natural causes o be included in a theory.Second, their concerns differ. The Bible is con-cerned with Ultimate origins ("Where did it all comefrom?"), not scientific questions of proximate ori-gins (How did A arise out ofB, if it did?) The biblicalaccount makes no sharp distinction between imme-diate cause and illtimate Source. Langdon Gilkey37complains: "They [the creation scientists] ignorethe (scholastic) distinction betweenprimary causal-



8/9

The LIteraryGenre of Genesis, Chapter Onethe universe;which s beforeour eyesas amost elegantbook, whereinall creatures,greatand small,areas so manycharactersleading us to seeclearly lhe invisible lhings ofGod, even his everlasling power and divinity,as he apostle Paul says Rom I :20). All whichthings are sufficient to convince men andleave hem without excuse.Second,He makesHimself more clearly and fully known to us byHis holy and divine Word, that s to say, as aras s necessary or us o know in this life, to Hisglory and our salvation."Now these wo books about creation complementone another, but they cannot and should not be

harmonized. With the one hand, we salute HenryMorris and other creation scientists or their yeomanwork in pointing scientists to the Creator throughtheir researches in his creation. Creation pointshumans to the Creator; Genesis 1 identifies him asIsrael's covenant keeping God. We hold out the palmof the other hand, however, to caution against thedanger of harmonizing scientific studies in naturaltheology with a straightforward, scientific reading ofGenesis 1: 1-2:3. These wo books clash when scien-tists, attempting to speakabout metaphysical matter,substitute creationism with naturalism, and whenexegetesuse Genesis o construct a scientific theoryof cosmic and biological origins. Natural theologyand exegetical theology are both hindered by acontinued adherence o the epistemic principle thatvalid scientific theories must be consistent with awoodenly literal reading of Genesis. Becauseof theattempt to harmonize Genesis with science, suchimplausible interpretations of Genesis 1 as "theRestitution Theory," commonly called "the GapTheory ," and "the Day-Age Theory" have vexedbiblical exegesis,and scientific theories presuppos-ing a young earth and denying evolution, unneces-sarily have discredited their advocates,despite theirunconvincing protests hat they are not influenced byGenesis.Let each book speak ts own language andbe appropriately exegeted and exposited, and leteach n its own way bring praise to the Creator, theGod and Father of our Lord JesusChrist.

Galileo38was more caustic: "The intention of theHoly Ghost is to teach us how to go to Heaven, nothow the heaven goes." Pope John Paul IJ39, umblyreversing an earlier papal decree, agrees:

The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin ofthe universe and its makeup, not in order toprovide us with a scientific treatise, but inorder to state the correct relationship of manwith God and the universe Any other teach-ing about the origin and make-up of theuniverse is alien to the intentions of the Bible,which does not wish to teach how heavenwasmade, but how to go to heaven.The biblical goals remain outside the parameters

of the scientific method. "The function of setting upgoalsand passing statementsof value transcends hedomain of science," says Alben Einstein. The pur-poseof the Bible and of science, like their contentsand anguages, lsodo not confront oneanotherbut Icomplete each other. Persons are impoverished in-tellectually and spiritually by limiting themselves oeither one.

Finally, the biblical and scientific accounts arevalidated in different ways: the former by the Spiritof God, the latter by empirical testing.Since the biblical narrative is non-scientific, wedraw the double conclusion that it cannot be a

satisfying scientific account of the origins of thingsand that it can be supplemented by scientific theo-ries. The Bible and a scien ific theory of origins clashonly when the latter is set forth as the cmpleteexplanation of origins and the former is interpreted

Is a scientific treatise.Is it theology?

Is it theology? n substance,yes," for it treatsdivine matters,but in style, "no," for the narrativereportsGod's actions,not reflectionsupon them.We comeback hen o Henri Blocher'ssuggestedgenre dentification: t is a iterary-artistic epresen-tation of the creation.To this we add the purpose,namely, o ground the covenantpeople's worshipand ife in the Creator,who transformed haos ntocosmos, nd heir ethics n His createdorder.ConclusionT he sixteenth century Belgic Confession

states:"We know Him by two means: irst, bythecreation,preservation, ndgovernment f

Endnotes1. I am grateful to Dr. Denis O. Lamoureux of theUniversity of Alberta for helpful criticisms of my originalessay.2. George Brooke, "Creation in the Biblical Tradi-tion," Zygon, 22 (1987): 233.3. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the


9/9

Ilia L.1.aIGI J ~alliv WI -'-VIIV~'~. t"v,

authorship of the final fonn of the Pentateuch, which wascomposed of several sources, ncluding both Mosaic andpost-Mosaic materials.4. J. Stek, "What Says the Scripture," Portraits ofCreation (1990): 230.5. Conrad Hyers, "Biblical Literalism: Constrictingthe Cosmic Dance," in Is God a Creationist? TheRelig ousCaseAgainstCreation-Science,edited by RolandMushat Frye (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,1983)101.

