OT 501 Lecture 3 January 16
Jan 16, 2008
Goodness
Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31
James 1:17
Chaos (tohu wabohu)
Isa 74:11; Jer 4:27
ayin “non-existence”
habel “nothingness”
Isaiah 40:17-23
Deuteronomy 32:10 midbar
Isaiah 45:18 is used to support the “Gap Theory” which maintains that there were two creations.
Gen 1:1 1st creation – Prolepsis (general statement then go on to state details)
Satan falls … wreaks havoc … things in state chaos
Gen 1:2 tohu wabohu “chaos”
but the cosmos is what results and is what’s important in this account.
Gap Theory is based on a misunderstanding of Isaiah 45:18
Isaiah 24:10 speaks of a “city of tohu”
The Deep (tehom)
Babylonian Tiamat:
Þ H. Gunkel, 1895 Schopfung and Chaos
Þ F. Delitzsch, Babel & Bibel
Þ W.J. Dumbrell, The Search for Order
A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis
Tiamat feminine proper noun
tehom masculine common noun
tamtu masculine common noun
Day (yom)
1. The day in the creation account is a literal 24 hour day
Þ (Keil & Delitzche) excellent commentary … the earth’s rotation sped up as the creation process commences … principle of entropy
Þ van Rad 1956 “P” the writer is the priestly writer
Þ H. Pember 1876
2. Day = age / epic approach
Þ Ps 90:4
Þ Hugh Miller 1857, The Testimony of the Rocks
Þ E.K. Getney 1950, Modern Science and Christian Faith
Þ S.R. Driver 1886
3. “Days of God”
Þ There is no human analogy
Þ Augustine (City of God XI, 6, Origen (De Prisespines IV 3)
4. Pictorial Days (the notices about the days indicate the successive days on which God told Adam about what He had created – by vision or verbal).
Þ J.H. Kutz 1857 … The Bible and Astronomy (by a vision)
Þ P.J. Wiesman 1948 … Creation Revealed in 6 Day (verbally)
Þ Not many people take this view because there is nothing in the passage to indicate that God was telling these things to Adam
5. Literary Device (used to convey a sense of the power and sovereignty of God by portraying creation in a mere week)
Þ Derrick Kidner in his Genesis commentary argues this way
Þ Gordon Winham Genesis, 1987 (perhaps best Genesis commentary around)
Þ Both liberal and conservative theologians take this view.
Þ There is in Egyptian wisdom literature = “house” used as framework … maybe use of days in Genesis is like this
Bernard Ram – Scientific Approach to Genesis,
In The Beginning (Henry Blocher)
nephesh “soul” / “self” … once in a while used as “throat” … Ahh napistem is an example of how a word can be used in one way in one instance and another way in another instance.
6. The Gap Theory: The thinking is that God created a perfect world in Genesis 1. Lucifer conducted the temple worship in a mineral garden of Eden until he fell. He exalted himself in pride and was thrown down and judgment was cast upon him and his fallen angels for countless millions of years. The earth was chaotic during that time and the geographical formations came about. Then in 4000 B.C. God reconditioned the earth in 6 24-hour days. This account attempts to take into consideration the age of the earth.
Þ Lucifer conducted the temple worship (Isaiah 14)
Þ Mineral Garden of Eden (Ezekiel 28)
Þ don’t translate Gen 1:2 “was” as “became” … verb is hayah … idiom which means to become is Hayah (le) … le is not present … so can’t argue grammatically that it means become
Þ J.E. Kunt in The Bible and Astronomy argues this way
7. How many creation accounts
Þ Two contradictory accounts are the result of higher cricitism
Þ Proponents
S.R. Driver Introduction to Literature of Old Testament (1913)
Þ What are the reasons the Gen 1 and Gen 2 are different
1. style differences P vs. JE. Genesis 1 is a list but Genesis 2 is a narrative (difference of genre). It’s genre that determines the syle and not the author.
2. different order of creation
Þ Gen 1:20-25 animals à humans
Þ Gen 2:19 man à animals … verb used “formed” is a past perfect form … Hebrew doesn’t have 2 different forms for perfect and past perfect … The verb translated “formed” should be translated “had formed” Driver and others know that this is a legitimate translation.
8. Connection between creation and redemption
Þ Ps 77 … vss. 16-17 Creator … vss. 12-15 Savior.
Þ Ps 89 … vss. 11-12 Creator … vss 9-10 Savior
Þ Ps 135 … vss 6-9 Creator … vss. 8-12 Savior;
Þ Ps 136 … vss 5-9 Creator … vss. 10-24 Savior
Isa 44:24-28 progresses from Lord as Creator to fact that he is going to use Cyrus to bring them back from Promised Land.
John 1:1 … Gen 1:1 Makes much ado about this.
If God created everything … then nothing can take us out of his hand. Doctrine of God as Creator is very important.
Imago Dei
Physical Image
The Genesis Creation Statements and their Implications
Gen 1:26 “adam” = human / man
“adamah” = earth
“our” … not a plural of majesty … possibly a plural of council … The Trinity
Gen 1:27 points to Trinitarian understanding
“God (subject is plural) created (verb is single) human in His (Singular) image In the imaged of God He created him, Male and Female He created them.”
God created (a)
human (b)
in His image (c)
He created (a’)
him (b’)
In the image of God (c’)
He created (a’)
them (b’’)
M & F (c’’)
All you can say from Genesis 1:27 is that male and female are created equally in image of God. Cannot argue from the text that they are co-rulers of creation. Cannot argue that there is some hierarchy from this text either.
selem = image (used a lot in ANE) … used of statues made of gods and goddesses. Any ANE person who read this would come away with the idea that God made the human being in a form like His. The notion being that the more the image looked like the statue; the more inclined the deity would be to enter into the statue.
