Creation &
Eschatology A theological and philosophical exploration of movement, purpose and goal in Genesis 1-3, with implications for Biblical Theology.
Steven J. Prior A Project submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of
Bachelor of Divinity Moore Theological College Newtown, NSW, Australia
2007
Abstract. This study is centred on three “eschatological readings” of Genesis 1-3, each corresponding roughly with the main themes of the Biblical chapters respectively. The purpose is to show creation’s inherent connection with eschatology, and to reveal a “primary shape” to creation that in turn ought to shape biblical theology. After establishing a working definition of eschatology with movement, purpose and goal, the study begins with a Philosophical Premise that explores these in relation to “the beginning”. This reveals a primary “creation-history” shape to creation, but raises a concern in the legitimacy of God’s relation with creation. It is demonstrated that the only way to answer is to begin a search for eschatology in the beginning. The first eschatological reading is of Genesis 1:1-2:3 and focuses on the main character: God. In this vein it searches for movement, purpose and goal from the Creator, wherein it is shown that all three are indeed enacted from God toward creation, but also established by God into creation. Though the details of a goal are clear in the sabbath, the details of movement and purpose remain thin. The second reading is of Genesis 1:26-2:25 and focuses on the character ādām. In this it searches more specifically for eschatology in Creation, where ādām is certainly seen as key in purpose and movement, and marriage is seen as important as a model for a goal of union between God and creation. The third reading is of Genesis 3 and focuses on the Ruin of Creation. In this it is seen that ādām’s ruin is decisive in terms of possible fulfilment of eschatology, though ironically it underscores the actual value and worth of creation, for it continues. An abiding mystery is highlighted in creation-history. We then conclude our study by showing that creation-history’s relation with God has been legitimised on account of it being—in itself—a movement towards God. In turn, the abiding mystery that ultimately fulfils this movement is proven to be Christ. And finally, all of this is in turn shown to have strong Implications for biblical theology, wherein the importance of eschatology and Christ in relation to the fulfilment of creation are best accentuated in a “creation-history” frame.
Contents.
Introduction and Preliminaries..........................................................2 A Philosophical Premise: Movement, Purpose and Goal in the Beginning......................5 The Beginning and God The Beginning and “Other” Summary: Eschatology in the Beginning
Eschatological Readings: 1. Movement, Purpose and Goal from the Creator................15 The Creator: God The Creation: Act and Object An End Summary: Eschatology from the Creator
2. Movement, Purpose and Goal in Creation.........................30 The ādām The End? Summary: Eschatology in Creation
3. Movement, Purpose and Goal in Ruin...............................43 The Command The Ruin The End? Summary: Eschatology in Ruin
Conclusions: 1. A “Creation-History” .........................................................53 Established in Genesis 1-2 Confirmed in Genesis 3 Fulfilled in Christ
2. Implications for Biblical Theology.....................................62
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
1
Introduction and Preliminaries. Introduction
The main purpose of this paper is to present an “eschatological reading” of Genesis 1-3. This will entail an exploration of the details of eschatology within the theological information of Genesis 1-3. The motivation behind such an exercise is the anticipation of a revealed “primary shape” for the history of creation, or a holistic grasp of the reality of creation, for the sake of strengthening the discipline of biblical theology. We shall commence shortly with a “Philosophical Premise” that will seek to elucidate the connections between these motivations and anticipations and the appropriateness of our main enterprise. After this we shall indeed conduct three “Eschatological Readings”, structured loosely around the main themes of each consecutive chapter in Genesis 1-3. Finally we shall collect the findings of our readings into the presentation of a suggested, “holistic”, “Creation-History”, and in turn shall suggest some implications for the discipline of biblical theology with some preliminary proposals as a foundation for further work.
Preliminaries
Two brief preliminary items are required before we begin: (1) a presentation of our working definition of eschatology; and (2) an acknowledgement of our methodology in reading Genesis 1-3.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
2
Regarding the first, “eschatology” as a word literally means “knowledge of the last things”, and as such most “eschatologies” focus entirely upon the end events themselves.1 However, it is the contention of this paper that “end events” are the end of something, and that to understand them requires a grasp of their context, i.e., what it is they complete. “Eschatology”, thus, ought itself be a subject that covers not just end events but also the details of that which is being ended.2 As a theological discipline, therefore, eschatology must be concerned with fulfilment,3 and to this end we propose the key constituents in grasping theological eschatology to be the concepts of movement, purpose and goal. These will be the defining aspects of eschatology that we shall concurrently use, expound and develop through the course of this paper. Regarding our reading of Genesis 1-3, it is pertinent to acknowledge the enormous exploratory attention that has been afforded these chapters throughout history, and in turn the many and varied interpretations that have been proffered to the details within. In the Christian tradition there has arisen the likes of allegorical,4 literal,5 comparative6 and even scientific7 explorations of the text, and much debate has endured as to what is the most 1
Thus, topics associated with eschatology have come to include the likes of the “return of Christ”, the “rapture”, “millennialism”, and scores of others associated. 2 To not do so is to take end events out of context and opens the door to easy misinterpretations and conjectures. 3 Cf. Jürgen Moltmann, The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology (trans. Margaret Kohl; London: SCM, 1996), 267. 4 Eg’s. Philo, On the Creation; Origen, On First Principles; and Augustine Against Manichees. 5 Eg. Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976). 6 Eg. Gerhard F. Hasel, ‘The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology’, EQ 46 (1974): 81102; and John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2007). 7 Eg’s. Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change:Genesis 1:1-2:4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms (Ross-shire, Great Britian: Mentor, 1997); and Henry M. Morris, Science and the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986). Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
3
appropriate for an Ancient Near Eastern text. For the purposes of this paper, however, we shall employ a theological exploration of the text. That is, in the light of literary and historical contexts—both of which can be gleaned from the Bible itself8—Genesis 1-3 emerges as a text that is theological in both purpose and content. For it stands most immediately as the beginning of the story of the Pentateuch—a thoroughly theological story—wherein it establishes the necessary foundation for details contained within, not least of all the climactic—and thoroughly theological—Sinai covenant.9 It is on this basis, then, that we shall seek to glean theological—indeed eschatological— concepts from Genesis 1-3, an exercise that we shall now establish through a philosophical premise.
8
cf. Bernhard W. Anderson, ‘Mythopoeic and Theological Dimensions of Biblica Creation Faith’, in Creation in the Old Testament (ed. Bernhard W Anderson; Issues in Religion and Theology 6; Philadelphia and London: Fortress Press and SPCK, 1984), 15. 9 It is pertinent to note that the primary topics that emerge out of Genesis 1-3of are almost identical to those in the Decalogue, including God’s worthiness of worship, the importance of Sabbath, marriage, human life, etc. It would seem that the former clearly establishes the necessary foundation for the potency of the latter. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
4
A Philosophical Premise.
Movement, Purpose and Goal in the Beginning (Genesis 1:1)
Genesis 1-3 presents us with a “creation account”. “Creation” is a foundational concept that covers many areas. As an event, creation is an initiation. As an account, creation is the opening of the story of God’s involvement with something “other”. And as a doctrine, creation is the foundation of all theology. In each of these, “creation” really is about origins, or beginnings, and indeed the very first verse of Scripture corroborates: ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Why, then, and on what basis, should we look for the end, or eschatology, in the beginning? It is this very concern that we shall now seek to explore through a more philosophical discussion—a premise—as generated by the details of this first verse of Scripture, details including a beginning, a Creator God, an action of creating, and a created object.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
5
“The Beginning” and God
Let us start with this thing called “the beginning”—what is it and what does it mean? Etymologically, the word tyviarE (beginning) is an abstract noun related to varo (head) and !AvarI (first), and it is used in description of moments of commencement in something new.10 Often this is associated with the temporal, and that in a relative sense, i.e., the beginning of a particular time or era.11 However, in Genesis 1:1 the word is used absolutely, with only the context to show what precisely it means.12 While we ought heed warnings of making too much of the author’s intention in the use of the word tyviarEB. (in the beginning),13 the context of the word—the opening chapter of the Scriptures in which, ‘Nothing is here by chance; everything must be considered carefully, deliberately and precisely’14—does indeed provide latitude to consider the concept or event that it is describing. In doing this, most commentators continue to revert to a primary temporal understanding, such that tyviÞarEB. details the beginning of time.15 However, this need not necessarily be the case. From the immediate context, what is being initiated here is not necessarily, and certainly not primarily, time, but 10
Eg. The commencement of a king’s reign (Gen 10:10; Jer 26:1), of sin (Mic 1:13), of a quarrel (Pro 17:14), etc. See Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baugmartner, ‘!AvarI’ HALOT 3:1169-70. 11 Eg. Deut 11:12; Jer 26:1. 12 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (ed(s). David A. Hubbard, et al; WBC; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987), 14. C.f. also the useful discussion and conclusions regarding Gen 1:1’s use and meaning of tyviarEB. in Walther Eichrodt, ‘In The Beginning: A Contribution to the Interpretation of the First Word of the Bible’ in Creation in the Old Testament (ed. Bernhard W Anderson; Issues in Religion and Theology 6; Philadelphia and London: Fortress Press and SPCK, 1984), 65-73. 13 Cf. Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary (trans. J.J. Scullion; London: SPCK, 1984), 100. 14 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (trans. John H. Marks; Revised Edition; London: SCM, 1972), 47. 15 Eg. John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Library of Biblical Interpretation; Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan, 1992), 83. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
6
rather the “external” movement of God (the Creator who is “ultimate reality”)16 in his creating activity.17 In fact it would seem the Masoretic Text itself demonstrates this primacy of God’s creating activity in “the beginning” with a strong division marker (íatnax) under the third word (~yhil{a/), such that the first clause simply reads: ‘In the beginning God created’. So, “the beginning” is primarily the commencement of God’s creating activity; which is to say, at first there was a “cause”: the action of God. We must be careful to highlight this as a significant distinction from saying that God himself was the “first cause” (as per Aristotle’s “unmoved mover”),18 for such a statement forces the situation whereby God, in being reduced to a mere cause, can only initiate creation and cannot therefore interact with it. Instead—as we shall soon consider—the immediate context of this clause (Genesis 1) presents a Creator God who, though certainly distinct, remains constantly involved in creation—realities that ultimately highlight the contingent nature of God’s “external” action.19 This is an important development, for we can now appreciate that ‘In the beginning God created’ documents the initiation of something “other”—a contingent activity that is utterly free, unnecessary and distinct from God himself.20 This is a truth that immediately draws four implications: (1) an inseparable connection to grace; (2) an inseparable connection to the resulting object; (3)
16
“Ultimate reality” here simply denotes the fact that God uniquely exists eternally and selfsufficiently, and in turn is the one upon whom the existence of all else depends. 17 By “external” here is not meant an action physically separate from God himself, but an action that it is generated towards that which is other than himself. 18 R.C. Sproul, The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts that Shaped Our World (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2000), 49. 19 By contingent we mean that which ‘has no self-subsistence and no ultimate stability of its own, but that it is nevertheless endowed with an authentic reality and integrity of its own which must be respected’. Thomas F Torrance, Divine and Contingent Order (Scotland, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981), vii. 20 Ibid., 108. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
7
an inseparable connection to the temporal; and (4) an inseparable connection to “an end”. Firstly, the contingent nature of God’s causing21 action discloses the abiding reality of grace on behalf of God. Grace is here defined as free and unnecessary mercy that effects a positive orientation toward something “other”. Grace, then, must stand as the basis of all things contingent,22 and is as such the primary, all-encompassing context for the emergence of this contingent causing action. However, the nature of grace itself warrants the question of its own context: what may elicit such an unnecessary thing? We cannot yet properly say, suffice to note that the answer ought lie in the very being of God himself. Though such aspects are likely eternal with God, “the beginning” is yet the beginning of God’s acts of grace. Secondly, the contingent nature of God’s causing action legitimises the instantaneous reality of its effect: a contingent creation23. That it, the reality of God’s contingent causing action (arb—to create) both makes room within the “ultimate reality” (that is, God himself) for something “other”,24
21
The continuing use of the concept of “cause” for now is to be appreciated merely as a basing point upon which we shall gradually and eventually attempt to build an appropriate Christian (trinitarian) understanding, as per the concern of Gunton in ‘The End of Causality? The Reformers and their Predecessors’ in The Doctrine of Creation: Essays in Dogmatics, History and Philosophy (ed. Colin Gunton; Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark Ltd, 1997), 6382. 22 Cf. John Duns Scotus’ contention that all acts of God in relation to the world are of grace because they are all contingent acts (which we in turn express in contingent statements such as ‘God created the world’, ‘the Son of God became man’, ‘Jesus Christ died and rose again’, etc). Ordinatio, prol. p.3, q.3 (n.150, 168-71); referred to in Torrance, Divine and Contingent Order, 109. 23 ‘that God creates means that there is other reality than God and that it is really other than he.’ Robert W Jenson, Systematic Theology, vol. 2, The Works of God (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999), 5. Italics and underlining mine. 24 This “making room” is not to be understood in any tangible sense, such as Moltmann’s spatial or Jenson’s temporal models. Instead, the understanding here proposed is one of possibility or realisation, such that the actualisation of “otherness” in God’s contingentaction “paves the way” for the reality of the existence of “other”. Cf. Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation: An Ecological Doctrine of Creation (trans. Margaret Kohl; London: SCM Press, 1985), 86-89; Robert W. Jenson, ‘Aspects of a Doctrine of Creation’ in The Doctrine Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
8
and simultaneously effects “other”: a “creation”—an entity that is not itself God, but which has not itself existed (here expounded as the heavens and the earth).25 What this ultimately underscores is a three-tiered “contingencyrelation”—with each connection defined by distinction yet eventual inseparability—between God himself, his creation act, and his creation object. To be sure, the actual “mechanics” of such a thing remain elusive for now,26 and yet, nonetheless, we can still now say that “the beginning” is the beginning of a contingency-relation, however it “works”. Thirdly, though, the contingent nature of God’s causing action also legitimises the reality of a temporal order—a history.27 For it is in the initiation of “otherness” ‘In the beginning’ that a reference point is immediately activated—a moment at which “ultimate eternal reality” allows for that which is non-eternal, which is in fact to say, for that which is temporary. This is not to say with Jenson that time is thus within God himself as the “roominess” made for that which is “other”,28 but rather that time is established in relation to contingency itself—remaining thus dependent upon but distinct from God. Though primarily denoting the
of Creation: Essays in Dogmatics, History and Philosophy (ed. Colin Gunton; Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark Ltd, 1997), 24. 25 ‘a world that is both real in itself, and yet only is itself in relation to its creator.’ Colin Gunton, Christ and Creation (Carlisle and Grand Rapids: Paternoster Press and Eerdmans, 1993), 75. 26 That is, Gen 1:1 will not allow us to say more; though the ensuing story may enlighten us with more detail. 27 Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis (trans. Sophia Taylor; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888), 76. 28 See Robert W Jenson, Essays in Theology of Culture, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 190-201. Gunton also elucidates the contention but disagrees with it, ‘because an adequate theology of the spaciousness of the created order will need to make more of the notion of creation as externalising’. Gunton, ‘Introduction’ in The Doctrine of Creation: Essays in Dogmatics, History and Philosophy (ed. Colin Gunton; Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark Ltd, 1997), 7. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
9
initiation of God’s “external” movement, then, “the beginning” is still indeed the beginning of the temporal.29 But fourthly, we are now in a position to realise that the contingent nature of God’s causing action actually demands the reality of an end.30 For when contingency in relation to God initiates the temporal, that reality is indeed temporary; which is also to say: a reality that has a beginning is a nonsense reality if it then does not end, it is neither eternal nor non-eternal.31 There is an expectation from the very beginning, then, that there will at some point be a terminus to the existence of contingent reality as it was first established.32 It is in this light that the likes of Procksch could say: ‘Already in Genesis 1:1 the concept of “the last days” fills the mind of the reader.’33 “The beginning”, therefore, is the beginning of the end; and there opens the door to our thesis.
