title

BACKGROUND ON GENESIS 5-04

From Kenneth Mathews, Preaching in Genesis. Beeson Divinity School, 1992.

Title. Comes from the Greek translation (Septuagint) meaning ‘origin, source, creation.’ The Hebrew title - taken from the book’s opening words - is ‘in the beginning.’ Apply titled, the book gives the beginnings or origins of the universe, the world, mankind, human institutions (marriage, family), the nations, the nation of Israel, government religions, cultures.

Genesis does not exist as an autonomous work. It must be interpreted as the introductory volume of the Pentateuch whose focus is the Sinai revelation.

In a sense Genesis is eschatological for Israel. By looking back, they see both their source and their destiny. Genesis was for Israel an exhortation to press ahead toward fulfilling the promissory blessings God revealed to their fathers (12:1-3). Similarly, the Genesis account is our "Back to the Future," because by looking at human beginnings and Israel’s beginnings we discover God’s intentions for all those who make up the household of faith. For example, Paul’s theology is indebted to Moses’ books:

his understanding of justification by faith - Rom 4:1-3, 16-25 with Gen. 15:6; 15:5

the first Adam and the new humanity of Christ - Rom 5:12-21 with Gen 3; 1 Cor 15:35-49 with Gen 1,2; 2 Cor 5:17 with Gen 1

relationship of law and faith - Gal 3 with Gen 12:3, 7; 15:6; Lev 18:5; Deut 21:23; 27:26

the supremacy of Christ - Col 1:15-23 with Gen 1

the election of the saints - Rom 9-11 with Gen 21:12; 25:23; Ex 33:19

the nature of Christian ministry - 2 Cor 3,4 with Ex 34:33-35

From Allan P. Ross in Creation and Blessing. Baker Book House, 1988.

Approaches to Genesis

historical

literary

theological

Sources were probably used in the writing of Genesis--sources that were brought by ancestors from Mesopotamia, sources and records of the ancestral families kept by the patriarchs, genealogical records, and the like. It is reasonable to suggest that Moses gathered ancient records and traditions, and it makes better sense for the message of the book in the Pentateuch.

If the writer’s primary concern was a theological interpretation and not simply a report of ancient happenings, then some interpretive shaping would be expected. By the choice of words in the dialogue or the narrative, the arrangement of material in poetic style, interpretive additions, or the inclusion or deletion of material, the writer gave a definite shape and direction to the final form of the text. Without altering the facts of the traditions, he formed a theological treatise based on the material gathered. This treatise, not the sources, has been identified as the inspired and authoritative message from God. Although there may have been additions, modifications, and clarifications made to the text after Moses (for example Genesis 14:14 where Dan was not yet born, with the migration of the tribe of Dan north coming later than Moses), a wholesale reshaping of the traditions by successive generations, however, seems out of the question.

Method of Studying Genesis. Conservative scholarship rightly rejects the critical views that the stories of Genesis were fabricated tales. The narratives themselves give the impression that the events happened, and the rest of the Bible confirms this view.

From New Bible Commentary, Intervarsity Press, 1994.

Genesis and history. For the writer of Genesis, the stories and characters are historical figures. Burial sites, genealogies, family disputes, places and locations indicate such. They are not personifications or products of the writer’s imagination. Yet, is this a historical document? There is no evidence of a patriarchal marriage document, or records of Jacob’s travels. Hardly surprising, given the small proportion of information committed to writing in ancient times and the small fraction of historical texts that have survived and been discovered by archaeologists.

Pointers that indicated Genesis is linked to the antiquity of its traditions:

1. Names of patriarchs are names that were frequently used in the early second millennium BC but only rarely later. Names such as Jacob, Isaac, Ishmael were standard among early Amorites (c. 1888 BC), but went out of fashion later. Other names (Scrug, Nahor, Terah) confirm that the patriarchs come from the area of Haran.

2. Social customs of the patriarchs fit those mentioned in Ancient Near Eastern texts. These customs - such as marriage dowry - changed little over 2000 years which make it difficult to date certain events over that period exactly. These customs show the stories were true to life. However, some customs do help date events, such as features in the Joseph story paralleling events in the second-millennium Egyptian texts rather that later ones.

