4. Creation: Gen 12 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – 4. Creation: Gen 12 PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 40ca3-MTAzN



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

4. Creation: Gen 12

Description:

... court, i.e., the angels (cf. Isa 6:8) ... been created a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and made to rule ... Knowing Good and Evil ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:54
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 31
Provided by: DavidC7
Category:
Tags: angel | creation | evil | gen

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 4. Creation: Gen 12


1
4. Creation Gen 1-2
  • BOT630/BHE630 Exegesis of Genesis

2
CREATION
  • Genesis 1.1-2.3

3
Parallels between the Enuma Elish and Genesis
1.1-2.3
  • 1. The circumstantial clause followed by the main
    account of creation.
  • 2. Primeval dark, watery and formless state.
  • 3. The Order of Creation

4
The Order of Creation
  • EE Divine spirit and cosmic matter are
    coexistent and coeternal
  • GEN Divine spirit creates cosmic matter and
    exits independently of it
  • EE Primeval chaos, Tiamat enveloped in darkness
  • GEN The earth a desolate waste, with darkness
    covering the deep

5
The Order of Creation
  • EE Light emanation from the gods
  • GEN Light created
  • EE The creation of the firmament
  • GEN The creation of the firmament
  • EE The creation of the dry land
  • GEN The creation of dry land

6
The Order of Creation
  • EE The creation of man
  • GEN The creation of man
  • EE The gods rest and celebrate
  • GEN God rests and sanctifies the seventh day

7
Problems concerning the parallels
  • a. Tehom
  • b. Tannin
  • c. Separation of heaven and earth
  • d. Creation and function of luminaries
  • e. Purpose of humans
  • f. Creation by word

8
1.1-2 THE BEGINNING OF CREATION
  • Syntax four possibilities Wenham, Gordon J.,
    Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1 Genesis 1-15,
    11
  • 1. "V. 1 is a temporal clause subordinate to the
    main clause in v2 In the beginning when God
    created..., the earth was without form....

9
1.1-2 Syntax four possibilities
  • 2. "V. 1 is a temporal clause subordinate to the
    main clause in v3 (v2 is a parenthetic comment).
    'In the beginning when God created... (now the
    earth was formless) God said....'"

10
1.1-2 Syntax four possibilities
  • 3. "V. 1 is a main clause, summarizing all the
    events described in vv. 2-31. It is a title to
    the chapter as a whole, and could be rendered 'In
    the beginning God was the creator of heaven and
    earth.' What being creator of heaven and earth
    means is then explained in more detail in vv.
    2-31."

11
1.1-2 Syntax four possibilities
  • 4. "V 1 is a main clause describing the first act
    of creation. Vv. 2 and 3 describe subsequent
    phases in God's creative activity. This the
    traditional view...."

12
Four Keys to 1.3-2.3
  • 1. Monotheistic
  • 2. Centrality of Humankind
  • 3. Sabbath
  • 4. Creation as Good as God made it

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

14
DAYS OF CREATION
  • 1.20-23 DAY FIVE - FISH AND BIRDS
  • 1.24-31 DAY SIX - ANIMALS AND HUMAN BEINGS
  • 2.1-3 DAY SEVEN THE CESSATION FROM WORK

15
GEN 1.26 THE PLURALITY
  • 1. From Philo onward, Jewish commentators have
    generally held that the plural is used because
    God is addressing his heavenly court, i.e., the
    angels (cf. Isa 68). Among recent commentators,
    Skinner, von Rad, Zimmerli, Kline, Mettinger,
    Gispen, and Day prefer this explanation.

16
GEN 1.26 THE PLURALITY
  • 2. From the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin
    Martyr, who saw the plural as a reference to
    Christ . Christians have traditionally seen this
    verse as adumbrating the Trinity. It is now
    universally admitted that this was not what the
    plural meant to the original author.

17
GEN 1.26 THE PLURALITY
  • 3. Gunkel suggested that the plural might reflect
    the polytheistic account taken over by P, though
    he recognized that this could not be Ps view. As
    shown above, Gen 1 is distinctly antimythological
    in its thrust, explicitly rejecting ancient Near
    Eastern views of creation. Thus modern
    commentators are quite agreed that Gen 126 could
    never have been taken by the author of this
    chapter in a polytheistic sense.

18
GEN 1.26 THE PLURALITY
  • 4. Some scholars, e.g., Keil, Dillmann, and
    Driver, have suggested that this is an example of
    a plural of majesty cf. the English royal we.
    It refers to the fullness of attributes and
    powers conceived as united within the God-head
    (Driver, 14). Joüons observation (114e) that
    we as a plural of majesty is not used with
    verbs has led to the rejection of this
    interpretation.

19
GEN 1.26 THE PLURALITY
  • 5. Joüon (114e) himself preferred the view that
    this was a plural of self-deliberation. Cassuto
    suggested that it is self-encouragement (cf.
    117 Ps 23). In this he is followed by the most
    recent commentators, e.g., Schmidt, Westermann,
    Steck, Gross, Dion.

20
GEN 1.26 THE PLURALITY
  • 6. Clines (TB 19 1968 6869), followed by Hasel
    (AUSS 13 1975 6566) suggests that the plural
    is used because of plurality within the Godhead.
    God is addressing his Spirit who was present and
    active at the beginning of creation (12). Though
    this is a possibility (cf. Prov 82231), it
    loses much of its plausibility if xwr is
    translated wind in verse 2.

