Imago Dei

This last example directs us to what the Hebrew preposition means in Genesis 1:26. Humankind was created as God’s image. If we think of imaging as a verb or function, that translation makes sense. We are created to image God, to be his imagers. It is what we are by definition. The image is not an ability we have, but a status. We are God’s representatives on earth. To be human is to image God.—Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 42–43

Insights from Hebrew grammar

See also Gen 1:6, 9 (unmarked jussive), 11, 14, 20 (unmarked jussive), 22, 24. Note the shift in person for the creation of humanity in verse 26: נַֽעֲשֶׂה אָדָם; “Let us make man” (unmarked cohortative). Rather than the function of a performative jussive, the cohortative states the action that God is going to do. The act of creation is expressed in verse 27: וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָֽאָדָם “God created man.” The use of the first-person verbal form contrasts with the indirect nature of the jussive, instead emphasizing God’s personal investment in the creation of humanity.—Going Deeper with Biblical Hebrew, 253 n. 61

More on order vs. chaos

Therefore, we should think of the conquest as bringing order out of nonorder, rather than bringing order out of disorder. Nonorder (the Canaanites) are being cleared away just as tohu wabohu is in Gen 1, so that order may be established. The Canaanites are not indicted as agents of disorder and are not punished or judged in that regard. But their presence would instigate disorder among the Israelites.— The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, 166 n. 29

Reestablishing order from chaos (no, not our modern world!)

The Israelite nation is holy, co-identified with Yahweh and the cosmic order. The Canaanite nations are thematically related to cosmic chaos. The persistent emphasis of the conquest is to drive out the people of the land; thus the conquest thrusts chaos aside in order to make a space in which order will be established. When stated in this way, it becomes very apparent what the conquest is: a thematic recapitulation of the creation account in Genesis 1, where chaos was driven away to establish order.— The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, 158

The historicity of Adam?

Thus the man who wants to “hold firmly the historicity of the story of Adam” is doing something quite different from what he thinks he is doing. He thinks he is preserving the faith of his fathers; in reality he is doing something quite different; he is trying to include in the modern picture of Time and Space, a process which belongs to a quite different picture of Time and Space, which he cannot possibly reproduce. Thus he is not “conservative”, but quixotic and reactionary.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 48

<idle musing>
OK, I wouldn't be so harsh as Brunner! But, he has a very valid point, which is frequently lost in the discussion. The Scriptures were written with a very different understanding of what the cosmos looks like than what we have today. To try to turn the Bible into a science book is wrong-headed and misleading—to say nothing of potentially opening the door to a loss of faith for some who discover that scientific discoveries have a solid foundation in the data—a point he brought up in the post I published a day or two ago.
</idle musing>

Same base material, but where did they go with it?

We have noted that even though the biblical account is developed along the same conversational lines as the Mesopotamian accounts, the interpretation of the account in Genesis is dramatically different from what we find in Mesopotamian tradition. It is clear they are in dialogue in the same cultural river, but Genesis takes a radical departure from the interpretation that emerges from the literature of Mesopotamia.—Lost World of the Flood, 179

<idle musing>
That's the final excerpt from this book. We'll start a new one tomorrow, from the New Testament this time.
</idle musing>

Why in the world include that stuff?

Consequently, if we were to pose the question, Why does the compiler of Genesis include Genesis 1-11? the answer would not be that he wanted us to know about these events. Rather, he is using these well—known events of the past to help the reader understand how the covenant with Abraham fits into the flow of God’s plans and purposes for the cosmos, for his creatures, for his people, and for history. The backstory of Genesis 1-11 explains how and why God came to identify a particular people he chose to be in covenant relationship with.—Lost World of the Flood, 179

<idle musing>
Not the questions we normally ask of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, are they? And that's why we get it so wrong so often. We're asking questions the text wasn't written to answer. It's not a science textbook. The Bible is concerned with who and why, not so much the how. We mistakenly think that if we understand the how of something, we understand it. Wrong! We don't understand something until we know the why and who, something that science isn't equipped to answer without straying from science qua science. Those questions are the realm of philosophy and theology.
</idle musing>

Just reject the science; it's easier that way!

It is disheartening, therefore, to see how some Christians, including Christian leaders, treat science as some sort of enemy of the faith. Such an attitude results in all kinds of damage. First, it damages the reputation of the Bible and the church since it requires people not only to question some of the conclusions scientists reach but also, when the evidence is overwhelming—for instance, in the case of the flood—to try to undermine the very foundation of science. This move is particularly perplexing since the foundation of science is compatible with, if not inspired, by the biblical worldview.