3. The religion and morality of the patriarchs appear to be earlier that that found in other books in the Pentateuch. Sometimes practice and beliefs of patriarchs contradicts the demands of later law. For example, Abram marries half-sister (20:12; cf Lev 18:9), Jacob married two sisters (Gen 29:21-30; Lev 18:18), and Jacob erected a stone pillar (Gen 28:18; cf Lev 26:1; Deut 16:21-22).

From Allan P. Ross in Creation and Blessing. Baker Book House, 1988.

The nature of Genesis. Myth and the Old Testament. [Myth is a story, the origin of which is forgotten, ostensibly historical but usually such as to explain some practice, belief, institution, or natural phenomenon. Myths are especially associated with religious rites and beliefs.] If myth is not merely symbolic language but rather an expression of the world view of reality by ancient men and women, then we have sufficient understanding to determine if it was used in Genesis. Reality in the Old Testament differs radically from the prevailing view of the ancient world. The Hebrews believed in an absolutely sovereign God who brought them into existence as a nation. Their concept of time was not cyclical but eschatological [doctrine of last things] and full of hope, their ritual was not cosmic [vast, grandiose] but redemptive, and their concept of space was not limited to the primeval [belonging to the first ages, primitive] but actualized in history. In a word, according to Childs, the new reality was Israel within her concept of history.

Concerning the concept of Israel’s world view, we find another radical break with mythical ideas. Myth deals in correspondences (for example, vegetation dies when and because the god dies). Since myth represents a total world view in a relevant cultural group, it cannot be used to refer to a phrase here or a word there. Myth as a totality shaped and expressed the mind of ancient people.

With these concepts of myth in mind, we conclude that Genesis is not myth. The Hebrew faith departed radically from the mythological concepts of world reality and of harmony by correspondences between the human and divine. Barr says, "The main battle of the Hebrew faith is fought against the confusion of human and divine, of God and nature." Barr adds, that, while vestiges of myth from the world around may survive, "they now have to be understood in their relation to a totality which is shaped largely by its repudiation of the characteristic mythological pattern of correspondence."

Studying the alleged mythical allusions in the creation account of Genesis, Hasel concluded that the individual terms are actually used as polemics [art or practice of disputation or controversy; specif, polemic theology, which has for its object refutation of errors]:

This investigation of crucial terms and motifs in the creation account of Genesis 1in conjunction with a comparison of respective ancient Near Eastern analogues has repeatedly pointed into one direction. The cosmology [philosophy that treats the universe as an orderly system] of Genesis 1 exhibits in a number of crucial instances a sharply antimythical polemic. With a great many safeguards Genesis 1 employs certain terms and motifs, partly chosen in deliberate contrast to comparable ancient Near Eastern concepts, and uses them with a meaning and emphasis not only consonant with but expressive of the purpose, worldview, and understanding of reality as expressed in this Hebrew account of creation. . .It appears that the Genesis cosmology represents not only a "complete break" with the ancient Near Eastern mythological cosmologies but represents a parting of the spiritual ways brought about by a conscious and deliberate antimythical polemic which meant an undermining of the prevailing mythological cosmologies.

From New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. Intervarsity Press, 2000.

The opening chapters of Genesis define Israel's view of God over against the prevailing beliefs in many gods in the ancient orient. That the biblical story of mankind from creation to flood finds parallels in other ancient literature (such as the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh epics and the Sumerian Flood Story) has often been noticed. But even more significant is the way that Genesis, by retelling what to the author’s contemporaries were familiar stories, presents a new, indeed revolutionary, view of God and His relationship to the world and mankind.

Ancient orientals believed in a multitude of gods of limited power, knowledge and morality, so that religion was a dicey business. You could never be quite sure whether you had chosen the right deity, or whether he or she could bring you health and salvation. But the God of Genesis was unique and without equal. He was all-powerful, creating the whole universe (even the sun, moon, and stars, often thought to be gods in their own right) by a simple command. He sent the flood and He stopped the flood, He saved Noah and his family because Noah was righteous, not because of favoritism. The God of Genesis was supremely concerned with human welfare. Unlike the Mesopotamian myths, which tell how the gods created mankind as an afterthought to provide themselves with food, Genesis declares that mankind was the goal of God’s creation whom God provided with food (1:26-29).

