Because I'm Not Afraid

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. (1 Cor. 13:11)

Before I went to college, I believed many things.
I considered myself a Republican.
I thought gay marriage should be illegal.
I agreed with the statement, "the Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it."
I thought Job was an actual historical figure.
I didn't think there were any contradictions in the Bible.
I thought everything in Genesis 1-11 was literal history, and that evolution is just secular science that opposes God.
I thought that hell was forever, and that all homosexuals are going to hell.
I thought that it was bad for people not to speak in tongues.
I thought that it was bad to be Catholic.
I agreed with the Just War theory, and with capital punishment.
I thought that God knows everything that is ever going to happen in the future.

I could go on, but you get it.

Now, I am a Christianarchist, and would never consider myself conservative or Republican.
I think gay marriage should be legal.
I have a very different perspective on Scripture.
I no longer think Job was a real person, nor do I think much of Genesis 1-11 is literal history.
I recognize the contradictions in Scripture, and they don't bother me because I no longer operate under an inerrantist mindset.
I believe in universal reconciliation.
I think a lot of conservative Christians are going to be surprised at how many homosexuals end up in heaven.
I don't speak in tongues, and I don't have a problem with that.
I love a lot of Catholic theologians and respect devout Catholics.
I am a pacifist.
and I am an open theist.

It's not that I was brain-washed into being liberal. I'm graduating this December from Pat Robertson's school!
It's not that I hung out with the wrong people and they inspired me to compromise all my beliefs.
It's not that I live in sin and compromise my beliefs because of that.
It's not that I hate my parents and rejected everything they ever taught me. I couldn't love my parents more. Besides, they didn't teach me all of the things listed at the top.
It's not that I got involved with a bunch of liberals and they changed me. Most of my friends are much more conservative in these areas than I am.
It's not that I jumped to the other extreme. You might call me a liberal, but I don't like being on one side of the fence.

It's because I search for truth.
It's because I'm not afraid to change what I believe based on what I find.
It's because I learned how to use doubt productively, instead of calling it fear or sin and ignoring it.
It's because I asked questions, and, instead of embracing "mystery," I went deeper to find answers.
It's because I'm not okay with pat answers, and believing things that don't make any sense, or believing things because that's what the people around me believe, or believing things because it's "orthodox," or believing things because that's the way the people around me interpret the Bible.
It's because I'm not okay with rejecting critique of my beliefs simply because it might result in me changing what I believe.
It's because I don't want to be naive. I don't want to live in an ignorant bliss.

Am I going to be an open theist forever? Am I going to be a universalist forever? I don't know. Possibly not. The future is open ;)
I think open theism is true. I think universal reconciliation is true. But does that mean I'm not open to changing that in the future? No.
If what I find in my search for truth points away from one of my beliefs, I will re-evaluate.

I know I'm not always this way. We all have our caves.
I know I am stubborn in ways, and unwavering in many of my beliefs.
But for the most part, I try to be genuinely always reforming.
My problem with the statement, "Reformed and always reforming," is that it is mostly used by people who don't actually do any reforming.

My main point with this blog is this:
Don't be stubborn with your beliefs.
Don't reject a radically different view simply because it's radically different.
Don't get too comfortable with your ideology that you reject all others simply because they don't fit.
Question your views.
Question your interpretations of Scripture.
Consider other viewpoints.
Consider your critics.
Consider views that you find daunting.
If you don't, there's a good chance you'll end up in an ignorant bliss--one that you call 'biblical truth' but is really naivete.

Guest Post: Paul's Response to My Assessment of His Commentary of Genesis 2

[Read John Daniel's original response to Paul's blog here]
 

John,

By writing that the Bible is God’s self-revelation I more meant in the sense of written revelation, not sole revelation to humanity. I would certainly amen your stating that Jesus is God’s ultimate revelation. I don’t see the two as being mutually exclusive.