“The Beginning” and the “Other”
It is now established that “the beginning” is: (1) a movement of God, (2) the beginning of contingency in relation to God and time in relation to
29
Jürgen Moltmann, The Future of Creation (trans. Margaret Kohl; London: SCM, 1979), 120. 30 ‘The affirmation “in the beginning” is incomplete without the related affirmation “in the end”.’ Bernhard W. Anderson, From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives (ed. Walter Brueggemann et al.; Overtures To Biblical Theology; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1994), 4. Cf. also Colin Gunton, The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Study (NSCT; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998), 90. 31 ‘The absence of boundaries creates nonorder’; Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 63. 32 ‘that which has an absolute beginning has also a termination: that is to say, there is an end in view.’ Gunton on Jenson, ‘Introduction’, 6. 33 Otto Procksch, Die Genesis übersetzt und erklärt (Kommentar zum alten Testament; 1st ed; Leipzig: Deichert, 1913), 425. Translation cited in Sailhamer, Pentateuch, 83. Cf. also Ludwig Köhler, Old Testament Theology (trans. A. S. Todd; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957), 87. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
10
contingency, and (3) inseparably tied to the end; this means that we are therefore right to look to the beginning in order to look to the end, and viceversa—each defines the other. In other words, that which is contingent and temporary is by definition a contained reality, having ‘its own time and space which are given by God but not continuous with his reality’,34 and its shape and comprehension, therefore, can ultimately only be grasped and understood as a whole. That is, the primary shape of the “other” must always be one of “creation-eschatology”. And yet, we must concede that this very truth in itself actually seems to do anything but provide shape and comprehension to creation, for it highlights two recurring conundrums: how exactly can an infinite and eternal God relate to a spatial and temporal “other”, and how can a contained and temporary “other” actually have any true sense of “reality”? In fact, these conundrums arise as the respective questions of the two poles, or boundaries, already recognised to the single “other”, so much so that their two questions really present us with one question. That is, the question of the relation between God and creation is quite obviously the question of the doctrine of creation,35 and we have already proffered a key: the “contingency-relation” as an account of movement (from God). The question of the latter, in turn, is the question of eschatology, for it hinges upon the nature of “end”—must it incorporate the extermination of the “other” (inline with the termination of God’s “external” movement and its own contingency and time), or is
34
Gunton, Triune Creator, 142. ‘If it is to be meaningfully described as a doctrine of creation, however minimal may be the conception, something must be articulated about the relation between that which precedes the created world, whether ontologically or in terms of time also, and that which is in whatever sense caused by it.’ Gunton, ‘Introduction’, 2. 35
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
11
something else possible?36 The keys to this question are found in our earlier definition of eschatology itself: in the concepts of purpose and goal—which are really variations on reality and end but with the added appeal to a will of God.37 The two conundrums of the “other”, therefore, arise as the questions of creation and eschatology, and as such they properly combine into the single primary concern of “creation-eschatology”: Can “other” rightly “be”, and yet only God ultimately “be”? How can we answer? We have already hinted at the concepts of movement, purpose and goal as being key, which—in light of our earlier definition—means eschatology must indeed be the over-riding determinative realm for the fulfilment and realisation of the reality of the “other”. In turn, then, this also means that “the beginning” must “serve” eschatology, i.e., it is eschatological, being firmly directed towards a particular end with the establishment of an intrinsic and apparent purpose, movement and goal. Yet how can we appreciate these? Actually, the point has also been made clear that the original source of these is ultimately only God himself, so they can only ever be found—or better given / revealed—from him.38
This, then, is where we must leave the philosophical discussion generated by Genesis 1:1, and avoid its eventual route to speculation, and return instead to
36
It is interesting to compare, here, the considerations of Tertullian and Irenaeus on this matter: the former concluded that creation must be destined to return to nothing (Against Hermogenes, 34), whereas the latter contended that creation was destined to something, though was not clear on what or how (Gunton, Triune Creator, 55). 37 This is not an appeal to Augustine’s primacy of God’s will in creation, merely an appeal to its (currently proposed) necessity. We have, in fact, already appealed to the primacy of God’s grace in creation. C.f. Gunton, Triune Creator, 9, who similarly appeals to the primacy of God’s mercy and love. 38 An immediate implication is pertinent to highlight here: that is, the initial key to all knowledge of reality is not psychology (“Who am I?”) or science (“What is [in] creation?”), but theology (“Who is God?)”. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
12
the Scripture that proceeds as the revealed word of God. In this we shall indeed be able to search God’s word, regarding “the beginning”, for details of the purpose, movement and goal that he established in creation; however, we must also now keep in mind that in doing so, we are necessarily promoting the single primary concern of the “other” as indeed the primary concern of our biblical theology.
Summary: Eschatology in the Beginning
We have now subjected the biblical concept of “the beginning” to philosophical scrutiny. We have therein established that “the beginning” is inherently tied to “the end” to form a contained reality in relation to God. We thus pressed the need to recognise a “creation-eschatology” frame as the primary shape of the whole contained “other” in relation to God, a shape defined inwardly, in turn, by eschatological movement between beginning and end. In this light we shall now refer to the overall shape of the “other” as “creation-history”. Subsequently, however, we noted that such a reality gives rise to a primary concern: Can “other” rightly “be”, and yet only God ultimately “be”?, and we realised that the only way to eventually comprehend the reality of this “other” is to answer this concern. The answer will lie, it would seem, in the details of the inner-workings of two movements: that from God toward the “other”—which we have labelled a contingency-relation—and that within the “other” itself—best recognised as creation-history’s eschatology. It is in this light, then, that we shall indeed now turn to Genesis
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
13
1-3, for as eschatology is the determinative category of the “other’s” innershape, the beginning must then be its “servant”, establishing the key components of eschatology: movement, purpose and goal. We shall thus conduct eschatological readings of Genesis 1-3 by searching specifically for these components, and shall later consider what this does reveal of creationhistory and its primary concern, and what implications it might have for biblical theology.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
14
Eschatological Reading 1.
Movement, Purpose and Goal from Creator (Genesis 1:1 – 2:3)
‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ We have already noted how this astounding first line of Scripture provides a definitive statement of existence around the concepts of a beginning, a Creator God, an action of creating, and a created object. Though I shall later argue that this verse does in fact document the first creation act itself, rather than present a summary of the overall creation account, it nevertheless (precisely because it is the first creation event) presents an appropriate list of four key categories with which to read the overall account. We have already considered the first in detail in our philosophical premise; we shall now focus on the last three in a theological—rather, eschatological—reading of Genesis 1:1 – 2:3 as we search for details of movement, purpose and goal.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
15
The Creator: God
As one reads through Genesis 1 it becomes intriguingly obvious that it is indeed the portrait of one character that is raised paramount, for though it is a story of creation, it is first and foremost a story of the Creator: ~yhil{a/.39 Not only does the stark repetition of the word ~yhil{a/ (God) highlight this character,40 but in fact the very centrality of God is demonstrated in his association with most of the verbs in the chapter. God is indeed Mover and Worker, the initiator of all action.
Mover The action of the first verse we have already mentioned: God creates the heavens and the earth. This simply recounts the first creative act of God,41 without immediate detail or explanation. Such brevity helps to highlight the magnitude of the concept of “the beginning”, as discussed above, but also, in turn, helps to bring to the fore the very questions our discussion raised: How? and Why? These questions hang over our entire text, such that even as we come to the very next verse—which does add some detail to the fresh scenario before us—we are drawn to consider the significance of the movement (tp,x,Þr:m. – hovering) of the spirit of God (~yhil{a/ x:Wr)42, which
39
‘The first subject of Genesis and the Bible is God.’ Procksch cited in Wenham, Genesis 115, 14. 40 It is actually the most repeated word in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1-2:3, with 35 occurrences. 41 See argument for this below. 42 For this translation of x:Wr as spirit—over wind or storm—see the formal arguments of Young and Beauchamp (though at this stage I believe it still only appropriate to translate with the lower case “s” (spirit) as we have not yet been introduced to God’s spirit as a Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
16
stands in stark contrast to the static state of the new creation (Whbow" ‘Whto). It would seem, in fact, that what we are already given here is our first clue to understanding the mechanics of our philosophically elusive contingencyrelation. Indeed, in this account of the spirit of God moving animatedly over a static creation, it is clear that the spirit is key in the workings of our God– action–creation paradigm; perhaps we could consider it a mediating role.43 This contained reality, therefore, from its beginning to its end, must be held together by God’s spirit.
Worker But there is more. The text does not allow us to ponder the place of the spirit of God in isolation, for immediately we are struck with rm,aYOðw: (v.3). That is, God speaks, and we are forced to consider that the spirit of God is not alone in mediating, there is another: the word of God. Of course, it is too much to immediately read a trinitarian concept of God out of this observation, but a true observation it is that, philosophically, there is a clear presentation of two mediating aspects in our contingency-relation: the spirit and word of God. The word of God, indeed, goes on to dominate the verbal landscape of Genesis 1;44 God consistently brings things into existence as he speaks.
person (of the Trinity); the truest definition of x:Wr in this context is as we shall explicate: a mediator). E.J. Young, Studies in Genesis One (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1964), 39ff; P. Beauchamp, Création et séparation: étude exégétique du premier chapîter de la Genèse (Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, Cerf, Delachaux & Niestlé, Desclée de Brouwer, 1969), 168ff. Both works are cited in Blocher, In the Beginning, 68. 43 ‘[the spirit is] the bearer of the free, quivering presence of God by which he draws near, while yet remaining distinct from the elements of the universe’. Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis (Leicester, England: IVP, 1984), 70. C.f. also Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall (London: SCM, 1959), 18. 44 Indeed, in comparing Num. 23:19-20 and Ps. 33:6-9, McBride reads all acts of God in Genesis 1 as ‘performative speech’. S. Dean McBride, ‘Divine Protocol: Genesis 1:1-2:3 as Prologue’ in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner (ed. William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride Jr.; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2000), 9. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
17
And yet there is more again, for not only does God bring things into existence, he also gives shape and design to his creation as he ‘makes’ (hf[; vv.7, 16, 25, 31), ‘separates’ (ldb; vv.4, 7), and ‘places’ (!tn; v.17), just as he in turn bestows value and worth as he ‘sees’ (har; vv.4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31)45 and ‘names’ (arq; vv.5, 8, 10), but perhaps most poignant of all, God demonstrates care and love as he ‘blesses’ ($rb; vv.22, 28) his creation.46 This is certainly not an “unmoved mover”, but rather the Moving Creator who interacts with his creation as he generates life, shape and design, and value and worth.