Thus, rather than shrinking from the charge that science has caused us to go back to the biblical account of the flood to see if we are reading it correctly, we fully embrace it since it has led us to read the account in conformity with the author’s intention.—Lost World of the Flood, 175–76

What? Me wrong?! No way!

The lesson we should derive from these examples, particularly the Galileo incident, is that the church should not respond with a knee-jerk negative reaction to scientific discoveries that appear to question our interpretation of the Bible. If they are accurate descriptions of reality, they are not going to conflict with the Bible. Rather, our reaction should be to go back to Scripture and see if we understood the text correctly or whether there might be a better reading in the sense that it takes us back to the intention of the author.

We should take Augustine’s admonition, worth quoting at length, to heart:

Usually even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative posotions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and to the great loss for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scriptures are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.—Lost World of the Flood, 173–74

Was it the Black Sea?

As intriguing as it is, however, we are not saying this particular flood generated the story of the flood. We do not believe We can reconstruct the historical event from the biblical account. However, we are confident, due to the genre (theological history) of Genesis 6-9 and in our affirmation that the Bible is true in all that it affirms, that there was a historical event. Our conclusion is that the Black Sea flood is the type of devastating flood that could have ultimately inspired the biblical account, even if it is not itself the biblical event.—Lost World of the Flood, 149 (emphasis original)

Well, did it or did it now happen?

We do not believe the flood story of the Bible is myth, but neither do we believe the author of Genesis 6-9 intends to give us a straightforward depiction of the event that lies behind it. We believe there is an event that inspired the story; after all, Genesis 6-9 is theological history. However, we believe the best understanding of Genesis 1-11, which of course includes the flood account, is that it talks about real events of the past through the use of figurative language. In the case of the flood story, we have identified the use of hyperbole to describe the flood. But there is a real event behind the story just as there was an actual conquest behind the hyperbolic presentation of Joshua’s conquest as presented in Joshua 1-12 (see proposition four).—Lost World of the Flood, 145 (emphasis original)

Inclusio

When the theme of order by means of divine presence is recognized in Genesis 1-2, and when the restoration of divine presence is recognized as the motivation of the ziggurat builders, Genesis 1-11 can be seen as a unit with these important bookends serving as a rhetorical inclusio for the record of the primordial period.—Lost World of the Flood, 138

Who are they?

In contrast, focus on the use of terminology in the Bible suggests that “sons of God” (as rare as it is) refers consistently to the members of the divine council (e.g., Job 1-2), and this is the interpretation adopted in the earliest sources (Second Temple period works like the Book of Enoch) as well as reflected in the New Testament (2 Peter and Jude).—Lost World of the Flood, 123

Quick! Hit the reset button!

The naming of Noah could indicate that he will be the one through whom order is preserved and restored in the aftermath of the insurgence of nonorder represented in the flood. Be that as it may, however, the text indicates that Noah would comfort us (presumably humankind) “from our labor and from the toil of our hands from the ground” (authors’ translation). The combination of the verb nhm with the preposition min (from) occurs three times in this verse and nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The combination does not suggest consolation or comfort concerning those things—that uses a different preposition. It can mean only that nonorder related to the labor, toil, and ground are going to be resolved and a greater semblance of order would be restored. It is difficult to deduce how that is taking place; what is important is that it is taking place. The vocabulary shows us how the flood is being interpreted—it is an order—bringing event. The connection of Noah’s name to the flood suggests that besides being presented as an act of judgment, grace, and deliverance, the narrator is recounting this event as a sort of order “reset button.” God uses nonorder (the waters) to eliminate disorder (pervasive violence) and then to reestablish optimal order (even as he recognizes that disorder remains [Gen 8:21]).—Lost World of the Flood, 118 (emphasis original)

Vengeance is mine! I will repay, says who?