As for academia, I suppose if push came to shove, I would also agree that academia allows for other things to aid in interpretation, at least at schools like Regent (although much more liberal universities do endorse a more heavy form criticism). However, I would say, and I think this is what I meant but perhaps didn’t say in the best way in order to amplify the point, the grammatical-historical context is chief, which any other contexts (theological, etc.) being subordinate to it. Your analysis of the history of Christian exegesis in defense of this practice does stir some questions: Were Christians wrong interpreting as they did, and if so, why is the theological interpretation of Scripture currently making strong inroads into exegesis? If it was wrong, how come the grammatical-historical position never really took off beyond academia? Can the method be found in any major way before the Enlightenment, and if not, what does that mean? Lastly, doesn’t the New Testament teach that Christians should read the Old Testament through a specific Christocentric lens, which would in many cases go against what the author allegedly intended?

In regards to my “sovereign God” motif, I did perceive that it might be viewed as not having been defended adequately from the text itself. My support for this conclusion, however, came by two ways. First, I did specifically iterate in my opening paragraph. The second of which was a central themes approach, where the Bible is oriented around several themes, of which one would be “one, sovereign God, Who operates with two motivations; the first of which is His worthiness of praise throughout His creation” (though if stated officially as an overarching biblical theme, I might have phrased it less local to the Genesis 2 account). Secondly, I did labor to set Genesis 2 in a very close relation to Genesis 1, which was then cast in a liturgical light. Here, God is cast as sovereign in that He creates, and His praiseworthiness is demonstrated by the tabernacle correlation (p.s. thank you for the article suggestions on this theme; I will check them out).

You go on to mention some Trinitarian distinctives, which I think would be a better conversation over a cup of coffee as semantics might come into play. I would agree that each member defers glory to the others, but when viewed at a distance, could it not be said this is a self-glorifying venture? The three are one after all. Trinitarian matters seem to turn on a matter of perspective as there are the two aspects of diversity in three separate persons and unity of one God involved. Often emphasizing one aspect or spectrum-end to establish a point results in the neglect of the other.

Next, Adam, Eve, and complementarianism. I did, at your suggestion, read your article. There are several direct line of rebuttal that could be undertaken here; but they really almost require their own series of full-on posts, and they are somewhat dependent upon the presuppositions one brings to the text. To avoid getting too lost in the fray, I’ll just mention a couple broad points. First, complementarianism is supported by the complete teaching of Scripture on the subject. So any and all relevant passages must be surveyed, which would take one far beyond Genesis 2. Second, I think there is a bit of a straw man in your argument. No one is calling women “mere afterthought[s],” etc. Thirdly, the debate, theologically framed, is complementarianism vs. egalitarianism. In contrast, if the former is set against feminism, which is how you framed the debate, I would submit that some of the bias motivating one’s agenda is revealed. Lastly, even granting all of what you presented (which I wouldn’t), the fact that Genesis 2 is pre-fall, as you explicitly point out to distinguish between Adam's Genesis 2 naming of woman and his Genesis 3 naming of Eve, has to be reckoned with. We are still living in an age where the actions of the First Adam have influence. Men still work by the sweat of their brow, women still have pain in child birth, both still return to the dust from which they came, and serpents still crawl on their bellies. It seems these will not be restored until the next age begins. So, they would still be in effect today. Ergo, there is some sort of role hierarchy within marriage (which can be approached in a God-prescribed way through the aforementioned teaching on the subject from the entire canon). In closing this part of the response, I could have mentioned the naming of the animals and probably would, have I the chance again.

In terms of authorship, I believe there is ample intrabiblical support for Mosaic authorship. Jointly, as to the academics claiming otherwise, there are as you mentioned those who do not affirm the documentary hypothesis. But mainly, I lean on the biblical record itself. In regards to the ex nihilo doctrine, I could equally argue the passage doesn’t support any other conclusion than God creating out of nothing. One’s presuppositions will determine how one interprets the passage. For me, the overwhelming biblical testimony seems to support the ex nihilo belief.