Loving, Purposeful Sovereign In fact it is in this light that we can truly appreciate the reality of a will of God behind creation, a will that emerges inline with his grace, though more than that, in the context of his obvious sovereign love (this perhaps indeed as a primary aspect of the very being of God).47 For the evidence in Genesis 1 of God’s ongoing, definitive interaction in moving his creation removes any possibility of a random, necessary, accidental, or experimental incentive.48 Instead, God’s creating movement is a true expression of ascendancy, love and grace, which of course reveal purpose.49 That is, God does indeed have a reason for creating and a goal for creation: a purpose 45
Cf. William P. Brown, The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999), 49. 46 Cf. McBride, ‘Divine Protocol’, 9. 47 Cf. Gunton, Triune Creator, 9. 48 On the biblical accounts as witness to God’s “mastery”, see Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 4-13. 49 D. Broughton Knox, ‘God’s Power in Creation’ in D. Broughton Knox: Selected Works, edited by Tony Payne (Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media, 2000), 178; Cf. also William P Brown and S Dean McBride Jr, ‘Preface’ in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner (ed. William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride Jr.; Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. and Eerdmans, 2000), xi.. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
18
entailing something that—in light of the already obvious progression from good (bAj; vv.4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25) to very good (daom. bAj; v.31)—will most likely be “perfect”,50 for this loving, purposeful sovereign seems to move in such direction.
The Creation: Act and Object
In considering Genesis 1’s presentation of God as Creator, we have in turn been gradually drawn to the phenomenon of an intrinsic value and worth in the contingent “other”, for ultimately it is bound to God’s love, will and purpose. We are compelled, therefore, to study this contingent “other” in its own right; and yet, it still remains inseparably dependent upon the God who interacts. In this light it is fitting that we study this “creation” in its two veins concurrently—God’s act, and the resulting object—, something that will both allow us to fully appreciate the distinct shape of the object, while also demonstrating how this shape follows exactly that which God himself expresses. Actually, such a contention merely articulates a truth exemplified in our text. That is, in an account that is ‘succinct, even abbreviated’,51 there yet emerges a clear pattern whereby there is a detailed speech of God followed immediately by the simple wayyiqtol verb: yhiy>w: (And it was…).52 God’s creation-act is thus unequivocally tied to the creation-object, for all 50
Cf. McBride, ‘Divine Protocol’, 10. Ibid., 6-7. 52 vv.3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 24, 30. The wayyiqtol form accounts for 20 of the 27 occurrences of the verb hyh, which is actually the second most repeated word in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1-2:3. It is striking, then, that this verb is reserved to only denote the creation-object’s response to God’s creation-act, such that the most common word in Genesis 1-2:3—the / is never connected to this second most common word. subject ~yhil{a— 51
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
19
description of the latter is merely couched in the terms of response to the former.
Movement The first thing to note in God’s “creation”, then, is indeed movement: an account of the progression involved in creation, both in the act from God, and in the response in creation. We have already commented much on God’s movement in creating—it is certainly crucial to the existence and contingent reality of that which is “other”—, but it is pertinent that we consider the movement of this “other” itself, for in response to God’s movement, this “other” itself moves: into existence, into time, and into shape. Actually, these specifically are still initial movements of creation that are documented as direct responses to God’s “external” movement in creating, which is as expected in light of our previous discussions. However, what is striking in Genesis 1 is that creation actually also moves in itself—movement becomes intrinsic to this created “other”. Thus, despite the static state of the initial creation object, this creation begins to move in itself as God introduces certain new aspects, such as light—which introduces the movement of time (vv.3-5)—, vegetation—which bears seed (vv.11-12)—, and living creatures—which fly, or move along the ground, and multiply (vv.20-28). This is in fact a crucial point to realise, because movement becomes central to a sense of “reality”. That is, movement once initiated by definition continues, therefore, just as we saw that God’s own “external” movement legitimises the reality of a contingent “other”, when that which we recognised as a “contained reality” is itself defined by movement, there is a
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
20
“substantiality” afforded its reality. With such an understanding, movement is indeed a central aspect to existence itself, to the very extent that it can even be rightly understood in synonymity with “life”.53 Life moves, and movement is integral to being—something must move to “be”; but how, and to where? Actually, I think the best concept for capturing the mechanics of this inner-creation movement is that of begetting54—a concept that is particularly relevant in light of our correlation between movement and life55—while the orientation of such a concept entails growth, development and fulfilment. Thus we can see, in Genesis 1, that the earth begets vegetation and vegetation in turn begets vegetation (vv.11-12), and then the earth begets living things (v.24) and living things in turn beget their own kinds (v.22, 28). Begetting, therefore, is an important inner-creation mover through which God initiates movement to a new creation through a prior creation.
Order The second thing to notice in God’s “creation”, then, is order.56 By order here is meant a state of existence or “system” in which there are parts placed in relation to each other, with each part in its right place. The most immediately recognisable of such a thing ought indeed be our contingencyrelation: God—God’s action—God’s creation.57 However, there has also
53
Cf. Paul in Acts 17:28, ‘in him we live and move and have our being’. Cf. Francis Watson, Text, Church and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 142-3. 55 It is interesting in light of this discussion to note that in English begetting can also be rendered procreating. 56 ‘[…] the emphasis on the order of creation is the one most loudly heard in the opening of Genesis.’ Blocher, In the Beginning, 70-71. 57 Cf. Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1994, 31-32. Note also that in this particular 54
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
21
already been an order within God’s action itself: i.e., initially, spirit and word, through which he in turn “makes”, “separates”, “places”, “sees”, “names” and “blesses”. And yet, there must be something more again, for these parts of God’s actions are discernable from each other, a fact that highlights what is perhaps, in turn, the ordering most pertinent for our study: that within God’s creation itself. For God’s actions are discernable for the simple reason that they systematically emerge and work within the very structures they set up. That is, as God creates something new, his subsequent works work with the properties—including confines—of this new aspect. In this vein there appear three foundational realms that God establishes through the text of Genesis 1: the material, the temporal, and the spatial.
The first of these—the material—is, I believe, couched in the merismus of the first verse: #r
~yIm:V'h; (the heavens and the earth).58 That is, I take the first verse as best understood if considered a description of the first creation act by God59 (rather than an introductory summary of the ensuing chapter,60 or as a context clause for either of the next two verses61). It is an act that, as we have already philosophically considered, must be an initiation of “other”, or a “making room” for the reality of “other” in the ultimate
“system”, order must be recognised as incorporating a sense of obedience or submission to an “ordering” authority—God. 58 On reading this as a merismus, see J. Krašovec, Der Merismus im Biblisch-Hebräischen und Nordwestsemitischen, BibOr 33 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977), 16-25. 59 See a good argument for this reading in Wenham, Genesis 1-11, 11-13. Other adherents listed by Wenham include: Wellhausen, König, Heidel, Kidner Ridderbos, Young, Childs, Hasel, Gispen and Notter. 60 As per the likes of: U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part 1, From Adam to Noah (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1989), 19-20; and von Rad, Genesis, 49. 61 As per the likes of: Rashi [Rabbi Solomon son of Isaac] and Abraham ibn Ezra (both referred in Cassuto, Genesis, 19); and W.R. Lane, ‘The Initiation of Creation’, VT 13 (1963): 63-73. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
22
reality of God.62 This initiation of “other” must allow for the “other” in all its “fullness”, yet the creation of light in v.3 does not seem to grasp this initial step—we shall consider it in a moment. In contrast, however, the first verse can itself capture the concept perfectly if we can appreciate the “heavens and the earth” as a description of this “fullness” of the “other”,63 without necessarily incorporating its completed state. In this sense the heavens and the earth could be translated ‘the universal realm’ in description of the “canvas” that is laid out, so to speak—the material realm in which the whole universe will take shape.64 This is obviously not a scientific—“substanceoriented”—presentation of “matter” in that sense, but rather a “functionoriented” discernment of a particular realm.65 Indeed, the following verse corroborates with such a reading as it portrays this creation as something “material” (perhaps even with some element of “substance” in that sense then), yet static—still without movement. Thus in God’s creation of the heavens and the earth we have the first aspect established for this new creational order: the material realm. It is into this realm, then, that God subsequently initiates the next: the temporal. Verse 3 introduces the first wayyiqtol verb form in the narrative of Scripture (rm,aYOw: – and God said), a form used to propel the momentum of narrative sequence;66 movement, thus, is here beginning in this new creation. That is, though we have already philosophically considered that the 62
See notes above for a more careful definition of this idea. There is much support for the contention that the merismus “the heavens and the earth” denotes the “universe”; see for example: Cassuto, Genesis, 20; M. Ottosson, TDOT, 1:38991; Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World: A Philological and Literary Study (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970), 1-2. 64 Cf. “raw material” in Blocher, In the Beginning, 65. 65 This is inline with Walton’s seminal presentation of the general ancient Near Eastern perception of creation ontology, in Ancient Near Eastern Thought; see esp. 179-181. 66 George Athas and Ian M. Young, Elementary Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar (2007 Edition; Beverly Hills, Aust: Ancient Vessel Press, 2007), 95. 63
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
23
beginning, as per v.1, is the beginning of the temporal, v.3 presents the first step, that is, the first actual temporal movement. It is pertinent that this movement, then, is indeed of God (speech) in the initiation of light, for it is light—in its separation from darkness (v.4)—that instigates day (v.5); and lo and behold, the first evening and first morning roll by! This is in fact an exclamation on a number of fronts, for not only is it immediate evidence of the new moving, temporal realm as established, but it is also evidence that God is purposely subjecting his creating interaction to the confines of each of the realms he creates. That is, though himself eternal, after initiating a temporal “other”, God ‘takes time’ to create67—another strong advocation of the value and worth of the contingent reality of creation. On the second day, therefore, God initiates the third and final realm in the order of creation: the spatial. We see this in vv.6-9 as God introduces substance, shape and structure into the created “other”, through separation (ldb), and the creation of a “vault” ([;yqir'). It is here that the “other”—the created universe—“takes shape”, with “Heaven” (~yIm"v') now delineated from its tangible boundaries, and it is here that the institution of the three fold foundational order ends; but it is not the end of God’s ordering process.
With the three realms now established, the remainder of the creation account (vv.9-31) is in fact a record of God’s ongoing movement, arrangement, structuring and utilisation of the same. So in day three (vv.9-13) we see God refocussing upon the material realm in the context of the more recent temporal and spatial realms, thus demarcating and giving substance to the
67
Gunton, Triune Creator, 84.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
24
previously static “Earth” (#r
This is in contrast to the #r ~yIm:V'h;. 69 The importance of ādām is highlighted both in the heightened syntactical “fever” of the text (poetic repetition and qatal verb forms) that recounts its creation, and in the narrative detail of the same (see next paragraph). 70 E Carson Brisson, ‘The Gates of Dawn: Reflections on Genesis 1:1-10; 2:1-4a’ in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner (ed. William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride Jr.; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2000), 57. 71 ‘the creation account delineates an ever-burgeoning and increasingly purpose-filled earthhome in which all of life is assigned its meaning and value according to the personal will of God.’ Ibid. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
25
Within this order, however, it is imperative that we notice the intriguing place of primacy afforded the one creature, ādām. This creature is given a singular place of privilege, command and responsibility to such an extent that one wonders of the effect that this creature might have upon such movement, and even upon the primary concern of how ‘“Other” can rightly be, and yet only God ultimately “be”’; for when the creature is created ~yhil{a/
~l,c,B. (in the image of God), and is commanded to rule (hdr) over the creation, is it not a mediating role that is bestowed? We shall consider this more carefully in due course.