Yet though the creation of mankind was God’s crowning achievement he was, according to Genesis, totally flawed as ‘every inclination of the thought of his [man’s] heart was only evil all the time’ (6:5). It was human sin, not human fertility (as in the Atrahasis epic), that provoked the flood. And this profound pessimism about human nature and society again distinguishes Genesis’ theology from other ancient oriental beliefs. Mesopotamians (like many modern thinkers), for example, were believers in progress. They held that the Babylonian civilization was the most advanced and enlightened of all time. Genesis declares it was one of the most decadent (6:1-4; 11:1-9). Genesis traces an ‘avalanche of sin’, unleashed by Adam’s disobedience, aggravated by Cain’s murder and climaxed in the illicit marriages of 6:1-4, which eventually triggered off the flood. This great act of decreation was followed by a new creation as the new earth emerged from the waters, and Noah, a sort of second Adam, stepped out to till the land. But like the first Adam he too fell; his son Ham acted even worse, and human sinfulness reached another peak as the men of Babel attempted to build a tower that reached heaven. This led to another act of universal judgment in the scattering of the nations across the globe.

But it was a man who came form Ur, the center of this corrupt civilization, that God called to leave his homeland, move to a new one and build a new nation, so that all the nations of the world should find blessing. For despite its gloom about human sin, Genesis is a fundamentally optimistic book. It declares that God’s purpose of mankind, first intimated at His creation (chapters 1-2), will ultimately be achieved through the offspring of Abraham.

From Allan P. Ross in Creation and Blessing. Baker Book House, 1988.

History. I said earlier that Genesis is history. But there is a conflict with seeing it as modern history is seen. Most modern scholars have not been willing to call Genesis "history," unless it is distinguished from modern philosophies of history.

Conflict with modern history. Although there are problems with understanding history for any era, many would contrast ancient history with modern, which, it is presumed, can normally be verified by outside sources. The difficulty is that history, in contrast to the exact sciences, in which causation can be empirically determined under repeated identical conditions, is a social science, in which conditions never repeat.

In analyzing the earlier Old Testament, critical scholars diminish its value as history. One reason is the absence of outside sources that verify the contents. Archaeological and historical materials may essentially substantiate the ideas of the accounts, but they do not offer the kind of verification that historians require.

A second reason that Old Testament works are not considered to be history is the intertwining of religious ideas with the events. The supernatural element has troubled historians. Nevertheless, if philosophies of history vary between historians, then our task is to extract the biblical philosophy of history and then to trace the connection of causes and effects and draw out the intended lessons of moral and political wisdom.

The historiography of the Bible was a history of a particular kind. Scripture was never intended to be a mere chronicle of events or the biography of a nation. It is not oblivious to the historical process; however, the Pentateuch deals with primeval history, the times of the patriarchs, and the gradual incubation of national consciousness among a people unused to independence. This special kind of history shows that the Old Testament’s world view transcends the historian's plane; it is not history for history’s sake but records of past events for the purpose of educating people spiritually. It present a theological view of history, interpreting with a divine cause as well as a human one.

The nature of biblical history. The biblical account is actually a unique distillation history. It is less interested in recording events for the sake of history than in using these events as vehicles for communicating the truths of biblical faith. The Bible presents an interpretation of significant events from the perspective of Yahwistic faith. In the biblical idea of history, the conviction concerning the reality and authority of Yahweh is the point of departure for any evaluation. Robinson says, "The Bible takes it as axiomatic [self-evident truth] that God controls history, reveals himself in history, and directs it towards a final goal."

The essence of biblical history. The covenant is at the center of Israel’s interest in the interpretation of history. God chose his people through Abraham and made a covenant with them through him. Genesis uses this theme as the central point of its interest in recording past events. The narratives were selected and interpreted theologically to teach the covenant faith. Israel’s history looked back to what God had done (in the election) and looked forward to the promise fulfilled (in the liberation and ultimately in the kingdom of God); in between was the interpretation of events according to the faith. "The concept of Israel's history as grounded in a divine choice and a divine act of deliverance from bondage and as consisting in the fulfillment of promises made to the remote ancestors of the Israelites was already dominant in the religious traditions of the people before the works of history were written."