I figured you wouldn’t comment on the opening verses of Genesis 2. In truth, I almost didn’t. Everyone groups the seventh day with the events of chapter 1. In the end, I included it because it is technically in chapter 2. The word in Hebrew simply means to desist, that God abstained from creative work.(1) Coupled with, again, a fuller biblical context, it can in no way imply that God was tired so much that He needed a break, as He does not grow weary from exercising His power. I would wholeheartedly allow for and agree with God resting for the purpose of modeling the Sabbath, which would perhaps be a dynamically equivalent paraphrase: God "Sabbathed."(2) I would also posit that the other translative suggestions I mentioned in my original post don’t do injustice to the text. My point was to highlight God’s nature not necessarily what His action implied for man.

With you, I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion and would love to do it again sometime! Brainstorm we will indeed sir! Formally, I do thank you for your efforts and time.

Paul Imbrone holds an Associate's Degree in Practical Theology, and is a senior in Biblical-Theological Studies at Regent University (find his blog here). 





Notes:
(1) John MacArthur, The Macarthur Bible Commentary: Unleashing God's Truth, One Verse at a Time (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 12.
(2) Gordon J. Wenham et al., eds., New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, 4th ed. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1994), 61.

A Response to Paul Imbrone's Assessment of My Blog on Genesis 2

[Read Paul's response to John Daniel's blog here]

Paul,

I think my assessment does apply to authorial intent, because I think the author of the narrative's intent was to take ancient Near Eastern myths and use them to point to Yahweh, the incomparable one true LORD God.

To your question that I may be excluding divine revelation in the text by denying the narrative's literal history: I think the logic here is a little funny. We have to receive books of the Bible for what they are: Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Job--these are books that have to be received certain ways, and cannot all be treated the same way. When you say I could be excluding divine intention by denying the creation accounts any literal history, you're assuming the creation narratives might have actually been written to record literal history. When you study whether or not this is the case, it becomes obvious that that was not the author's intention at all. I am not going to make a full case for this claim, but I'll provide a couple examples to make the point: The Genesis creation accounts use mythical images that pre-date Genesis by hundreds of years. Also, the ancient Near East, including the Jewish people, believed in a structure of the world that we know now not to be true. For example, the sun, to them, was the thing that moved, not the earth (see Josh. 10:12; Ps. 104:5; 19:6; Ecc. 1:5, to cite a few). The picture above is an illustration of how ancient Israelites viewed the cosmos (I took the picture with my iPhone, it comes from Peter Enns' book Inspiration and Incarnation, haha).

These examples show that Israelites did not have a perfect understanding of the universe and how it operated/came into being. And why would they? These are ancient people who had nowhere near the scientific data that we have today (and I'm not just referring to evolution; I'm also referring to the earth's rotation around the sun, the fact that the earth is a sphere, the fact that the earth is not made up of a big piece of land surrounded on all sides by water, and others). Why should we expect ancient Israelites to know things they would have no way of knowing? Because they received revelation from God? Why was it important for God to tell them how the universe actually operated? Such issues were not concerns for them.

Oh, I get it; it's because the Bible has God as its ultimate author, and if he wrote things about the universe, then they have to be true. Well, a lot of the Bible is not going to make a lot of sense until we divorce ourselves from this concept. Not only is the belief not necessary, but it is nowhere taught by Jesus, or anyone else in whose authority we put our faith. My problem with inerrantists is that they expect way too much from the Bible. They are not realistic about what the Bible actually is, and in an attempt to make Scripture something in which people can put their faith, they over-step and make it out to be something it was never intended to be. Once you look at all the evidence, it is, in my mind, impossible to go return to the view that the creation accounts record actual history. If your view of Scripture doesn't allow for that possibility, I think you're expecting too much from the Bible, and not being very realistic about what it actually is.

There's my rant for today. Haha.