An End
Actually, before we have time to consider the impact of ādām, there is an immediate end offered to the creation account of Genesis 1, indeed a goal that is attained and emphasised in the poetic text of Genesis 2:1-3;72 the question must be: Is this the end? Certainly there is a “rounding off” that occurs on this, the seventh day of creation: firstly of the material realm, as the ‘heavens and the earth’ are declared ‘at an end’ (WLkuy>w: – v.1); secondly of the movement of God’s creating work, as God’s work is declared ‘ended’ (lk;y>w:), and God ‘rests’ (tBov.YIw: – v.2); and finally of the temporal realm, as God blesses this seventh day (%rw): , making it the culmination of the week as he ‘sets it apart’ (vDEq;y>w: – v.3). What we seem to have is indeed an end of movement—in the material realm altogether, in Gods “external” creating work, and in the structuring of the temporal realm. However it is remarkably 72
Sailhamer, Pentateuch, 96; and Wenham, Genesis 1-11, 34-35; cf. also Cassuto, Genesis, 14-15.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
26
not the end of contingent reality. That is, rather than being a time of removal or the end of the “other”—as could be expected—this time of “nomovement” is in itself actually blessed and made holy. This “sabbath” day,73 therefore, is indeed the climax of creation,74 a time of “realisation”, or “actualisation”, of the very purpose and goal of God in his creating work,75 and the result is something neither “good” nor “very good”, but “holy”: a day belonging to God.76 In fact, with God himself so connected to this day,77 it is a day unlike any other day whereby, rather than being filled with creationoriented activity (as per the first six days), this final day is wholly God focussed and oriented and filled. This is indeed the goal and purpose of creation—not primarily rest, but primarily the full God-orientation that rest allows. Such a scenario, in fact, is perhaps best described as one of worship—the upholding of God’s worth as “ultimate reality” (i.e., the one upon whom the existence of all else depends). And yet, with these things said we must quickly notice a glaring absentee in this list of completions: that is, there has been no mention of the spatial realm. While the other realms of the creation order have clearly been “rounded off”, it seems that the spatial realm has been left open-ended and unfulfilled. It is in this light, at the least, that we can appreciate this particular sabbath “end” is not yet the end of creation’s movement and purpose, there must be something more, at least spatially, to come. Just what
73
Cf. Exodus 20:11. Eg. Blocher, In the Beginning, 57. 75 So Moltmann, God in Creation, 277: ‘the whole work of creation was performed for the sake of the sabbath.’ 76 William J. Dumbrell, ‘Genesis 2:1-17: A Foreshadowing of the New Creation’, in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (ed. Scott J. Hafemann; Downers Grove, Illinois and Leicester, England: IVP and APOLLOS, 2002), 54. 77 Brown, Ethos, 49. 74
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
27
that is and how it is to happen, though, is to be revealed in the details of Genesis 2.
Summary: Eschatology from Creator
So we draw to a close our study of the creation week as presented in Genesis 1:1-2:3, an exercise that has elucidated the details of how movement, purpose and goal were established by God in creation. Firstly we considered movement from God himself and noted the integral place of his spirit and word, indeed highlighting them as the constituents of the previously elusive contingency-relation. Secondly we regarded the necessity of a purpose from God in consequence to his will, grace and love. Thirdly, we turned to movement in creation and observed the way “begetting” allowed innercreation progress—indeed development of life—and how ādām seems also to have a role to play. Fourthly we highlighted the obvious purpose instilled within the designated order of creation. And finally, we pondered the goal of creation as established in the ideal of the seventh day, a goal involving both creation and God himself in the reality of full, undistracted God-orientation, i.e., worship. Presently, then, we can confirm that there is indeed an eschatological outlook established in the beginning, and a frame is certainly emerging for a meta- “creational-history”. However, details of the inner-workings of this eschatological “other” remain thin, for this account’s primary concern is creation in relation to God, wherein its existence, movement, purpose and goal are examined in their dependence upon him. And yet it has become
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
28
clear that there is indeed another perspective that is equally valid in relation to creation, the second being that in itself, wherein its movement, purpose and goal are directed by inbuilt realities. It is to the details of this second perspective that we now turn in Genesis 2.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
29
Eschatological Reading 2.
Movement, Purpose and Goal in Creation (Genesis 1:26-2:25)
‘These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.’78 So we turn to the main section of Genesis 2 with another extraordinary opening line, a line that actually presents us with no less than confirmation of the eschatology of creation. For though we have observed aspects of movement, purpose and goal being established by God in creation through the creation week, it is not until this point that we actually step into the account of their workings and realisation. That is, we are now looking at the tAdleAT (generations, as in “what is generated”)79 of the “heavens and the earth”, or in other words: ‘These are the movements of the universe when God created it.’ This is a title, and the intimation it offers is that the ensuing story is indeed that of how creation works.
78 79
Gen 2:4, translation mine.
tAdleAT is actually perhaps best rendered “begettings” (from the root dly—to bear / beget; see Koehler and Baugmartner, ‘tAdleAT’, HALOT 4:1699-700) which we have already
defined as “movement to a new creation through a prior creation”. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
30
Actually, as we move into Genesis 2 it is intriguing to note that, in a similar vein to Genesis 1, it is indeed the portrait of another one character that is raised paramount in these “movements”; it seems that Genesis 2 is indeed, first and foremost, a new story: of ādām. Not only does the repetition of the word ~d'a' (ādām) highlight this character,80 but in fact the very centrality of ādām is demonstrated in the details of the narrative of the text.
The ādām
We have already met ādām in Genesis 1 wherein we noted, even then, the place of primacy afforded this character in the creation. In fact, in Genesis 1:26-28 ādām emerges as the pinnacle of creation; the text itself highlights this, as noted in the previous chapter, but even more it is the bestowal of two God-given privileges that promote ādām to such a place: being ‘in the image of God’ (1:26-27)81, and a being given a directive (1:28). Before we can properly turn our attention to Genesis 2 we must first grasp a better understanding of these.
ādām in the Image of God Westermann has noted that, ‘From the period of late Judaism and the fathers of the Church, the phrase [God created man in his image] has roused such a
80
It is actually the most repeated word in the Hebrew text of Genesis 2:4-25, with 16 occurrences. 81 I focus specifically on being ‘in the image’ of God here, and not also on being ‘according to our likeness’ (WnteWmd>K)i , as I read the latter in v.26 as an ‘explanatory gloss indicating the precise sense’ of Wnmel.c;B. (in our image)—Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 29; this is properly in the vein of the common Hebrew poetic device of parallelism. This is contra the separation apparently wrought between the likeness and the image of God by Irenaeus (see, for example, Against the Heresies, 5.6.1) and traditional Christian exegesis following. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
31
lively interest that one can scarcely control the literature.’82 How ought we understand and define this important concept of being ‘in the image of God’ in ādām within such a climate? Of course it ought only be, initially, that we seek for such from the immediate context itself, indeed beginning with Genesis 1:26 itself. For in this very verse which introduces the idea of being ‘in the image’ (~l,c,) there is concurrently the introduction of the idea of ādām’s dominion (hdr) over the rest of creation; at first, then, it would seem appropriate to link being ‘in the image’ with dominion. And we already have a context for understanding what this might mean, for we have already considered the expressed reality of the very dominion—or sovereignty—of God himself, in his creating work. In that case we noticed a dominion consisting of ascendancy, love and grace, and it would be necessary to expect the same of one in the image of God.83 Incredibly, then, this creature, ādām, is seen to be given a role that belongs to the Creator himself, something that highlights another aspect to being ‘in the image’: that of representation. That is, ādām is God’s representative in creation: ‘God is proclaimed, wherever man is … Man is God’s witness.’84 So it is as God’s representative that ādām rules, enacting God’s own rule upon creation. Actually, we must note that this important truth upholds the contingent reality—or relative autonomy—of creation, for God remains separate though sovereign, through ādām.85 But this must also now necessitate a third aspect of being ‘in the image’: the ability to uniquely
82
Claus Westermann, Creation. (London: S.P.C.K., 1974), 56. Cf. McBride, ‘Divine Protocol’, 41. 84 W.H. Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift (2nd ed.; WMANT 17; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967), 144. 85 This point will be more carefully explored and grasped in due course, as our movement through the biblical text itself allows. 83
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
32
connect with God—or in the words of Barth, to enter a personal relationship with God.86 For it is indeed only through the reality of relationship—a reciprocal connection—that God’s own rule can be enacted by ādām upon creation.87 However, amidst such discussion of the glories of ādām being ‘in the image of God’, Genesis 1:26 forces us also to maintain that this creature remains just that: a creature. For this first mention of ādām appears only eight words after the first mention of ādāmah (hm'd'a]—ground), and in this obvious connection the truth remains clear that ādām is still an earthly being—being ‘in the image’ is still only being ‘in the image’.88 Actually, what we have highlighted here is a fourth aspect of being ‘in the image’: that which crucially retains its place in creation, such that we are now able to appreciate a representation of creation. That is, ādām is creation’s representative before God—the one who relates to him in submission and enacts the appropriate, contingent God-orientation of creation—and being ‘in the image’ now clearly entails a mediating role as a figure that reflects two aspects at once, Creator and creation, as a two-way representative. So we have ādām “in the image of God” as a privileged two-way mediator who enacts the rule of God upon creation, and enacts the submission of creation before God. In fact it would seem that being ‘in the image’ itself must therefore have at its core the very concept of worship89— upholding the worth of God. For ādām’s mediating role is indeed one that upholds the contingency-relation, wherein this creature is made responsible 86
Church Dogmatics III/1, 183-87. More on this point will also emerge through this paper. 88 Cf. Blocher, In the Beginning, 82-3. 89 Cf. John H. Sailhamer, Genesis (ed. Frank E. Gaebelein; 2 vols; EBC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990) 2:45, 47-48. 87
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
33
for creation’s ongoing relationship with God and ongoing self-contained reality, which is certainly worship—the “uncompromisation” of God as ultimate reality. This is in fact the true privilege of being ‘in the image’; all worship, which we have already highlighted in regards to the sabbath, is to be directed by ādām himself: ‘Man is the eye of the whole body of creation which God will cause to see His glory.’90 But what does this actually mean, and what ought it to look like? ādām does not need to ponder: God gives him a directive.
ādām as Worker (The Directive) In Genesis 1:28, God gives ādām a clear directive, that is, not so much a command as an explanatory instruction providing a nudge in the right direction. In this light the directive consists initially of a string of imperatives that reveal God’s intentions (purpose) for the one “in his image”, ādām: Wdúr>W h'vu_b.kiw> #rW WrïP.. In fact, there appears to be a concentric pattern to these imperatives:
WrïP. Wb±r>W #r Wdúr>W
A. B. C. B¹. A¹.
(be fruitful) (and multiply) (and fill the earth) (and subdue it) (and rule)
The concentric flow arranges around both the inclusion of an object at level C (#r
90
W. Vischer, quoted in Barth (CD III/1, 194).
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
34
actions that affect the earth; level C, then, fits in both areas such that the stress is in this directive is indeed upon this middle imperative: ‘fill the earth’. In turn, though, “filling the earth” can be understood to entail two parts: (A+B) being fruitful and multiplying, and (B¹+A¹) subduing and ruling. An initial observation to make regarding these imperatives is God’s inherent expectations of action from ādām—God intends ādām to be worker, just as he himself has been portrayed in Genesis 1. However, in light of our findings regarding being ‘in the image’, these acts of ādām are to be understood as acts of worship. Yet there is more, for the fact that these acts are expected of ādām reveal an inherent place for this work, that is, creation needs work, which is in fact to say: creation, and ādām’s work, are teleological—or, better, eschatological. For though “completed” by God in the creation week, there is a sense here in which the “filling”, “subduing” and “subjecting” of creation point to a further need of development, or as Gunton asserts, it is a perfectly created teleological “project”,91 a project with a clear direction and goal and with one who is responsible for fulfilling it. It is with these established that we turn to the remainder of Genesis 2, a chapter that focuses specifically on the finer details of this inner-creation movement.
91
Gunton, Triune Creator, 202.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
35
ādām as Mover (The Place and The Institution) In light of the contention that creation is an eschatological project needing to be fulfilled—i.e. subdued and subjected—it is pertinent that Genesis 2:5 depicts the earth as indeed an untamed place: […] no shrub of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had sprouted yet, for Yhwh God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no ādām to work the ādāmah.92
This verse is important, for along with the detail of an untamed earth, there is also detail regarding how ādām is to subdue and subject creation: ‘work the ādāmah’, which in context must entail cultivation. The scene is set, then, whereby ādām is expected to allow the earth itself to become “fruitful”, i.e., appreciated, developed and utilised in such a way that it moves toward its full potential. This is how ādām is to be mover, just as it remains his act of worship: moving the project of creation towards its goal—the realised potential God has given it. Yet questions remain as to the particular details. It is here that we must now recall the spatial-realm that has been left open-ended in Genesis 1, for it is in this light that a notably strong emphasis on place actually emerges through Genesis 2. So in vv.8-9, God places a !G: (commonly translated garden, though is more specifically a walled grove)93 in Eden, and then places ādām into it; in vv.10-14, this “walled grove” of Eden is rather meticulously placed (located) geographically; and in v.15 it is recorded again that ādām is placed into it. Through this curious emphasis on place, there seems to be a concerted effort to establish a sense of one specific, isolated, physical location, with the reason being the nature of this 92
Translation mine. From the root !ng—‘to enclose, fence, protect’; see Koehler, ‘!G:’ and ‘!ng’, HALOT 1:198, 199.
93
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
36
place and its distinction from everywhere else. That is, this ‘walled grove’ is a garden “paradise”, a place with lushness, fruitfulness and richness prepared by God himself for ādām to enjoy and care for; yet it is only one place. The rest of the earth remains untamed, but it is here that we can now appreciate one aspect of how indeed it is to be “filled”: through ādām’s spreading of this “garden-paradise”. This is how ādām is to subdue and rule the earth, moving it to be appreciated, developed and utilised to its full God-given potential.