Historicity. The writer simple recorded the ancient traditions that had already become important in the memory of Israel. The fact that he interpreted those events in accord with a specific belief need not negate their historicity.

Tradition. We may say that the memory of ancient events and persons in the heritage of Israel, preserved by oral tradition and by writing, provided the nation with her historical past as well as her common experience. Classifying Genesis as legend, tradition, or most commonly, saga connotes a negative classification that is not productive.

Transmission of traditions. Besides the primeval traditions and genealogies brought from the East, the family traditions of the patriarchs world have been handed down from generation to generation. Joseph, and later Moses, would have had every facility for recording and preserving the traditions that the ancestors brought with them.

This vast collection of records and traditions then had to be formed into a unified, cohesive work. Moses, under divine inspiration, selected the materials for this work, arranged them in the most effective way, and drew out their greater significance by the choice of terms and use of literary devices employed in his interpretive telling of the traditions.

Three sections of Genesis:

primeval events - ancient traditions in a poetic narrative form that lends itself readily to oral transmission (chapters 1-11).

patriarchal events - reports about the ancestors that were retained in the family records (chapters 12-36).

Joseph story - forms a short story with its arc of tension and its resolution (chapters 37-50)

Within each section there are other categories such as linking genealogies, theophanies, oracles, blessings, and tribal sayings.

From Kenneth Mathews, Preaching in Genesis. Beeson Divinity School, 1992.

The final product is not simply a collection but a theological shaping of the reports and traditions for the instruction of Israel under the Sianitic covenant. Genesis, then, in the broadest sense, belongs in the Torah, for it is a theological explanation of what led up to and transpired at Sinai. The book forms a prologue [preface or introduction to a document or discourse] to the law. The primary concern in the interpretation of this book is to relate each theological idea to the covenantal concerns of the law.

The internal structure of Genesis is dictated by the recurring "generations" formula. "This is the account of. . ." introduces each section and serves also as a link with the previous narrative. The patriarchal narratives are introduced by their father: Terah for Abraham, Abraham for Isaac, and so forth.

Section 1 Creation of Heaven and Earth (1:1-2:3)

Section 2 The account of the human family (2:4-4:26)

Section 3 The account of Adam’s line (5:1-6:8)

Section 4 The account of Noah and family (6:9-9:29)

Section 5 The account of Noah’s sons (10:1-11:9)

Section 6 The account of Shem and family (11:10-26)

Section 7 The account of Terah’s family and story of Abraham (11:27-25:11)

Section 8 The account of Abraham’s son: Ishmael (25:12-18)

Section 9 The account of Abraham’s son: Isaac (25:19-35:29)

Section 10 The account of Esau and family (36:1-8)

Section 11 The account of Esau (36:9-37:1)

Section 12 The account of Jacob and family (37:2-50:26)

What is important here is the interconnectedness of the story of mankind. God’s blessing is for all mankind. Moreover, we discover that God is superintending the development of history and directing it to the purposeful ends He envisions. Israel then is a continuum of its fathers who in turn are linked to God’s promise of blessing upon mankind. Israel is God’s vehicle of grace in the world and those who are the spiritual seed of Abraham (i.e., the church) continue in that task.

In conclusion, we have the greatest confidence that the book of beginnings, Genesis, is a collection of family stories that tells of the only true God working to accomplish His purposes for the whole world for all time.

Concept of world view: an interpretation of or basic assumptions about reality.

From The Handbook for Spiritual Warfare by Ed Murphy.

Two world views exist:

1. spiritualistic: ultimate reality is spiritual, the immaterial, not physical or material. Vast majority of the world’s inhabitants hold to some form of spiritualistic world view, from occultism to voodoo to Christian faith to Buddism, etc.

2. materialistic or naturalistic: ultimate reality is material or physical, not spiritual.

