Understanding Genesis 1-11
13 May 2012
This morning we’re going to begin an in-depth look at Genesis 1-11.
Dr. Rogel has done a fantastic job of “setting the table” for this study with his
examination of some cosmologies that introduce us to the way ancient peoplegroups thought about the why and the how of creation.
(Of course, we saw that there are still people-groups that have a world-view
closer to the ancients than a modern, materialistic, scientific, Western one;
specifically, the Minobo people of the Philippines.)
One of the things that we’ll see as we dig into the text of Genesis and compare it
with some of the cosmologies mentioned (specifically the Egyptian and
Sumerian) is the focus on how the creation functions to benefit human beings.
An OT scholar from Wheaton Graduate School, John H. Walton, has written
about this in a book to which we’ll be referring extensively, titled The Lost World
of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate.
(Of course, there are many other scholars to whom we’ll look as well – Richard
Bauckham, LaSor, Hubbard & Bush among others…)
Without getting too far ahead of myself, here, I think it’s important to mention a
couple of guiding principles as we study Genesis.
First of all, I believe that Genesis is inspired, authoritative scripture. It is unique.
It is God’s word-written. It is as important and vital and instructive as the prophets
or the gospels or the epistles.
Although it is inspired by the Holy Spirit and “profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16), it is not (at
least the first 11 chapters) necessarily an historical account!
This, in no way, diminishes the authority or inspiration of the text!
Secondly, because it is an inspired text, we must honor it by not imposing an
interpretation on it that is based on our world-view!
In other words, we must understand it as the audience to whom it was written
would have understood it!
This interpretative methodology holds true for any scripture, whether that text is
found in the Old or New Testament, whether it is poetry or apocalyptic or
historical narrative. If we are going to understand a biblical text as God means for
us to understand it, then we have to ask the question, what did this mean to its
intended audience?
(Of course, we believe that since the text is inspired and authoritative, not only
did it have a message for a certain people at a certain time, it also speaks to us
with the authority of God! But we cannot impose our world-view or experience on
the text.)
We must let the text speak for itself!
When we don’t allow the text to speak for itself; when we impose our
worldview on a text, we get into trouble and cause unnecessary confusion.
Worse, we mishandle and misunderstand God’s eternal truth!
(We saw this when we looked at Revelation, and it is certainly true of “the
primeval prologue” of Genesis 1-11.)
Finally, we’re going to see that the ancient Hebrew world-view reflected in
Genesis is very similar to the world-view of other ancient people.
However, this does NOT mean that Genesis is a “rip-off” of these cosmologies.
In fact, Genesis has a whole bunch of DIS-similarities when compared to other
ancient creation accounts, even if the world-view is similar!
So, is Genesis 1 a “blow-by-blow” historical account of material creation?
NO!
In fact, “material” creation is not a concern for ancient people!
Think about what Allen shared the past three weeks regarding the cosmologies
of the Egyptians and Sumerians in particular.
What were they concerned about?
I would contend they were concerned about food, fertility & a “friendly
environment”…
What did ancient people mean when they thought of “existence”?
(The word used in philosophy for this is ontology – what it means for something
to exist.)
What was the ancients’ cosmic ontology?
In other words, what did they believe it meant for the world or the cosmos (or the
objects in it) to exist?
Well, let’s try and get at that question by asking another question: What do we
mean when we say something “exists”?
What we usually mean (take this fancy pulpit I’m using) is that it has material
properties! This stand is made of metal and plastic; it is held together with
screws and welds; it was made with a design; etc., etc., etc.
So what would our “ontology” be? What do we believe it means for this musicstand-which-I-use-as-a-pulpit to have existence?
It has material properties, right?
Therefore, if we are going to talk about the “creation” of this music stand, we talk
about how the metal was made in a factory, how a design or blueprint was then
made in order to forge the metal into the shape it is in; then we would talk about
how the music stand was constructed.
Our “ontology” then, our “understanding of how this thing exists”, is what?
Material!
That is a 21st century, Western world-view. If something exists, it must be made
out of material or substance or stuff.
So our ontology, by and large, is a material ontology!
OK, that makes sense to us, right?
What if we’re talking about a company existing, however!
When does “existence” begin for that company?
Does it begin when the legal documents are drawn up to form a corporation?
Does it begin when a CEO is hired?
Does it begin when a product is made, or workers are hired, or stock is sold, or
the company’s products are sold?
Walton uses the analogy of a computer as well. We can talk about the material
existence of the computer being vital – plastic and wires and electronics.
But does the computer really exist at that point or does it take something more?
How about software?
Even then, does it truly exist?
Well, yes it does, but if there is no one to operate it, is it fulfilling the purpose of
its existence?
You see, existence is much more than merely having material arranged a certain
way; existence can be thought of as also having purpose and FUNCTION!
Professor Walton says this:
Most of us never consider alternative ontologies. Our culture has given us our
beliefs about what it means for the cosmos to exist (material ontology; existence
is material; creation is a material act)… It is a testimony to the pervasive
influence of culture that this material ontology seems so obvious as to prevent
any thought that it is open to discussion.
… I propose that people in the ancient world believed that something existed not
by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an
ordered system. I do not refer to an ordered system in scientific terms, but an
ordered system in human terms, that is, in relation to society and culture… In a
functional ontology, to bring something into existence would require giving it a
function or a role in an ordered system, rather than giving it material properties.
(The Lost World of Genesis One, p. 24; emphasis in original)
Hmmm! Now that is interesting, isn’t it?
Listen to what some other OT scholars have said along these lines.
In order to interpret the primeval prologue with the same intent and purpose as
the ancient author, one must examine its literary genre. What kind of literature is
this? How does the author intend himself to be understood? These questions
must be asked to avoid giving the author’s words a meaning that was not in his
mind…
Literary device is also found in the names used (for Adam & Eve). The
correspondence of the name with the person’s function or role is striking…
Adam means “mankind” and Eve is “(she who gives) life.” Surely, when an author
of a story names the principal characters Mankind and Life, something is
conveyed about the degree of literalness intended!
(La Sor, Hubbard & Bush; Old Testament Survey, pp. 71-72; emphasis added)
So, the key to understanding Genesis 1-11 (and, specifically, the creation
account of Genesis 1-2) is to see it as an account of how God assigned
functions so that order and purpose was established in the cosmos!
I wanted to introduce this interpretative key today. Next week, we’ll look at some
creation accounts from ancient literature (with which you should already have
some familiarity, thanks to Allen Rogel) and see how they parallel, yet differ from,
the inspired text of Genesis.