And yet, this does remain only part of the equation in “filling the earth”, for there was also the aspect of ādām themself being “fruitful” and “multiplying”. In fact, this second aspect of filling the earth would at the least seem to provide a necessary associate for the first anyway, for how could one ādām have such impact upon creation? In this vein, Genesis 2 concludes with a resolution to this very mystery as a task unfolds to find ādām a “helper” (rz<[e; v.18), but only with the establishment of another important mystery: marriage. For the answer to how ādām is to be fruitful and multiply lies in the profundity of marriage itself, wherein one can be joined sexually to another one and so together become one.94 This is indeed a mystery but a crucial one nonetheless, for it means that ādām is to remain one single entity (“humanity”) whereby, in his headship of creation, he can uphold the integrity and order of the dual contingent “God-“other”” relationship, but at the same time ādām is able to be many persons in distinction from each other who can spread and fill the 94
Cf. James P. Hanigan, What Are They Saying About Sexual Morality? (Ramsey, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1982), 13.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
37
earth.95 As such marriage is to be recognised as the basic social unit, the basis for the family unit of united but distinct persons through which ādām is able to complete the creation project. Indeed, “being fruitful” and “multiplying” can now be properly understood as entailing the development of a community—persons and families united as one ādām—and “filling the earth”, in turn, involves the development of a universal familial community.96 It is as a growing and developing “humanity”, then, that ādām is responsible for subduing and subjecting the earth, spreading the “gardenparadise” and allowing creation to reach its full potential.
And so it is that we can now finally perceive the workings for the fulfilment of the spatial order established by God in Genesis 1, but left open-ended. For ādām is the “inside” spatial mover of this contained created reality, purposed by God to fulfil the project of creation through the spread of place and life. This would not necessarily involve ādām simply “gardening”, but primarily enacting God-orientation upon creation—or orienting aspects of creation towards God97 —as a universal community with loving care, appreciation, utilisation and fashioning of creation, and obedience, dependence, thankfulness, praise and love of God.98 In this, ādām moves creation towards its intended “sabbath” goal: the time of realised potential, richness and fullness—indeed fulfilment of the eschatological spatial
95
Cf. Christopher Ash, Marriage: Sex in the Service of God (Leicester, England: IVP, 2003), 255. 96 It is important to note, then, that the concept of begetting itself also remains an integral key to this inner-creation movement of ādām’s. 97 C.f. Gunton, Triune Creator, 12: ‘[ādām is called] to be and to act in such a way as to enable the created order to be itself as a response of praise to its maker’. 98 This actually upholds the value and worth in the likes of art as a means of utilising, fashioning and appreciating creation as an act of praise and thankfulness to God. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
38
movement—such that, in fulfilment, ādām offers all creation fully-oriented towards God, an “offering of praise” to the Creator in sabbatical worship.
The End?
What then of the end? It would seem, in fact, that in this alternate creation account of Genesis 2, a different ending is on view to the “sabbath” of Genesis 1. However, we must remember that rather than a different account per se, it is merely the oriented focus of the account that is different—being an “other”-oriented account rather than the God-oriented account of Genesis 1. In this vein we can appreciate that the culmination of creation, from the “other’s” perspective, is in fact marriage (vv.18-25). It is interesting to note how this wonderful mystery of marriage is actually portrayed in this account as a later creation act, and as such fulfils the role of completing the ordering of the environment (or perhaps “society”). What bearing, then, has this upon our eschatology? It would seem, in fact, that there are some exciting implications, for in the vein of the paradigmatic “God-“other”” relationship, marriage is itself a dual relationship but with the distinction of a crucial inbuilt profundity: sexual union. The importance of this reality is immense, for what it opens is the ontological legitimacy of a union-in-distinction per se, albeit mysteriously, in a dual relationship. In other words, the mystery of sexual union in marriage opens the possibility for the only—now conceivable— answer to our conundrum of how “other” can rightly “be”, and yet only God ultimately “be”: in a mysterious union that enables two distinct entities to
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
39
remain distinct and yet united into one. How exactly such a thing might occur is not revealed, it is not the point of this passage, but the legitimacy of such a possibility is certainly now established. And yet there is more to this passage, for in questioning why this final section of Genesis 2 is included in such detail at all, there actually does seem to be more than simply the climax of marriage on view; there is in fact a story of import that emerges—an anecdote that is meant to be noticed. The focus of this story, is in fact a task: God undertakes the task of providing for ādām a helper (v.18). However, in vv.19-20 ādām himself is actually included in the task, and in the midst is even given the incredible role of naming life (note the significance of God naming in Genesis 1), but ādām is unable to complete the task (v.20b). Here God steps in with the decisive new work in hV'ai (woman; v.22), with the result of something wonderful, yet mysterious, in marriage. However, remarkably, it is actually ādām who does eventually complete the task, with the naming and blessing of hV'ai (v.23), and the culmination is something right and good and to be enjoyed. Actually, what seems to emerge through this story is a pattern for the fulfilment of God’s “inner-creation” tasks. Certainly the pattern of this story has strong initial ties with the reality of God’s primary task in creation (of moving it to completion in the spread of the garden of Eden): God has undertaken the creation project himself, including the creation and planting of Eden, but God has then included ādām in the project by planting him into the garden with a directive. However, in light of the anecdotal story that concludes Genesis 2 some questions are now forced into this scenario as to whether ādām actually will be able to complete such a task, and how exactly
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
40
the end will be inaugurated? We must admit that direct answers are not given. However, it seems appropriate to consider that some guidelines are hinted at in this established pattern: (1) it is likely that God will step in at some stage with a decisive new work; (2) it is likely that this will be something wonderful, and yet mysterious; and (3) ādām is still likely to play an incredible, concluding role.99 Ultimately, we ought appreciate that such a pattern is indeed in some ways necessary, for it upholds the established truths of the contingent, contained reality, of Genesis 1. That is, through such a pattern, creation remains necessarily dependant upon God, who initiates, sustains and completes, and yet simultaneously, it remains necessarily independent under ādām—a relative independence.
Summary: Eschatology in Creation
So we come to the end of Genesis 2 wherein we have now been presented with an account of the workings of eschatology in creation. Incredibly, it has been one creature, ādām, that has dominated our discussion and been shown to be the key to inner-creation movement. We have seen that ādām is the specially created one, “in God’s own image”, who is to be a mediator between God and creation—representing God as ruler to creation, and creation as worshipper to God. With such a position of headship, then, ādām
99
In support of argument for the establishment of this pattern for God’s “inner-creation” tasks, it would be pertinent to note its actual emergence in the outworking of later Pentateuchal and OT salvation-history specific tasks, such as: the judgement and salvation of humanity through Noah; the seed-bearing blessing to the world through Abraham; the redemption of God’s people through Moses; the attaining of the “promised land” through Joshua; the building of a “house” for God through David; and so on. In all of these, God sets out a task, includes a human in it, but eventually steps in with a decisive “new” work before the human can complete it. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
41
was in turn given the task of completing the teleological project of creation, by moving it to God-oriented communion. Such a task involved “filling the earth” and “subduing it”, entailing the development of a universal familial community that would utilise and appreciate creation in such a way as to enable it to realise its God-given potential (purpose). It was in this that ādām was to ultimately bring God-orientation both into and thus out of all the earth as an offering of praise and worship, and indeed eventually bring it, somehow, into union with God himself. Yet it is here that a mystery remains; we know it must happen, but how exactly can creation be united with God under ādām? Is God to step in with a decisive new work, and if so what will it be? Before we have time to ponder, however, the story of Genesis takes a dreadful turn, and it is to this we now turn: the ruin of eschatology in Gen 3.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
42
Eschatological Reading 3.
Movement, Purpose and Goal in Ruin (Genesis 3)
‘And Yhwh-God laid a charge upon ādām saying ‘From all the trees of the garden you may freely eat. But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: you shall not eat from it; for in the day you eat from it you shall certainly die.’100 Though we from retreated from declaring God’s original directive of ādām a “command” (Gen 1:28), this stark and strong charge is clearly a command placed by the Creator upon his creature. Though we skipped over it in our previous discussion of eschatology in creation, it is now pertinent that we highlight it, and indeed note its importance, for it lays the premise for the events of Genesis 3.
100
Gen 2:16-17. Translation mine.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
43
The Command
This command of God’s emerges directly in the specific context of his act of placing ādām in the garden of Eden to work it and to keep it (Hr"(m.v'l.W Hd"Þb.['l.; v.15), which is, in light of our earlier discussion, to exercise his God-given sovereignty over the garden by utilising its potential and spreading it across the earth.101 So it is that in the very initiation of ādām’s privileged role he is in fact himself subjected to a command of God. However, we must appreciate that rather than being a limiting feature, this command actually establishes a definitive realisation of the freedom that is necessary for the contained contingent reality of creation. For despite the actual initial giving of all the trees in the garden to ādām for food, God’s loving bestowal of freedom to ādām is only ultimately achieved through the restraining of the one tree, for this ‘placed before man decision and the serious question of obedience’,102 two necessary aspects of a contingent “free-will”.103 At the same time, however, we must appreciate this act of prohibition of the loving sovereign Creator to indeed be an act of love, i.e., for ādām’s good: ‘the forbidden fruit was not good for man, and taken by him in disobedience, it necessarily would work destructively upon him.’104 In this light, the command not only effects the question of obedience in response to God’s word, but at the same time faith in response to God’s benevolence (and the
101
It is interesting to note that the root rmv (to exercise great care over) can actually include the senses of “regarding”, “observing” or “taking heed of” (Koehler, HALOT 4:1581-84), which in this context could be applied to ādām’s appreciation of the garden as a pattern for the subjugation of the rest of the earth. 102 von Rad, Genesis, 80. Italics mine. 103 For thus the creature is “free” to choose, but at the same time “compelled” to obey the Creator. 104 von Rad, Genesis, 81. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
44
truth of his word thus). Faith and obedience, then, emerge as the concrete hallmarks of the “other’s” aforementioned submission to the Creator; they are the effectors of creation’s God-orientation as realised through the representative, ādām, and indeed the basis of relationship between ādām and God.105 In light of such importance, then, it is apposite that the command is understood: what is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ([r"w" bAj t[;D:h;
#[e; v.17)?, and what exactly is the expected consequence of eating from it, i.e., “death” (tWmT' tAm—‘you shall surely die’; v.17)? Considering the former, it would actually seem that the specific details are meant to be unfamiliar—beyond the obvious conception of a “forbidden tree” there is at present no more necessary information. And indeed the same ought probably be said of “death”: the semantic ranges and uses of the verb twm (to die) actually allow for the expectation that the ensuing context will eventually influence its meaning.106 At this point in the narrative, then, it is the serious questions of faith and obedience that are the important ones to be asked. Unfortunately, however, answers are forthcoming, in Genesis 3, and the result is indeed the horrible appreciation of the details of “the knowledge of good and evil” and “death”.
105
This is how we can understand our previous stated contention that ‘it is indeed only through the reality of relationship—a reciprocal connection—that God’s own rule can be enacted by ādām upon creation’ (p33), for faith and obedience simultaneously effect both this relationship and the rule of God. 106 C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2006), 116-19. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
45
The Ruin
Genesis 3 opens with the introduction of a creature, vx'n" (serpent), and immediately casts suspicion over his character with the attribution: ‘[he] was more crafty (~Wr[') than any other beast of the field which Yhwh-God had made’ (v.1). With this reference established, the proceeding narrative detail of the serpent’s questioning of God’s command (vv.1-5) is immediately recognised as “out-of-place” and in fact deceptive.107 Indeed the magnitude of the serpent’s “craftiness” is quickly evident, for his words are carefully chosen in such a way as to not directly attack the obvious act of obedience, but rather to subtly influence the outcome of the same through the undermining of the woman’s faith in God and his benevolence. In this the ‘serpent’ truly stands as a “Dark Power” in opposition to God,108 the particulars of whom we have no account, except for the glimpse we catch here of a “twister of truths”.109 Nevertheless, it is a creature, which ‘YhwhGod had made’ (v.1), that influences the woman, and the woman listens, and in this the door is opened to the ruin of ādām and creation.