Demuth = likeness. Some scholars thought Demuth meant something like the spiritual likeness. But later discoveries have shown that the word actually is used to denote the outline or the form of an image.
Both terms meant that the statue had the same form or outline as the original.
Bilingual Alm / Aramaic
Tell Fahhariyah 1000 B.C.
enables us to argue for formal image
Genesis 5:1-3
The inference is that God here is deliberately paralleling the fact that He had a son, Adam created in His image and likewise Adam has a son, Seth, born or created in his own image.
Luke 3:38 – Adam is called a Son of God it can be used literally or figuratively. Angels are also called the Sons of God in Job 1:6; 2:2, 38:7; Ps 29:1
1 Corinthians 11:7,8
Philippians 3:20-21
OT Theophanic Reports and their Implications
Appearances of God as a man
Gen 18:1-2
Gen 32:22-32 “Peniel” = face of God
God was pleased to take a human form … no incompatibility
Appearances of God as an Exalted Man
Ex 24:9-11 (purely anthrophomorphic … but usually fuller description is typical like Ps 18)
Ezek 1:25-28
Ezekiel saw a human form which he describes as the “likeness of the Glory of Yahweh”. 1 Peter 4:14 (if His Spirit has any form at all it’s the human form) explains that the Glory of Yahweh is the Holy Spirit. What this means is that God is Spirit; Omnipresent; has a glorified body; if His Spirit has any form at all it’s the human form. God is a temple of Himself (i.e. He resides in himself). And we then as human beings are made in his likeness and also in the likeness of His Holy Spirit, so are apt receptacles of his Spirit.
Dan 7:9-10, 13, Exodus 24, Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1, Dan 7 (4 throne appearances) In each successive image you get more of a revelation of God. There are lines of evidence that indicate the reality of a formal image as part of the “imago dei”. These lines of evidence include the terminology used, the parallel between Adam having a Son and God having a Son; the idea of the Sons of God, and finally the appearances of God as a man on earth and the appearances of the exalted or glorified appearances.
Formal Image – “Imago Dei”
There is no necessary contradiction between the fact that God is a spirit and yet has a form. If asked on a test, show that understand all lines of reasoning by replicating it. We can say that it’s all true biblically. If we can accept that he has a form but is omnipresent now, why is it we cannot accept that the pre-incarnate Christ had a form and was still omnipresent.
Opening of the mouth ritual … opened the mouth of the statue so that the god could enter into it. The statues not only represent the gods but they also embody the gods. The same line of reasoning is present in thinking of the temple on earth being like the one in heaven.
1 Corinthian 11 we read that man is in the image of God or the glory of God. Paul appears to be using the term figuratively. He is saying man is the image and proceeds from God.
Functional Image: (Aspects of the Imago Dei)
The Genesis Creation Mandates and their Implications
Royal Image (Gen 1:28) … Adam and Eve are vassal kings
Priestly Image (Gen 2:15) God puts the man in the garden to work it and care for it. These terms are used later to describe the work of the Levitical priests. This implies a temple aspect to the Garden of Eden as well.
“work” (Num 3:7,8, 4:23)
“to care for” (Num 18:4)
We read that Aaron’s garments are for glory and beauty Ex 28:2. These are also terms used for theophanies:
Isaiah 24:23
Isaiah 28:51
Moses (Ex 34:29-35); 2 Cor 3:17-18 is transformed by the glory (his face shines).
Aaron’s investiture is meant to be evocative of the glory of the Lord (Ex 28:2). His priestly garments have brilliant colors.
This is a foreshadowing the human forms being clothed in glory.
Prophetic Image: (understand that where there is a covenant there is someone who mediates the covenant … Adam then serves as the covenant mediator prophet. Through the first Adam we have the earth. Through the 2nd Adam we have the new heaven and new earth.
God is a Warrior: “Theomachy” (combination of God and war … concept of the gods waging war against one another) after Creation. In the ancient world the bigger and stronger one is the better one fares on the battlefield. However, there was a time when warfare wasn’t necessary (during initial creation), but sin entered through Lucifer. There is that in God which is capable of waging war.
ANE Evidence (Gods waged war against one another)
Babylon (Marduk, Tiamat)
Hatti
Egypt
OT Evidence
Isaiah 14:12-15: Isaiah starts out as a “mashal”. It is a translated as a taunt against the king of Babylon, nominally, but what is it really about? A lot of it applies to Babylon. But there is a “breaking out” that exceeds anything that would happen to a mere mortal king.
Mount of the assembly is Ugaritic – pretensions of this being are truly divine. This could be extreme hyperbole or adumbration (foreshadowing or a glimpse into the spiritual realm).
heylel … vulgate translates as Lucifer (light bearer)
Ezekiel 28:11-19: Starts out as a “mashal” but it really is a lament. Lucifer was a guardian cherub – fearsome angelic being in the garden of God (whether mineral Eden or not). Mount of God (what we read in Isaiah. Can take this all as hyperbole but it still points to some primordial reality in Egypt. For some time he held his position but pride showed up in him and he was cast down. Third way to view this passage is chronological. Stuart doesn’t take this as chronological. The next time we see him show up is in the Garden of Eden as the serpent. Satan chooses to inhabit a creature which by nature is rather crafty. The passage is saying that the Prince of Tyre is just like his Father, Satan. There is a Satanic drive in the Prince of Tyre.
We really don’t know how long it actually took Satan actually took to tempt the woman.