21
THE IMAGE LIKENESS
  • 1. Image and likeness are distinct. According
    to traditional Christian exegesis (from Irenaeus,
    ca. 180 a.d.), the image and the likeness are two
    distinct aspects of mans nature. The image
    refers to the natural qualities in man (reason,
    personality, etc.) that make him resemble God,
    while the likeness refers to the supernatural
    graces, e.g., ethical, that make the redeemed
    godlike. While these distinctions may be useful
    homiletically, they evidently do not express the
    original meaning. The interchangeability of
    image and likeness (cf. 53) shows that this
    distinction is foreign to Genesis, and that
    probably likeness is simply added to indicate
    the precise nuance of image in this context.

22
THE IMAGE LIKENESS
  • 2. The image refers to the mental and spiritual
    faculties that man shares with his creator.
    Intrinsically this seems a probable view, but it
    is hard to pin down the intended qualities. Among
    the many suggestions are that the image of God
    resides in mans reason, personality, free-will,
    self-consciousness, or his intelligence. Owing to
    the sparsity of references to the divine image in
    the OT, it is impossible to demonstrate any of
    these suggestions. In every case there is the
    suspicion that the commentator may be reading his
    own values into the text as to what is most
    significant about man. For these reasons, most
    modern commentators have either abandoned the
    attempt to define the image, assuming that its
    nature was too well known to require definition,
    or they look for more specific clues in Genesis
    as to how the image was understood.

23
THE IMAGE LIKENESS
  • 3. The image consists of a physical resemblance,
    i.e., man looks like God. In favor of this
    interpretation is the fact that physical image is
    the most frequent meaning of µlx, and that in Gen
    53 Adam is said to have fathered Seth after his
    image, which most naturally refers to the
    similar appearance of father and son. P. Humbert
    (Études sur le récit du paradis, 15363) insisted
    that this was all Genesis meant, Gunkel and von
    Rad that it was at least part of its meaning.
    Nevertheless, the OTs stress on the
    incorporeality and invisibility of God makes this
    view somewhat problematic (cf. Deut 41516). The
    difficulty is increased if, as is usually the
    case, the material is assigned to the late P
    source, for this would be too gross an
    anthropomorphism for exilic literature. And if,
    as is widely

24
THE IMAGE LIKENESS
  • 3. Continued believed, the image of God
    terminology is based on Egyptian and possibly
    Mesopotamian thinking, it should be noted that
    the image of God describes the kings function
    and being, not his appearance in these cultures.
    Furthermore, it is argued that the OT does not
    sharply distinguish the spiritual and material
    realms in this way. The image of God must
    characterize mans whole being, not simply his
    mind or soul on the one hand or his body on the
    other. Finally, it may be noted that the ancient
    world was well aware, partly through the practice
    of sacrifice, that physiologically man had much
    in common with the animals. But the image of God
    is something that distinguishes man from the
    animal kingdom. The case for identifying the
    image of God with mans bodily form or upright
    posture is therefore unproven.

25
THE IMAGE LIKENESS
  • 4. The image makes man Gods representative on
    earth. That man is made in the divine image and
    is thus Gods representative on earth was a
    common oriental view of the king. Both Egyptian
    and Assyrian texts describe the king as the image
    of God (see Ockinga, Dion, Bird). Furthermore,
    man is here bidden to rule and subdue the rest of
    creation, an obviously royal task (cf. 1 Kgs 54
    424, etc.), and Ps 8 speaks of man as having
    been created a little lower than the angels,
    crowned with glory and made to rule the works of
    Gods hands. The allusions to the functions of
    royalty are quite clear in Ps 8. Another
    consideration suggesting that man is a divine
    representative on earth arises from the very idea
    of an image. Images of gods or kings were viewed
    as representatives of the deity or king. The
    divine spirit was often thought of as

26
THE IMAGE LIKENESS
  • 4. Continued indwelling an idol, thereby
    creating a close unity between the god and his
    image (Clines, TB 19 1968 8183). Whereas
    Egyptian writers often spoke of kings as being in
    Gods image, they never referred to other people
    in this way. It appears that the OT has
    democratized this old idea. It affirms that not
    just a king, but every man and woman, bears Gods
    image and is his representative on earth.

27
THE IMAGE LIKENESS
  • 5. The image is a capacity to relate to God.
    Mans divine image means that God can enter into
    personal relationships with him, speak to him,
    and make covenants with him. This view, most
    eloquently propounded by K. Barth (Church
    Dogmatics, III. 1.18387), is also favored by
    Westermann. He holds that the phrase in our
    image modifies the verb let us make, not the
    noun man. There is a special kind of creative
    activity involved in making man that puts man in
    a unique relationship with his creator and hence
    able to respond to him. But the image of God is
    not part of the human constitution so much as it
    is a description of the process of creation which
    made man different.

28
Genesis 2.4-25
  • 2.4 Introduction
  • A. 2.5-17 Narrative God the sole actor man
    present but passive
  • B. 2.18-25 Narrative God main actor, man minor
    role, woman animals passive
  • C. 3.1-5 Dialogue Snake and woman
  • D. 3.6-8 Narrative Man and woman

29
Genesis 2.4-25
  • C. 3.9-13 Dialogue God, man and woman
  • B. 3.14-21 Narrative God main actor, man minor
    role, woman animals passive
  • A. 3.22-24 Narrative God sole actor man passive
  • 3.25 Conclusion and Transition

30
Knowing Good and Evil
  • 1. A description of the consequence of obeying or
    disobeying the commandments.
  • 2. Moral discernment, knowing the difference
    between right and wrong.
  • 3. Sexual knowledge.
  • 4. Omniscience.
  • 5. Wisdom or legal responsibility.
About PowerShow.com