ādām in Ruin By the time the husband (vyai) eats the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Genesis 3 (v.6), an entire reversal of the created order has unravelled. For instead of ādām influencing creation in his God-orienting rule, there is an animal influencing ādām in a fruit-oriented direction; ādām 107
Cf. Paul in 2 Cor 11:3. Collins, Genesis 1-4, 170-72; cf. also the ‘evil principle’ in Franz Delitzsch, New Commentary, 149-52. 109 Cf. David Wilkinson, The Message of Creation (BST; Leicester, England: IVP, 2002), 68-69. 108
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
46
has bowed to creation, with a piece of fruit being the pinnacle of desire over God himself, and the dominion of ādām is ruined. Of course this is, in turn, no less than a ruin of ādām’s representation of God in creation, for they have mistrusted God and disobeyed him, and in this God’s own rule has been rejected; and from here the realised tragedy of this event only worsens. It is interesting that in Genesis 3 the immediate effect actually seems to be inline with what the ‘serpent’ predicted, ‘the eyes of both of them were opened’ (v.7a). However, the ‘serpent’ was indeed deceptive, for though their eyes were opened, his promised result—‘being like God, knowing good and evil’ (v.5b)—does not actually eventuate as a beneficial thing: ‘they realised they were nude’ (v.7b). This is a complete reversal of the wonderful scenario of 2:25.110 In fact, it would seem that the portrayal here of nakedness is akin to a loss of “innocence”; that is, the “knowledge of good and evil” is actually knowledge that is not wholly God-oriented, but now self- and creation-oriented, which is indeed like God himself (who as “ultimate reality” is the only one who must be, rightly, self-oriented first, and then other-oriented). For ādām, however, it means the very-good existence of life in full God-orientation is ruined, and the follow-on effect is the awful ruin of relationship. First the wonderful ‘one-flesh’ relationship within ādām is ruined as the husband and wife hide from each other under fig-leaves (v.7c), and secondly ādām’s personal relationship with God himself is ruined as they hide from him among the trees in the garden (v.8). In fact, in light of the all-encompassing nature of the relationship enjoyed before this point, such action is sheer hostility, a fact reflected in ādām’s own accusation: ‘the woman whom you put with me, she gave to me from the tree’ (v.12). 110
Wenham, Genesis 1-11, 76.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
47
In breaking the command of God, ādām has ruined his dominion, his representation of God and his relationships, such that overall, ādām’s action is to be appreciated as nothing short of a ruin in being in the very image of God. That is, ādām can no longer be a two-way representative, of God before creation and creation before God—he can no longer worship. We shall consider more fully the nature and extent of this ruin in being ‘in the image’ shortly, but for now it is pertinent to highlight that an intrinsic “headship” is retained in ādām’s connection to creation: when ādām ruins things, the ādāmah, and all creation, suffers ruin.
Creation in Ruin God’s own response to ādām’s ruin is devastating. Being well aware of the event that has transpired, God calls (arq) to ādām—suggestive of the Judge of the whole earth summoning the transgressor for an account of his conduct111—and incites them to emerge from their hiding.112 Then, in a strong reminder of the order-reversal that has occurred, God probes for the full truth first through the man, then the woman, and then the ‘serpent’. However, having exacted confessions, it is God’s consequent action that is truly devastating, for he proceeds to pronounce curses upon the ‘serpent’, ādām, and creation, curses that ruin the very directive bestowed upon ādām in Genesis 1. In the curses that God calls upon the woman and the man (vv.16-19), the operative word is certainly the noun !AbC'[I (pain, sorrow and toil), the form of which here (with a doubling of the second radical) connotes an 111 112
Cassuto, Genesis, 155. Wenham, Genesis 1-11, 77.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
48
intensified pain, yet it is the objects of this pain that are truly significant. For the woman, !AbC'[I comes into childbearing, and for the man, !AbC'[I comes into working the ground, that is, pain, sorrow and toil enter the two tasks necessary for the outworking of man’s directive: filling the earth (childbearing), and subduing it (working the ground). This is a purposed frustration of the directive objectives by God himself; God has imposed a ruin upon the directive—or more properly, ādām’s progress in fulfilling the directive—of Genesis 1. Instead of progress, all of ādām’s efforts are now futile, and the whole state of creation is thus brought into ruin. For not only did God concurrently curse the ādāmah on account of ādām’s sin (v.17), but even more poignantly God banished ādām from the garden of Eden and tree of life (vv.22-24), an act that ended any hope of the fulfilment of creation itself: ādām can no longer “spread the garden”, and ‘fill the earth’ thus. In fact, what we can eventually distinguish here is the disturbing ruin of movement itself in creation; creation is no longer able to move, under ādām, towards its intended “sabbath” goal. Actually the depths of this tragedy and the certainty of the facts of such ruin and futility in creation and ādām are made no clearer than in the final imposition of death as ādām’s new end: ‘By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.’ (Gen 3:19)
Physical death is indeed the great disaster, the final ruin that renders all effort futile and all movement “directionless”. In fact, though, such an end only underscores the reality in which ādām and creation now already exists, for this new realm of ruin has indeed given meaning to the twm of Gen 2:17:
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
49
spiritual death113—separation from the “tree of life”, which really signals separation from God the giver of life, separation from the movement towards the fulfilment of creation, and, it would seem, separation from the “ultimate good” itself of the intended eschatological, “sabbath” goal.
The End?
What then of the end? What are we to make of eschatology in light of this ruin and the new realm of death? We can clearly appreciate a ruin to the aspect of movement in creation, and creation’s connection to its purpose and goal is thus also plainly ruined, but does this necessarily mean the purpose and goal of creation have therefore been completely lost? This is really to enquire of the true nature and extent of the concept of ruin, and it is indeed an essential question arising out of Genesis 3 itself. For though the ruin and God’s actions against creation are truly devastating, they are actually not as devastating as perhaps should have been expected. That is, in light of what philosophically seemed a tentative relation between the ultimate reality of the infinite and eternal Creator and the contained contingent reality of creation, it would have been right to expect that anything that even hinted at threatening the value of God’s own worth would be immediately removed. And yet, despite the ruin of ādām’s central worship, the material, the temporal, and the spatial remain, and even some aspect of movement remains intrinsic to creation, for ādām is still called to ‘work the ādāmah’ outside of Eden (v.23). The effects of the ruin, it now seems, are noticed most 113
Cf. such rendering of twm in Prov 12:28; 23:13-14; see also Collins’ presentation of the biblical conception of “spiritual death”, Genesis 1-4, 117-18.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
50
profoundly in the orientation of creation’s eschatological movement. That is, though God’s purposes and goal seem to remain, creation’s movement is no longer oriented in the right direction, towards the goal, it is instead moving under the abiding headship of ādām in a state of futility.114
Summary: Eschatology in Ruin
We thus draw to a close our eschatological readings of Genesis 1-3 with a peculiar situation lingering in the story. With God having established a command as the necessary means for a contingent “free-will” of creation in ādām, ādām mistrusted God and chose to disobey him. The inherent effects of this were devastating: the ruin of ādām’s rule, relationships and worship of God, which all reveal a ruin in being ‘in the image of God’; perhaps the image somehow remains, but ādām, it would seem, is no longer properly in it. In turn, however, God’s own action against ādām’s ruin is most devastating of all: curses upon “filling” and “subduing” activities, removal from Eden, and subjection to the realm of death, which all establish futility into ādām’s moving work within creation, thus removing his ability to complete the teleological project of creation. And yet, creation remains; it is ironic indeed that it is in this realm of ruin that the value and worth of creation are actually confirmed, albeit mysteriously. In fact, a pervading mystery is now highlighted through the ruin: what exactly is, and always has been, “holding creation together”? God’s grace and love are certainly
114
Cf. Douglas Farrow on Irenaeus’ teaching: ‘In the fall, man is “turned backwards”. He does not grow up in love of God as he is intended to. The course of his time, his so-called progress, is set in the wrong direction.’ Douglas Farrow, ‘St Irenaeus of Lyons. The Church and the World’, Pro Ecclesia 4 (1995): 348.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
51
underscored as a basis, but there is a mystery as to how these are enacted in the enduring material, temporal and spatial realities of the “other”. It is with this remaining mystery that we shall close this reading and turn now to consider what has emerged out of the collected readings, and whether, indeed, there may be some answers to the questions and mysteries that we have unearthed.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
52
Conclusions 1.
A “Creation-History”
In our premise for the eschatological readings of Genesis 1-3, we established the need to recognise a “creation-history” as the primary shape of the whole contained “other” in relation to God, a shape defined inwardly, in turn, by eschatological movement between beginning and end. We then noted that such a reality gives rise to a primary concern: Can “other” rightly “be”, and yet only God ultimately “be”? We realised that the only way to ultimately comprehend the reality of this “other” was to answer this concern, and that in turn would require delving into the inner-workings of creation-history’s eschatology. It was in this light, then, that we indeed turned to Genesis 1-3, for as eschatology is the determinative category of the “other’s” inner-shape, the beginning must then be its “servant”, establishing the key components of eschatology: movement, purpose and goal. We thus conducted eschatological readings of Genesis 1-3 by searching specifically for these components, and we shall now consider what exactly this exercise has revealed of creationhistory and its primary concern.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
53
Creation-History Established in Genesis 1-2
The first thing to note in relation to our eschatological readings is that a creation-history has indeed been established from the beginning, in Genesis 1-2.115 That is, there is a clear shape provided in Genesis 1-2 to the contained reality of the “other” in relation to God, a shape defined by the given details of an inbuilt purpose to creation, an inaugurated movement within creation, and an established goal for the anticipation of creation.
Creation-History’s Shape Regarding purpose, it is clear that each and every aspect of creation was indeed established with its own place and function in creation, and thus indeed with a purpose that bestowed an intrinsic value and worth to its existence. In this vein, however, it was particularly evident that one creature, ādām, was afforded a special place of import in creation-history, with a function and purpose that placed it in a position of primacy and headship over all of creation. This in turn impacted creation-history’s movement, for it was in fact ādām—“in God’s own image”—that was given the primary responsibility of completing the teleological project of creation by being the inside spatial mover. Such a task involved “filling the earth” and “subduing it”, which entailed developing a universal familial community that would utilise and appreciate creation in such a way as to enable it to realise its Godgiven potential (purpose). In this, ādām was to ultimately bring God-
115
C.f. Isaiah 46:9-10:‘ 9 […] I am God, and there is none like me, 10 declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose'’.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
54
orientation both into and thus out of all the earth as an offering of praise and worship. And this highlights creation-history’s goal, which is indeed the end of this movement, when the community of ādām has subjected all of creation into full and complete God-orientation. In this, all things are to enter a state of “completion”, a “sabbath”, whereby the focus of all reality can be directed totally and solely on God himself—indeed he who is worthy, as “ultimate reality”.116 This, then, is the eschatological frame established for creation-history in the beginning—it is what creation-history looks like in relation to its Creator, and it establishes a primary shape for the “other”, in its entirety, in relation to God. But what, then, of how the “other” can thus relate to God? That is, what has the actuality of this shape revealed, if anything, in answer to the primary concern of its possibility in relation to God: ‘How can “other” rightly “be”, and yet only God ultimately “be”’?
Creation-History’s Concern Of course, we already considered that the “other” could only have any sense of reality on the basis of initial movement from God; we labelled this movement a contingency-relation. And indeed, we have now revealed the key constituents of this movement: God’s spirit and word. However, the most extraordinary thing to have been discovered in our eschatological readings is a relational aspect toward God from creation: through the mediator, ādām. That is, ādām, being ‘in the image of God’, has been shown to be both connected to the earth and in relationship with God as a two-way representative. However, the especially significant thing to note in this 116
C.f. Revelation 4:11.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
55
mediating role of ādām’s is that it is defined by ādām’s moving work: ādām both represents God to creation in rule and creation to God in worship by his single task of moving the creation project to completion. What this means, then, is that ādām’s eschatological work is not simply a movement to its own end, but is in fact, in itself, a movement towards God. To go even further, then—and most pertinent of all—we must now therefore say that creationhistory is, in itself, a movement towards God; and there lies the key to the primary concern of the “other”. That is, we are now able to say that the “other” can rightly “be” simply because it is within its own contained reality defined as a movement towards ultimate reality, wherein, indeed, only God ultimately “is” (of course it must be concurrently remembered that this movement had to itself be instilled by the initial “external” movement of God). What exactly, then, is at this intersecting point between God’s movement toward creation and creation’s movement toward God? That point is still properly identified as the goal of creation-history, and the fundamental concept, alongside the full-God orientation that ādām achieves in creation, can only be the mysterious union between God and the “other” that we already considered as a possibility in the light of the mysterious sexual marriage-union—presumably between God and ādām, the head of creation. This is the anticipated end of creation-history in Genesis 1-2. Questions remain, however: is ādām actually up to his task? How exactly can such union be produced? Will God step in with a decisive new work in order for ādām to finally complete creation-history? Actually, before we can ponder, there is the ruin in creation-history that must be dealt with.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
56
Creation-History Confirmed in Genesis 3
What does the ruin do to creation-history? It would be expected, in light of our previous discussion, that the entire sense of reality in the “other” be brought under serious threat if creation-history is no longer “moving towards God”. Mysteriously, however, creation continues, and God remains involved, occurrences that actually enable the ruin to confirm creationhistory, rather than destroy it. That is, in light of the continuation of creation’s history before God, the ruin of movement actually highlights and upholds some integral aspects of creation-history that could otherwise, till this point, have be taken for granted. Firstly, for example, the fact that ādām has been able to ruin things so greatly in creation actually highlights the imperfect nature of a creation that was able to do so at all. In other words, the eschatological nature of the established creation-history is confirmed, for the goal of perfect union with God (which would prevent such ruinous action) is quite obviously yet to be reached.117 Secondly, then, the ruin actually highlights and upholds the primacy of God’s own abiding purpose, movement and goal in creationhistory, realities that do indeed necessarily abide in the face of ruin for without them creation-history is annihilated.118 Thirdly, in turn, the ruin thus highlights the primacy and extent of God’s grace and love both in the foundation of the “other’s” existence and the continuation of it. Fourthly, the ruin highlights—as mysterious as it is—the truth of an abiding value and 117
In other words: Where was God when ādām sinned? Cf. J. Goldingay, Old Testament Theology (vol.1; Israel’s Gospel; Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2003), 149.