[W]e also receive a glimpse of the persistent disorder personified in the boast of Lamech (Gen 4:23-24). Here we find a warped perspective on the vengeance God offered in protection of Cain. With Lamech it is reflected as a right to his own vengeance as he builds order around himself. So even as order progresses, disorder also becomes entrenched and is rationalized with self-justification.—Lost World of the Flood, 116

Chaos ensues

In Genesis 4 it is evident that Cain and Abel are seeking to remain in contact with God as they offer their sacrificial gifts (by the label given to their gifts, minhah [offering], they are clearly not thinking of dealing with sin but of retaining God’s favor). Sacrifice here is a relationship—building activity but a poor substitute for divine presence. It becomes evident, however, that Cain does not have God’s order in mind when he rejects God’s offer of a way to gain favor and chooses instead to seek order for himself by killing his brother. Thus he pursues disorder as he seeks his own benefit.

The result is that God banishes him (the thrust of the Hebrew word ’arur, translated “under a curse” in Gen 4:11). Being driven away from society and the provision of the ground places him in further nonorder. Cain notes this by the three things he has lost: provision of the land, access to the presence of God (further reduced), and protection of society (Gen 4:14). Nevertheless, he retains the order that was established in the blessing of Genesis 1:28—he is able to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 4:17).—Lost World of the Flood, 115

Not a dichotomy, a trichotomy!

It is common for people to think that we live in a world of dichotomy between good and evil. The previous interpretation suggests a further nuance: that we live in a trichotomous world: nonorder (still to be resolved), order, and disorder (evil, the results of sin).

These concepts frame our understanding of the coherence of Genesis 1-11. When we try to understand the coherence of a biblical book (or section of it), we do so by trying to identify the rhetorical strategy that drives the compilation. Episodes were carefully chosen from among many possibilities. The narration of those episodes was presented with purposes in mind. The most acceptable interpretation of that rhetorical strategy is determined by how well it accounts for all of the pieces (both included and omitted) and for the way each episode is presented.—Lost World of the Flood, 114

Chaos!

Divine presence in the ancient world has significance not just in regard to enabling relationship of some sort between humans and deity but as that which brings and maintains order in the world and in the cosmos. God is the center and source of order; in and through his presence the whole cosmos coheres. Though Genesis 1–11 is framed by the element of divine presence, the driving theme through this section is order, which derives from the divine presence.

In the beginning there was nonorder (Heb. tohu wabohu [Gen 1:2]). This condition is not evil or flawed; it is just a work in process. Order in the ancient world defined existence and is characterized by having a purpose (whether in human terms or in the larger sphere of God’s plans as much as they could be perceived). Material objects (such as the sea or the desert) in the ancient world could be considered nonexistent if their role and purpose could not be identified by people or if they had no function in human experience.—Lost World of the Flood, 112–13

Deterministic?

miqreh can be employed for both “fortune” and “misfortune,” which offers a vantage point for understanding one of the HB’s most profound and challenging theological claims: God may also work through misfortune. This theme is particularly prominent in the Joseph narrative and elsewhere in the book of Genesis. Thus Joseph can tell his brothers: “At last you see that you did not send me, God did, and he has placed me as a father to Pharaoh, as lord of all his house, and ruler over all the land of Egypt” (Gen 45:8). And again: “While you intended harm for me, God intended it for good, in order to bring about this day, to bring life to many people” (Gen 50:20). To style this perspective “deterministic” would be to the miss the point. The thrust of this aspect of the biblical tradition is not that God determines every outcome in advance or that everything that happens is for the best. The point is rather that God is continuously, redemptively working to bring goodness out of misfortune and calamity (cf. Rom 8:28).—Stephen B. Chapman in Divine Doppelgängers: YHWH’s Ancient Look-Alikes, 194

No! The corona virus isn't a judgment from God!

How's that for click bait? But, seriously, read this disclaimer and take it to heart because they are correct.

Even as we present the flood of Genesis as bringing about judgment, we want to issue a strong caution that such an interpretation does not give us a precedent interpreting any other flood (or other such calamities), ancient or modern, as the result of divine judgment. Our ability to identify a catastrophe as divine judgment depends entirely on the presence of an authoritative voice to so interpret that catastrophe. The Bible provides that authoritative interpretation for the Genesis flood; we have no such authoritative voice to interpret other events for us. Not all catastrophes are manifestations of God’s anger or judgment.—Lost World of the Flood, 100–101

<idle musing>
Don't listen to those who claim to have the word from God on current events. Chances are good that they are wrong. Especially if it is wrapped up in hate language. And that's usually what it is, isn't it? God's mad, so he comes down and takes it out on us. Wrong god; that sounds more like one of the other deities wandering around in the ancient world than the God of the Exodus and the Father of Jesus the Messiah.
</idle musing>