4. Creation: Gen 12

1
4. Creation Gen 1-2

• BOT630/BHE630 Exegesis of Genesis

2
CREATION

• Genesis 1.1-2.3

3
Parallels between the Enuma Elish and Genesis
1.1-2.3

• 1. The circumstantial clause followed by the main
  account of creation.
• 2. Primeval dark, watery and formless state.
• 3. The Order of Creation

4
The Order of Creation

• EE Divine spirit and cosmic matter are
  coexistent and coeternal
• GEN Divine spirit creates cosmic matter and
  exits independently of it
• EE Primeval chaos, Tiamat enveloped in darkness
• GEN The earth a desolate waste, with darkness
  covering the deep

5
The Order of Creation

• EE Light emanation from the gods
• GEN Light created
• EE The creation of the firmament
• GEN The creation of the firmament
• EE The creation of the dry land
• GEN The creation of dry land

6
The Order of Creation

• EE The creation of man
• GEN The creation of man
• EE The gods rest and celebrate
• GEN God rests and sanctifies the seventh day

7
Problems concerning the parallels

• a. Tehom
• b. Tannin
• c. Separation of heaven and earth
• d. Creation and function of luminaries
• e. Purpose of humans
• f. Creation by word

8
1.1-2 THE BEGINNING OF CREATION

• Syntax four possibilities Wenham, Gordon J.,
  Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1 Genesis 1-15,
  11
• 1. "V. 1 is a temporal clause subordinate to the
  main clause in v2 In the beginning when God
  created..., the earth was without form....

9
1.1-2 Syntax four possibilities

• 2. "V. 1 is a temporal clause subordinate to the
  main clause in v3 (v2 is a parenthetic comment).
  'In the beginning when God created... (now the
  earth was formless) God said....'"

10
1.1-2 Syntax four possibilities

• 3. "V. 1 is a main clause, summarizing all the
  events described in vv. 2-31. It is a title to
  the chapter as a whole, and could be rendered 'In
  the beginning God was the creator of heaven and
  earth.' What being creator of heaven and earth
  means is then explained in more detail in vv.
  2-31."

11
1.1-2 Syntax four possibilities

• 4. "V 1 is a main clause describing the first act
  of creation. Vv. 2 and 3 describe subsequent
  phases in God's creative activity. This the
  traditional view...."

12
Four Keys to 1.3-2.3

• 1. Monotheistic
• 2. Centrality of Humankind
• 3. Sabbath
• 4. Creation as Good as God made it

13
DAYS OF CREATION

• 1.3-5 DAY ONE - LIGHT
• 1.6-8 DAY TWO - THE SKY
• 1.9-13 DAY THREE - LAND AND VEGETATION
• 1.14-19 DAY FOUR - HEAVENLY BODIES

14
DAYS OF CREATION

• 1.20-23 DAY FIVE - FISH AND BIRDS
• 1.24-31 DAY SIX - ANIMALS AND HUMAN BEINGS
• 2.1-3 DAY SEVEN THE CESSATION FROM WORK

15
GEN 1.26 THE PLURALITY

• 1. From Philo onward, Jewish commentators have
  generally held that the plural is used because
  God is addressing his heavenly court, i.e., the
  angels (cf. Isa 68). Among recent commentators,
  Skinner, von Rad, Zimmerli, Kline, Mettinger,
  Gispen, and Day prefer this explanation.

16
GEN 1.26 THE PLURALITY

• 2. From the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin
  Martyr, who saw the plural as a reference to
  Christ . Christians have traditionally seen this
  verse as adumbrating the Trinity. It is now
  universally admitted that this was not what the
  plural meant to the original author.

17
GEN 1.26 THE PLURALITY

• 3. Gunkel suggested that the plural might reflect
  the polytheistic account taken over by P, though
  he recognized that this could not be Ps view. As
  shown above, Gen 1 is distinctly antimythological
  in its thrust, explicitly rejecting ancient Near
  Eastern views of creation. Thus modern
  commentators are quite agreed that Gen 126 could
  never have been taken by the author of this
  chapter in a polytheistic sense.

18
GEN 1.26 THE PLURALITY

• 4. Some scholars, e.g., Keil, Dillmann, and
  Driver, have suggested that this is an example of
  a plural of majesty cf. the English royal we.
  It refers to the fullness of attributes and
  powers conceived as united within the God-head
  (Driver, 14). Joüons observation (114e) that
  we as a plural of majesty is not used with
  verbs has led to the rejection of this
  interpretation.

19
GEN 1.26 THE PLURALITY

• 5. Joüon (114e) himself preferred the view that
  this was a plural of self-deliberation. Cassuto
  suggested that it is self-encouragement (cf.
  117 Ps 23). In this he is followed by the most
  recent commentators, e.g., Schmidt, Westermann,
  Steck, Gross, Dion.

20
GEN 1.26 THE PLURALITY

• 6. Clines (TB 19 1968 6869), followed by Hasel
  (AUSS 13 1975 6566) suggests that the plural
  is used because of plurality within the Godhead.
  God is addressing his Spirit who was present and
  active at the beginning of creation (12). Though
  this is a possibility (cf. Prov 82231), it
  loses much of its plausibility if xwr is
  translated wind in verse 2.