118
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
57
worth, indeed purpose, in creation, purely on the basis of God’s prerogative. Fifthly the ruin highlights the fact that God is indeed needed—and always has been thus—to step in and perform a decisive new work before the completion of creation-history. And sixthly, and perhaps most pertinently, the ruin highlights the important place of an enduring void in our grasp of the inner-workings of the “other’s” reality, a void that we were already aware of, but which is now a glaring concern in this new realm of ruin: “What exactly is holding the “other” together, and how exactly can it be ultimately united with God?” Of course, each of these was already an integral aspect of creationhistory before the ruin, but the ruin has brought these particular aspects to the fore. In fact the ruin has done so in such a way that the new stress upon them provides the frame for a new era within creation-history: salvationhistory.
New Era of Salvation-History The era of “salvation-history” is an important one within creationhistory. It is the new and enduring realm of existence in which creation has necessarily been subjected after the ruin, and in which creation-history itself must now find fulfilment. That is, it is the realm in which, despite the ruin: creation remains, God’s own purposes remain unchanged, creation-history’s purpose and goal remain, but the movement of the “other” is oriented in the wrong direction. It is in this realm, therefore, that all hopes lie in the concept of re-orientation, hopes that are indeed kept alive as God does initiate hopes for a renewed, redeeming, eschatological movement: through promises—
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
58
which reiterate creation hopes—and covenants—which provide a new framework for God-orientation, However, such gifts ultimately only reveal the true depths of ādām’s enduring futility as they constantly fail, and the reality sets in that there is no hope indeed without a decisive new work of God. And yet, such a work is indeed to be expected, but only in the light of creation-history’s pre-established frame and features, which have already legitimised such necessary things as: eschatological hope, God’s grace and love, creation’s purpose, the need for a decisive new work of God, and a recognised mystery in attaining union with God. Can we, then, say more?
Creation-History Fulfilled in Christ
It is here, in fact, that we now turn to the privileged exercise and benefit of a Christian theology. For it is a Christian theology alone that stands upon the revelation of Jesus Christ, from God; and a survey of the Scriptures that speak specifically of Christ do indeed reveal an incredible picture of him in relation to creation-history. He is presented as: the alpha and omega / beginning and end of the “other”;119 the Word through whom the “other” was created;120 the firstborn over all creation;121 the Image of God;122 the Ādām;123 the mediator;124 the ruler of creation;125 the worshipper;126 even as
119
Revelation 22:13 John 1 121 Colossians 1:15 122 Ibid. 123 1 Corinthians 15:45-49; Romans 5:14 (‘Adam [was] a type of the one to come.’) 124 1 Timothy 2:5 125 Ephesians 1:20-22, 1 Corinthians 15:27 126 Hebrews’ teaching; see David Peterson, Engaging With God: A Biblical Theology of Worship (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 1992), 228-237. 120
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
59
the Son of God,127 in perfect union with God,128 and the one who will bring all things to God,129 in such union that God will be ‘all in all’.130 These recognitions of Jesus are astounding in their claims and application, for they present us with one man, begotten yet not made, who, in perfect and eternal union with God the Father stands as the one, by whom all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities- all things were created through him and for him.131
That is, Jesus is the single determinative key to the reality of the “other”. It is Jesus who moves from God toward creation, and it is he who moves in creation toward God—he is, and always has been, the one “holding creation together”. Creation-history is, therefore, ‘in itself, a movement towards God’, not primarily because of ādām’s work, but because of Christ’s work. In other words, ādām’s original work can now be seen to have had any value only on account of his own recognition as being ‘in the Image’—he was from the beginning “in Christ”, the firstborn Ādām. It is “in Christ”, indeed, that creation-history’s goal will be reached, and it is “in Christ” that creationhistory is defined, and thus finds its reality. That is why the ruin didn’t destroy creation, for it is Christ who has from the beginning enacted God’s grace and love into the abiding realities of the material, temporal and spatial realms of the “other”.132
127
Mark 1:1, 11, etc. John 10:30 (‘I and the Father are one’); etc. 129 1 Corinthians 15:24 130 1 Corinthians 15:28; Ephesians 1:10 131 Colossians 1:16 132 Cf. Gunton: ‘without a personal relation centred on God’s free involvement in the world in Jesus Christ, some logical or ontological—and hence necessitarian—link tends to be made between God and the world.’ Triune Creator, 95. 128
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
60
Genesis 1-3 has prepared us above all for the Christ: the definer of creation-history. And yet, we cannot forget that Christ was not revealed until well into the story of salvation-history. This fact turns us now to consider some important effects and implications in our study of the subject of biblical theology.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
61
Conclusions 2.
Implications for Biblical Theology
Biblical theology is here initially defined as that discipline which: ‘attempts to ascertain the inner points of coherence and development within the biblical narrative and exposition. It does its work inductively from within the Bible in an attempt to bring out the Bible’s own message.’133
In this sense, biblical theology explores the actual story of the history of God’s relation with the “other”—as God himself has revealed it in the Bible—with the purpose of developing a “meta-theology” (in turn usually recognised as “biblical theology” in itself). As it happens, the “biblical theologies” that have emerged over time have actually varied greatly in their methodologies, details and presentations of the biblical story.134 And yet, it would seem that at least one prevailing trend does in fact reside throughout most of them: a focus and stress upon salvation-history as a primary frame 133
Scott J. Hafemann, ‘Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect’ in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (ed. Scott J. Hafemann; Downers Grove, Illinois and Leicester, England: IVP and APOLLOS, 2002), 16. Such a general definition is to be specifically distinguished from a more specific association with the “Biblical Theology Movement” as expounded by G. F. Hasel, ‘Biblical Theology Movement’ in EDT (ed. Walter A. Elwell; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company, 2001), 163-66. 134 Hafemann, ‘Biblical Theology’, 16; cf. also the brief survey of such differences in Graeme Goldsworthy, ‘Is Biblical Theology Viable?’ in Interpreting God’s Plan: Biblical Theology and the Pastor (ed. Richard J. Gibson; Explorations 11; Adelaide, SA and Cumbria, UK: Openbook Publishers and Paternoster Press, 1997), 22-34. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
62
for their consequent theologies. In some ways this is to be expected, for the biblical story is certainly dominated by the salvation-history realm, and individual connection to the meta-theology can only ever be had through it (it is our existential context). However, we have recently contended that, though it is certainly important and integral, salvation-history can itself only be properly grasped within the bigger context of creation-history. It is our new contention, therefore, that creation-history ought in turn stand as the primary frame of biblical theology’s “meta-theology”.135 We shall here provide a brief overview of these implications for biblical theology, as a starting point for recognised further work.
Biblical Theology: Current Examples
The prevalent biblical theologies in reformed theology today have a tendency to focus upon salvation-history-specific themes and concepts in their grasp of the biblical story and presentation of a meta-theology.136 Some promote a multi-faceted approach with such themes,137 but we shall focus on a few examples of those who promote one unifying theme in biblical theology. This will give a simple platform for demonstrating the effects of focussing on any salvation-history specific concept, whether in a single or multi-faceted scheme. Three examples of such are: Graeme Goldsworthy’s theme of
135
Cf. Schmid: ‘the doctrine of creation […] is not a peripheral theme of biblical theology but is plainly the fundamental theme’; H.H. Schmid, ‘Creation, Righteousness and Salvation: “Creation Theology” as the Broad Horizon of Biblical Theology’ in Creation in the Old Testament (ed. Bernhard W Anderson; Issues in Religion and Theology 6; Philadelphia and London: Fortress Press and SPCK, 1984), 111 136 Cf. Goldsworthy, ‘Is Biblical Theology Viable?’, 43. 137 Cf. Charles Scobie, ‘The Structure of Biblical Theology’, Tyndale Bulletin 42/2 (1991): 177. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
63
kingdom,138 William Dumbrell’s theme of covenants,139 and Donald Robinson’s theme of ekklesia.140 The biblical theologies of these three present complex systems and structures around the “thread” of their respective unifying theme. Within these, the method of development usually entails: (1) either the New Testament (NT) or the Old Testament (OT) salvation-history contexts taking on an initial recognitive role in identifying the important theme; (2) the OT “promise and covenant” context embracing a particularly prescriptive role in the grasping of intricacies in the theme; and finally, (3) the NT “fulfilment” context assuming a descriptive role in the presentation of fulfilment in Christ. Within these processes recognition is certainly made of the unique context of Genesis 1-2, with the result being a “reading-back” of the theme into the details of the chapter.141 However, at this point it is pertinent to note some problems that arise out of such biblical theologies. The first problem to note is the effect that has been had upon biblical theology in the imposition of salvation-history-specific concepts onto creation-history, for such practise only does violence to important aspects— and in turn the whole concept—of creation-history itself. A brief example, “on-the-side”, is seen in “Sabbath” coming to primarily stand for “rest” in
138
Exemplified in Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible (Leicester, England: IVP, 1991); and Gospel and Kingdom (Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 1981) as reprinted in The Goldsworthy Trilogy (Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 2000). 139 Exemplified in William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (BTCL; Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 1997). 140 Referred to in Donald Robinson, ‘The Church’ Revisited: An Autobiographical Fragment’. RTR 48/ 1 (1989): 7-8; cf. also the further context in Robinson, ‘Origins and Unresolved Tensions’ in Interpreting God’s Plan: Biblical Theology and the Pastor. (ed. Richard J. Gibson. Explorations 11. Adelaide, SA and Cumbria, UK: Openbook Publishers and Paternoster Press, 1997), 3ff. 141 See this in: Goldsworthy regarding kingdom: Gospel and Kingdom, 58-61; Dumbrell regarding covenant: Covenant, 33-39; and Robinson regarding ekklesia: ‘Church Revisited’, 12. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
64
biblical theology today,142 rather than the un-distracted God-orientation that rest is supposed to enable in covenantal Israel. The definitive example, however, is seen in the details of Genesis 1-2 becoming an “Ideal” (considered “perfect” in that sense) for later patterns and eventual eschatological fulfilment.143 It is in this vein that Goldsworthy presents Genesis 1-2 as an ideal in its modelling of the perfect kingdom,144 while Dumbrell presents it as an ideal in what it contains with a perfect covenant,145 and Robinson simply presents it as an all-encompassing ideal146—all of these with the expectation that they shall be regained or restored in the end, through redemption. However, it must be noted that there is in fact neither a kingdom, nor a covenant,147 nor an ekklesia in Genesis 1-2. Even more importantly, however, we have clearly seen that the beginning of creation-history actually looks to something greater itself,148 rather than being a static or ideal state to then be regained in redemption.149 Genesis 1-2 does indeed ‘set the basic course of biblical eschatology’, as Dumbrell contends, but not as ‘a preliminary picture of the end of the age’.150 All that this can be seen to achieve, in fact, is an undermining of the very value and worth of creation at the expense of the “new creation”, which eventually must undermine Christ himself—the one in whom creation 142
Eg. Dumbrell, Covenant, 34-35. Cf. a recent presentation of such eschatological hopes in John Dickson and Greg Clarke, 666 and All That: The Truth About the Future (Sydney, Aus: Aquila Press, 2007), 178. 144 Goldsworthy, According to Plan, 127-8. 145 Dumbrell, ‘Genesis 2:1-17’, 61-62. 146 Donald Robinson, ‘Church Revisited’, 12. 147 See the conclusive argument against such in Paul R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Plan (ed. D.A. Carson; NSBT; Nottingham, England and Downers Grove Illinois: APOLLOS and IVP, 2007), 52-58. 148 Gunton, Triune Creator, 12. This is even in the likes of relationship with God, which we have seen still looks to a perfect union. 149 Indeed such theologies are forced to the likes of Dumbrell’s contention that ‘creation, its beginning and end, is unmotivated, while redemption is a redemption from something to a redemption for something.’ Dumbrell, ‘Genesis 2:1-17’, 65. Italics mine. 150 Ibid., 64. Italics mine. 143
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
65
ultimately finds its identity. In this light, indeed, how can Christ’s redemptive work itself be considered as potently as it must? However, there is also a second problem to arise out of these biblicaltheologies in the loss of the proper trajectory of influence—from creationhistory concepts upon salvation-history. To engage with this problem, though, I shall attempt to construct the frame of a corrective biblical theology that does indeed work within creation-history.