Western world view. A view of reality that arose out of the historical movement of the 18th century called the Enlightenment. Often summed up in one word: naturalism which could be defined as "the name for that characteristic of scientific method which constucts its pattern of though on the basis of natural causation as distinguished from a supernatural or occult explanation." Five important conclusion result from this view:

1. The universe is a cosmic accident that has no ultimate purpose.

2. Human life is a biological accident that has no ultimate significance.

3. Life ends forever at death for each individual life form.

4. Humanity’s intuitive, historic belief in an ultimate mind, spirit, or God behind, within, and outisde of the physical universe is a form of self-deception. The corresponding belief in human uniqueness, dignity, purpose, and suvival beyond death is a non-real view of reality.

The Western world view is closely aligned to the scientific method. As a model for reality, this method views the universe as a uniform system based strictly on cause-and-effect relationships between its constituent parts, closed to any dimensions of reaslity that trnascend the natural. In this system, history becomes a "linear system of events linked by cause and effect but without an overarching purpose."

The biblical world view is characterized as:

1. spiritual. There is more to reality than the physical.

2. theistic. Theism means the belief in one God [monotheism] who is one and personal. This belief is in contrast to polytheism, the belief in many gods. This one God is transcendent which means He is separated or apart from the universe as its Creator and Sustainer, yet immanent [remaining or operating within] as everywhere present and accessible to humanity. God is a true person and the only truly perfect person. As such He possesses perfect mind. He knows all. He has perfect emotions. He loves with a perfect love and hates with a perfect hatred. His perfect love makes heaven possible; His perfect hatred makes hell a reality. He possesses perfect will. He chooses what He wills and what He chooses will eventually come to pass. The world view movement within Western culture has been from theism to deism [belief in a personal God as creator of the world and final judge of men, but as remaining in the interval completely beyond the range of human experience] to naturalism [the doctrine denying that anything in reality has a supernatural significance; scientific laws account for all phenomena; materialism] to nihilism [a doctrine which denies any objective or real ground of truth or moral principles] to existentialism [an introspective humanism or theory of man which expresses the individual’s intense awareness of his contingency and freedom] to Eastern pantheistic monism [the doctrine that the universe, taken or conceived of as a whole, is God, that there is no God but the combined forces and laws which are manifested in the existing universe].

3. revelational. We know about God only because He has chosen to reveal Himself to humanity. God is not the product of human intuition, common sense, or imagination.

4. trinitarian. The one true personal God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

5. redemptive. God’s revelaton is centered on bringing men and women back to Himself after the fall of man.

From New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. Intervarsity Press, 2000.

Ancient oriental believed in a multitude of gods of limited power, knowledge and morality, so that religion was a dicey business. You could never be quite sure whether you had chosen the right deity, or whether he or she could bring you health and salvation. But the God of Genesis was unique and without equal. He was all-powerful, creating the whole universe (even the sun, moon, and stars, often thought to be gods in their own right) by a simple command. He sent the flood and He stopped the flood, He saved Noah and his family because Noah was righteous, not because of favoritism. The God of Genesis was supremely concerned with human welfare. Unlike the Mesopotamian myths, which tell how the gods created mankind as an afterthought to provide themselves with food, Genesis declares that mankind was the goal of God’s creation whom God provided with food (1:26-29).

Yet thought the creation of mankind was God’s crowning achievement he was, according to Genesis, totally flawed as ‘every inclination of the thought of his [man’s] heart was only evil all the time’ (6:5). It was human sin, not human fertility (as in the Atrahasis epic), that provoked the flood. And this profound pessimism about human nature and society again distinguishes Genesis’ theology from other ancient oriental beliefs. Mesopotamians (like many modern thinkers), for example, were believers in progress. they held that the Babylonian civilization was the most advanced and enlightened of all time. Genesis declares it was one of the most decadent (6:1-4; 11:1-9). Genesis traces an ‘avalanche of sin’, unleashed by Adam’s disobedience, aggravated by Cain’s murder and climaxed in the illicit marriages of 6:1-4, which eventually triggered off the flood. This great act of de-creation was followed by a new creation as the new earth emerged from the waters, and Noah, a sort of second Adam, stepped out to till the land. But like the first Adam he too fell; his son Ham acted even worse, and human sinfulness reached another peak as the men of Babel attempted to build a tower that reached heaven. this led to another act of universal judgment in the scattering of the nations across the globe.