21
THE IMAGE LIKENESS

• 1. Image and likeness are distinct. According
  to traditional Christian exegesis (from Irenaeus,
  ca. 180 a.d.), the image and the likeness are two
  distinct aspects of mans nature. The image
  refers to the natural qualities in man (reason,
  personality, etc.) that make him resemble God,
  while the likeness refers to the supernatural
  graces, e.g., ethical, that make the redeemed
  godlike. While these distinctions may be useful
  homiletically, they evidently do not express the
  original meaning. The interchangeability of
  image and likeness (cf. 53) shows that this
  distinction is foreign to Genesis, and that
  probably likeness is simply added to indicate
  the precise nuance of image in this context.

22
THE IMAGE LIKENESS

• 2. The image refers to the mental and spiritual
  faculties that man shares with his creator.
  Intrinsically this seems a probable view, but it
  is hard to pin down the intended qualities. Among
  the many suggestions are that the image of God
  resides in mans reason, personality, free-will,
  self-consciousness, or his intelligence. Owing to
  the sparsity of references to the divine image in
  the OT, it is impossible to demonstrate any of
  these suggestions. In every case there is the
  suspicion that the commentator may be reading his
  own values into the text as to what is most
  significant about man. For these reasons, most
  modern commentators have either abandoned the
  attempt to define the image, assuming that its
  nature was too well known to require definition,
  or they look for more specific clues in Genesis
  as to how the image was understood.

23
THE IMAGE LIKENESS

• 3. The image consists of a physical resemblance,
  i.e., man looks like God. In favor of this
  interpretation is the fact that physical image is
  the most frequent meaning of µlx, and that in Gen
  53 Adam is said to have fathered Seth after his
  image, which most naturally refers to the
  similar appearance of father and son. P. Humbert
  (Études sur le récit du paradis, 15363) insisted
  that this was all Genesis meant, Gunkel and von
  Rad that it was at least part of its meaning.
  Nevertheless, the OTs stress on the
  incorporeality and invisibility of God makes this
  view somewhat problematic (cf. Deut 41516). The
  difficulty is increased if, as is usually the
  case, the material is assigned to the late P
  source, for this would be too gross an
  anthropomorphism for exilic literature. And if,
  as is widely

24
THE IMAGE LIKENESS

• 3. Continued believed, the image of God
  terminology is based on Egyptian and possibly
  Mesopotamian thinking, it should be noted that
  the image of God describes the kings function
  and being, not his appearance in these cultures.
  Furthermore, it is argued that the OT does not
  sharply distinguish the spiritual and material
  realms in this way. The image of God must
  characterize mans whole being, not simply his
  mind or soul on the one hand or his body on the
  other. Finally, it may be noted that the ancient
  world was well aware, partly through the practice
  of sacrifice, that physiologically man had much
  in common with the animals. But the image of God
  is something that distinguishes man from the
  animal kingdom. The case for identifying the
  image of God with mans bodily form or upright
  posture is therefore unproven.

25
THE IMAGE LIKENESS

• 4. The image makes man Gods representative on
  earth. That man is made in the divine image and
  is thus Gods representative on earth was a
  common oriental view of the king. Both Egyptian
  and Assyrian texts describe the king as the image
  of God (see Ockinga, Dion, Bird). Furthermore,
  man is here bidden to rule and subdue the rest of
  creation, an obviously royal task (cf. 1 Kgs 54
  424, etc.), and Ps 8 speaks of man as having
  been created a little lower than the angels,
  crowned with glory and made to rule the works of
  Gods hands. The allusions to the functions of
  royalty are quite clear in Ps 8. Another
  consideration suggesting that man is a divine
  representative on earth arises from the very idea
  of an image. Images of gods or kings were viewed
  as representatives of the deity or king. The
  divine spirit was often thought of as

26
THE IMAGE LIKENESS

• 4. Continued indwelling an idol, thereby
  creating a close unity between the god and his
  image (Clines, TB 19 1968 8183). Whereas
  Egyptian writers often spoke of kings as being in
  Gods image, they never referred to other people
  in this way. It appears that the OT has
  democratized this old idea. It affirms that not
  just a king, but every man and woman, bears Gods
  image and is his representative on earth.

27
THE IMAGE LIKENESS

• 5. The image is a capacity to relate to God.
  Mans divine image means that God can enter into
  personal relationships with him, speak to him,
  and make covenants with him. This view, most
  eloquently propounded by K. Barth (Church
  Dogmatics, III. 1.18387), is also favored by
  Westermann. He holds that the phrase in our
  image modifies the verb let us make, not the
  noun man. There is a special kind of creative
  activity involved in making man that puts man in
  a unique relationship with his creator and hence
  able to respond to him. But the image of God is
  not part of the human constitution so much as it
  is a description of the process of creation which
  made man different.

28
Genesis 2.4-25

• 2.4 Introduction
• A. 2.5-17 Narrative God the sole actor man
  present but passive
• B. 2.18-25 Narrative God main actor, man minor
  role, woman animals passive
• C. 3.1-5 Dialogue Snake and woman
• D. 3.6-8 Narrative Man and woman

29
Genesis 2.4-25

• C. 3.9-13 Dialogue God, man and woman
• B. 3.14-21 Narrative God main actor, man minor
  role, woman animals passive
• A. 3.22-24 Narrative God sole actor man passive
• 3.25 Conclusion and Transition

30
Knowing Good and Evil

• 1. A description of the consequence of obeying or
  disobeying the commandments.
• 2. Moral discernment, knowing the difference
  between right and wrong.
• 3. Sexual knowledge.
• 4. Omniscience.
• 5. Wisdom or legal responsibility.