A Corrective Biblical Theology
We established in our premise that eschatology is the determinative category for creation-history’s inner-shape; it is eschatology, therefore, that must stand as biblical theology’s “thread”. In turn, then, a biblical theology that builds around a creation-history ought to work with the fundamental eschatological concepts of movement, purpose and goal. Of each aspect in the biblical story, therefore, the question must be: “What does this contribute to the movement, purpose and goal of creation?” In this light, the outline of biblical theology becomes very simple. Firstly, the beginning contributes greatly—as our paper has shown— with the clear establishment of these three eschatological elements: creation is purposed by God to move towards his intended goal of God-oriented union with himself, although a mysterious void exists in the comprehension of eventual fulfilment. Secondly, however, the ruin contributes disastrously, with the inauguration of the realm of death and futility; creation is no longer moving towards God’s goal. This, then, is the context of the third aspect, OT
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
66
salvation-history, wherein no direct contribution is made to the outworking of movement, purpose and goal at all; instead this period both “keeps hopes alive” amidst futility and prepares the way for Christ, through the likes of promises—which particularly promote and maintain hopes for union with God—, and covenants—which promote and maintain hopes for full Godorientation. Fourthly, then, is indeed the decisive contribution of Christ, for it is in Christ alone that creation is re-oriented in its purposed movement toward God’s goal. Through his life, Jesus re-established the Image in creation, through his death, Jesus’ substitutionary atonement re-established a new humanity,151 and through his resurrection, Jesus is able to now develop a new universal spiritually familial community that brings God-orientation into creation.152 Jesus is indeed the key to the redemption of salvationhistory, but only because he is the one who re-orients and fulfils creation; in other words, Jesus is indeed first and foremost the key to creation-history (he fills the mysterious void). Fifthly, then, we come to the context of the Church, and of this we can now appreciate a participative contribution toward creation-history’s eschatology: in relation to Christ. That is, Church is the “new-humanity”, “in Christ”; it is the new universal spiritually familial community,153 in and through whom Christ is bringing God-orientation into all the world. Finally, therefore, is indeed the end—the time when Christ has 151
And at the same time allowed Christ to establish the reality of hell. That is, just as Christ’s “descent” to creation confirmed the reality of its existence “in him”, so also it was necessary for Christ in association with his death to descend to hell, that he might establish the reality of its abiding existence “in him”. Consideration of the exact details of how and/or when this occurred, however, is beyond the scope of this work. 152 The doctrine of recapitulation—which ‘dominated the theology of the second century’— warrants some serious further study in regard to these points (especially as presented by Irenaeus). ‘Recapitulation […] corrects and perfects mankind [and] inaugurates and consummates a new humanity.’ Eric Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 97. 153 Note in Eph 5:31-32 Paul’s presentation of spiritual union, in correlation with the mysterious sexual union of marriage itself. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
67
completed his work and brings all of creation, through himself, into perfect God-oriented union with God. Thus we have an outline for biblical theology based on creationhistory. The key aspect to emerge, it would seem, has been that of orientation, and in this light a simple diagram can be drawn to illustrate the flow of biblical theology (Fig 1.).
Consummation Goal “line” (Mysterious void)
(Church) (Realm of Death)
Ruin (adam)
OT Salvation-History
Christ
Creation FIG 1. THE ESCHATOLOGICAL MOVEMENT OF CREATION-HISTORY
This has been a preliminary presentation of a corrective biblical theology at best. It is hoped, however, that it lays enough of a foundation to demonstrate the preferability of a creation-history frame to this subject. There are a number of important distinctives to highlight in comparison with a salvationhistory frame: (1) a more appropriate grasp of eschatology, both in its relation to biblical theology and in an understanding of its details (it does not entail a return to the beginning or the “ideal” of the beginning situation, but a movement towards a goal purposed from the beginning itself);
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
68
(2) a better frame for grasping and interpreting the OT salvation-history realm, for though certainly important in the recollection and reapplication of creation hopes as preparation for Christ, it ought not become a prescriptive realm over creation-history, or even over Christ himself; (3) an even more pronounced appreciation of Christ, for he is not a mere “fix up” or reaction to the ruin, but is a necessary expectation despite the ruin (which in turn casts a more potent light on some NT passages regarding Christ, as demonstrated last chapter); (4) a better understanding of the truth and meaning of the current “eschatological age”, which is indeed eschatological in its movement and re-orientation; and finally, (5) a clearer grasp, thus, of the Church’s “task” as per the simple call of godliness upon Christians, for they are not just an “end product” in themself, but an end product in and through whom godliness is called, that the end may be inaugurated by Christ.
Final Remark We set out in this paper to explore creation in relation to God with the hope that our biblical theology would be sharpened. We recognised early links between creation as “beginning” and eschatology as “end”, and in that vein have attempted to build a frame for a “creation-history” through the eschatological details established in the beginning. Our discoveries have been numerous and summarised along the way, but the implications drawn from our study for biblical theology highlight a particularly poignant
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
69
conclusion: creation is not simply about beginnings, but rather creation is about eschatology, it is about fulfilment, and thus it is about our Lord Jesus Christ, and all that is “in him”. At the end of the day, that is all we need know.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
70
Bibliography.
Works Cited Anderson, Bernhard W. ‘Mythopoeic and Theological Dimensions of Biblical Creation Faith’. Pages 1-24 in
Creation in the Old
Testament. Issues in Religion and Theology 6. Edited by Bernhard W Anderson. Philadelphia and London: Fortress Press and SPCK, 1984. _____. From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives. Edited by Walter Brueggemann et al. Overtures To Biblical Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1994. Ash, Christopher. Marriage: Sex in the Service of God. Leicester, England: IVP, 2003. Athas, George, and Ian M. Young. Elementary Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar. 2007 Edition. Beverly Hills, Aust: Ancient Vessel Press, 2007. Barr, James. The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Volumes III.1, 2 & 3. The Doctrine of Creation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958. 1960. Blocher, Henri. In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis. Leicester, England: IVP, 1984. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Creation and Fall. London: SCM, 1959.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
71
Brisson, E. Carson. ‘The Gates of Dawn: Reflections on Genesis 1:1-10; 2:14a’. Pages 53-58 in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner. Edited by William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride Jr. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2000. Brown, William P., and S. Dean McBride Jr, ‘Preface’. Pages xi-xvii in God who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner. Edited by William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride Jr. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2000. _____. Structure, Role, and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Genesis 1:1-2:3. SBLDS 132. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. _____. The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999. Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part 1, From Adam to Noah. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1989. Collins, C. John. Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2006. Delitzsch, Franz. A New Commentary on Genesis. Translated by Sophia Taylor. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888. Dickson, John, and Greg Clarke. 666 and All That: The Truth About the Future. Sydney, Aus: Aquila Press, 2007. Dumbrell, William J. ‘Genesis 2:1-17: A Foreshadowing of the New Creation’ Pages 53-65 in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Scott J. Hafemann. Downers Grove, Illinois and Leicester, England: IVP and APOLLOS, 2002.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
72
_____. Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants. Biblical and Theological Classics Library. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 1997. Eichrodt, Walther. ‘In The Beginning: A Contribution to the Interpretation of the First Word of the Bible’. Pages 65-73 in Creation in the Old Testament. Edited by Bernhard W Anderson. Issues in Religion and Theology 6. Philadelphia and London: Fortress Press and SPCK, 1984. Farrow, Douglas. ‘St Irenaeus of Lyons. The Church and the World’. Pro Ecclesia 4 (1995): 333-355. Hafemann, Scott J. ‘Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect’. Pages 1521 in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Scott J. Hafemann. Downers Grove, Illinois and Leicester, England: IVP and APOLLOS, 2002. Hanigan, James P. What Are They Saying About Sexual Morality? Ramsey, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1982. Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer and Bruce K. Waltke (eds.). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago : Moody, 1980. Hasel, Gerhard F. ‘The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology’, EQ 46 (1974): 81-102. _____. ‘Biblical Theology Movement’. Pages 163-166 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company, 2001. Goldingay, J. Old Testament Theology. Vol.1. Israel’s Gospel. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2003.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
73
Goldsworthy, Graeme. ‘Is Biblical Theology Viable?’ Pages 18-46 in Interpreting God’s Plan: Biblical Theology and the Pastor. Edited by Richard J. Gibson. Explorations 11. Adelaide, SA and Cumbria, UK: Openbook Publishers and Paternoster Press, 1997. _____. Gospel and Kingdom. Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 1981. Reprinted in The Goldsworthy Trilogy. Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 2000. Gunton, Colin E. The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Study. NSCT. Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998. _____. ‘Introduction’. Pages 1-16 in The Doctrine of Creation: Essays in Dogmatics, History and Philosophy. Edited by Colin Gunton. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark Ltd, 1997. _____. Christ and Creation. Carlisle: Paternoster Press; and Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. _____. ‘The End of Causality? The Reformers and their Predecessors’. Pages 63-82 in The Doctrine of Creation: Essays in Dogmatics, History and Philosophy. Edited by Colin Gunton. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark Ltd, 1997. Jenson, Robert W. ‘Aspects of a Doctrine of Creation’. Pages 17-28 in The Doctrine of Creation: Essays in Dogmatics, History and Philosophy. Edited by Colin Gunton. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark Ltd, 1997. _____. Systematic Theology, vol. 2, The Works of God. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999. _____. Essays in Theology of Culture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
74
Kelly, Douglas F. Creation and Change:Genesis 1:1-2:4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms. Ross-shire, Great Britian: Mentor, 1997. Knox, D. Broughton. ‘God’s Power in Creation’. Pages 175-181 in D. Broughton Knox: Selected Works. Edited by Tony Payne. Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media, 2000. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baugmartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 5 vols. Edited by E. J. Brill. Translated and edited by M.E.J Richardson et al. Netherlands: Leiden, 2001. Köhler, Ludwig. Old Testament Theology. Translated by A. S. Todd. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957. Krašovec,
J.
Der
Merismus
im
Biblisch-Hebräischen
und
Nordwestsemitischen. BibOr 33. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977. Lane, W.R. ‘The Initiation of Creation’, Vetus Testamentum 13 (1963): 6373. Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. McBride, S. Dean. ‘Divine Protocol: Genesis 1:1-2:3 as Prologue’. Pages 341 in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner. Edited by William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride Jr. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2000. Moltmann, Jürgen. The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology. Translated by Margaret Kohl. London: SCM, 1996. _____. The Future of Creation. Translated by Margaret Kohl. London: SCM, 1979. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
75
_____. God in Creation: An Ecological Doctrine of Creation. Translated by Margaret Kohl. London: SCM Press, 1985. Morris, Henry M. Science and the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986. _____. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976. O’Donovan, Oliver. Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1994. Osborn, Eric. Irenaeus of Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Peterson, David. Engaging With God: A Biblical Theology of Worship. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 1992. Procksch, Otto. Die Genesis übersetzt und erklärt, Kommentar zum alten Testament, 1st ed. Leipzig: Deichert, 1913. von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. Revised Edition. London: SCM, 1972. Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds.. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Robinson, Donald. ‘ ‘The Church’ Revisited: An Autobiographical Fragment’. Reformed Theological Review 48/ 1 (1989): 4-14. _____. ‘Origins and Unresolved Tensions’. Pages 1-17 in Interpreting God’s Plan: Biblical Theology and the Pastor. Edited by Richard J. Gibson. Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
76
Explorations 11. Adelaide, SA and Cumbria, UK: Openbook Publishers and Paternoster Press, 1997. Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Library of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan, 1992. _____. Genesis. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. 2 vols. EBC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. Schmid, H.H. ‘Creation, Righteousness and Salvation: “Creation Theology” as the Broad Horizon of Biblical Theology’. Pages 102-117 in Creation in the Old Testament. Edited by Bernhard W Anderson. Issues in Religion and Theology 6. Philadelphia and London: Fortress Press and SPCK, 1984. Schmidt, W.H. Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift. 2nd Edition. WMANT 17. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967. Scobie, Charles. ‘The Structure of Biblical Theology’, Tyndale Bulletin 42/2 (1991): 163-194. Sproul, R.C. The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts that Shaped Our World. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2000. Stadelmann, Luis, I.J. The Hebrew Conception of the World: A Philological and Literary Study. Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970. Torrance, T.F. Divine and Contingent Order. Scotland, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981. Volf, Miroslav. Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
77
Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2007. Watson, Francis. Text, Church and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-15. Edited by David A. Hubbard, et al. WBC. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. Translated by J.J. Scullion. London: SPCK, 1984. _____Creation. London : S.P.C.K., 1974. Wilkinson, David. The Message of Creation. Edited by Derek Tidball. BST. Leicester, England: IVP, 2002. Williamson, Paul R. Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Plan. Edited by D.A. Carson. NSBT. Nottingham, England and Downers Grove Illinois: APOLLOS and IVP, 2007. Young, E.J. Studies in Genesis One. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1964.
Other Works Consulted Dumbrell, William J. The Search for Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1994. _____. The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21-22 and the Old Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
78
Futato, Mark D. Creation: A Witness to the Wonder of God. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2000. Gage, Warren Austin. The Gospel of Genesis: Studies in Protology and Eschatology. Winona Lake, Indiana: Carpenter Books, 1984. Grudem, Wayne. Bible Doctrine: Essential teachings of the Christian Faith. Edited by Jeff Purswell. Leicester, England: IVP, 1999. Gunton, Colin E. The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2002. Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. 5th Edition. London, UK: Continuum, 2001. Milne, Bruce. Know the Truth. Leicester, England: IVP, 1998. Niccacci, Alviero. ‘Analysis of Biblical Narrative’. Pages 175-98 in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, Edited by Robert D. Bergen. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994. Vos, Geerhardus. The Eschatology of the Old Testament. Edited by James T. Dennison Jr. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 2001. Walton, John H. Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels Between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan/Regency, 1989. Watson, Francis. Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1997.
Project (#10013212): Creation and Eschatology
Page.
79