University of Sheffield, 1978) 68.28. John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, n Expositor's BibleConunentary,edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, Vol. II (GrandRapids, Michigan: Regency ReferenceLibrary ,1990) 26.29. Sailhamer argues hat "heaven and earth" in v. 1expresses totality ," (p. 23), including the celestial bod-ies. He further renders v. 14 to read " And God said, 'Letthe lights [created in v. 1] in the expanse of the skyseparate.'" Although a syntactical possibility, his inter-pretation of Gen 1:1 curiously entails the creation ofeverything before the six days of creation rather than asummary adumbrated n those days.30. Since all six days are based upon the diurnalappearances f the sun, they presumably have the samecharacter. It would be very curious if the first three dayswere calibrated by a different measure of time from thatapplied to the last three. All six days are the same as ourtwenty-four hour days.The appeal to "day" in compounds such as "in theday" (Gen 2:4) and "the day of the LORD" to validatethe "Day-Age Theory," the theory that "day" in Genesis1 doesnot necessarilydenote he twenty- four hour diurnalday but may designate a geologic age or stage, s linguis-tically flawed. The use of "day" in syntagms, "theordered and unified arrangementof words in a distinctiveway," such as hese s clearly different from its use withnumerals: ,~'flrst day," "second day." The argument isas fallacious as saying that "apple" does not necessarilyindicate the round edible fruit of the rosaceous treebecause his is not its meaning in "pineapple."31. The "us" in verse 26 is best interpreted asreferring to God and the divine begins gathered aboutHim. The fIrst person plural pronoun assumes hoseantecedentsn its two other uses n Genesis,3:22 and 11:7.In Isaiah 6:8, the only other passage using "us" withreference to God, Isaiah, upon being transported nto theheavenly court and overhearing God's consultation withthe seraphim, records God using the same mixture ofsingular andplural flfStperson pronounsasMoses, Whomshall I send?And who will go for us?" (Isa 6:8). In spiteof the King's use of "us" in his deliberations with Hiscourt, He is the sole Actor. He createdhumans (Gen 1 26-28) and sent saiah (Isa 6:9). See P. D. Miller, Genesis].]]: Studies n Structure and Theme, n JSOT SupplementSeries8 (Sheffield, England: The University of Sheffield,1978).32. Stek, Portraits, 236.33. H. Ridderbos, "The Meaning of Genesis ," FreeUniversity Quarterly, 4 (1955/57): 222.34. Edward Joseph Young, Studies in Genesis One(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed PublishingHouse, 1964): 55-56.35. Henry M. Morris, TheRemarkable Birth of PlanetEarth (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publish-ers,1978): iv.36. The writer leans heavily in this discussion onCharles E. Hummel, The Calileo Connection: ResolvingConflicts betweenScience & the Bible (Downers Grove,Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1986).37. Langdon Gilkey, "Creationism: The Roots of theConflict," in Is Cod a Creationist?, R. M. Frye, ed., 60.38. Galileo, "Letter to the Grand Duchess Chris-tina," in Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, ed. andtrans. by Stillman Drake (Garden City, New York:Doubleday Anchor, 1957) 186.39. John Paul II, "Science and Scripture: The PathofScientific Discovery," Origins (1981), 11:277-80, withquotation on p. 279.

6. For a detailed exegesis of Genesis 1: 1,2 see B. K.Waltke,"TheCreationAccountinGen 1:1-3," BibliothecaSacra 132 (1974) 25-36, 136-44, 216-28, 327-42; 133(1976) 28-41.7. The tenns "process" and "progress" are used intheir non-technical senses. The writer rejects ProcessTheology as unbiblical. Also, he does not infer by thesetenns that Genesis is teaching evolution. He uses themmerely as an economic method to exegete he manner ofcreation.8. Also, a syntagm, a series of different elementsforming a syntactic unit.9. U. Cassuto, Commentary on Genesis, I (Jerusalem:The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1961): 22.10. Stek, 213.11. Bernard Comrie, Aspect: An Introduction to theStudy of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems (Cam-bridge: Cambridge University, 1976): 45.12. Waltke, 221-27.13. E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament London:Hodder and Stoughton, 1958) 144, n. 2.14. Ibid.15. Contra Henry Morris, The Genesis Record: AScientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book ofBeginnings (Grand Rapids,Michigan: Baker Book House,1976): 42-46.16. Better than "anthropomorphisms" we shouldspeak of "theomorphisms": humankind's physical as-pects represent God's spiritual functions.17. William Dumbrell, "Creation, Covenant andWork," Crux, Vol. XXIV, No 3 (1988): 16-17.18. Cassuto, Genesis, 12-15.19. Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The OpeningChapters of Genesis, translated by David G. Preston(Leicester, England and Downer's Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press): 33.20. For further demonstration of the iterary artistry ofthe Genesis creation narrative see Mark A. Throntveit,"Are the Events in the Genesis Creation Account SetForth in Chronological Order?" in The Genesis Debate:Persistent Questions about Creation and the Flood, ed-ited by Ronald Youngblood (Grand Rapids, MI: BakerBook House, 1986): 36-55.21. Blocher, 49-59.

22. Nahum M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis (NewYork: Schocken Books) 9.23.m a private communication Denis o. Lamoureuxcalls attention to F. M. Cornford, "Pattern of IonianCosmology," in M. K. Munitz, ed" Theories of theUniverse: From Babylonian Myth to Modern Science(New York: Free Press, 1957), p. 22.24. John William Rogerson, Myth in the Old Testa-ment Interpretation (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1974).25. Morris, 84.26. GleasonL. Archer, Jr.,A Survey of Old TestamentIntroduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964) 192.27. David J. A. Clines, Theme of the Pentateuch(Sheffield, England: Department of Biblical Studies, TheCrux: December 1991Nol. XXVII, No.40

Waltke Crux Genre Genesis

Documents

Transcript of Waltke Crux Genre Genesis