You asked, What is the purpose of attempting to show that the Genesis account is not completely unique? (I like your use of 'attempting'). The point of doing that was to set the stage for the purpose of my post, which was to show how Yahweh is unlike the gods of the ancient Near East. I wanted to show that the Genesis accounts are up to their neck in the ancient Near Eastern culture, so that I could point to the author's intent, which I think was to present the incomparability of Yahweh to an ancient Near Eastern people.

I wish you would have expanded on your claim that my open theist views were making their way into my interpretation of the text. You didn't give me an example. Maybe, if you had, I could have explained to you why the text leads me to make such a claim; or, maybe there was something with which I could admit that I was taking poetic license with the text (which is not impossible!).

I can see that, in a mythical reading of Genesis 2, it would seem odd to claim that the human participated in God's creation of the world. "Wait, doesn't he deny that this is actual history? What is he saying?" I think the narrative points to the reality that we were created to help bring creation forward. We were created to care for the earth, to procreate (which literally consists of humans participating in God's creative activity), and to reign over it. My point was that humans are the gardeners with God in the Garden of Eden, which symbolizes our duty to care for creation and help bring it forward. It also points to the power that God has given humanity. That the human in the creation narrative participates in the creative activity of God shows that God invited humanity to play a significant role in the production of human history.

When I said that God doesn't always get his way, I was pulling from Genesis 3. He gave them a command (which implies that they have the power to oppose his will, because his will is for them to follow his command) and in chapter 3, they break the command, opposing his will. Again, clearly this is a God that doesn't always get his way.

I find your comments on God's self-glorification...odd, to say the least. You're comparing God's self-glorification to selfies on Facebook? While I applaud you for realizing that the doctrine of God's self-glorification implies narcissism (or maybe your comment doesn't go that far), I find it funny that you don't see this as a problem. Do we really serve an ego-maniacal, self-obsessed God?

Also, your assessment of God creating humanity in his--or, better, their--image is presumptuous. The text does not imply self-glorification. God says, "let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness" (1:26). Christians can apply the Trinity to this statement, but even without the doctrine of the Trinity, a better (but not necessarily correct) interpretation would be that humans were created in the relational image of God, in which it is not good for us to be alone (2:18). But even if you don't like this interpretation, self-glorification is not in the text. God could be being narcissistic when he says "let's create humanity to be like us," but this is not at all necessary. If we do apply the doctrine of the Trinity to this scene (and why shouldn't we?), it would be much better to say that the Trinity wanted to create more participants in their relation of love. After all, God is love, so if God is to make humans in his image, love will be at the front of the list; and not love of self (if God is narcissistic, doesn't that imply that we should be the same way?), but other-focused love, Trinity love.

Finally, while I do think we should worship God, you impose on the narrative when you assert that there should be an emphasis on the human's call to worship God in an assessment of Genesis 2. Nowhere in this narrative is that call made.

Paul, this has been a lot fun. We should try to think of something else on which we can collaborate. Let's try a different format next time. Maybe a Q&A? Or maybe we put up a passage and post one blog with our initial responses to the passage, and then responses to each other. Let's brainstorm.

God Bless!

Guest Post: Paul's Response to My Assessment of Genesis 2

[Read John Daniel's original post here]

John,

First, I must say that I love your style. When I look at my post, the word “functional” comes to mind. When I look at your post, with its sweet background, ethereal religious artwork, and cool section headings, there is a definite ambiance that pulls me into a fuller experience while reading. I don’t know what it is, but I like it. Aesthetics aside, I, like you, really enjoyed reading your post. Our different takes on Genesis 2 complement our different views and, from my perspective, proved refreshing as I thought through your thoughts on our shared subject. Humorously, your intro began almost precisely where I did not want to go, and that gave me a good laugh (and even a smile as I write this sentence). Sir, we are truly wired differently, but, as I’ve said before, I think we may have more to agree about than we do to disagree.

Beginning with some praise, I would first like to commend the way you apologetically defend the biblical account by focusing on the attributes and actions that set the God of the Bible apart from these other ancient myths. The method tries to be fair to academic interest while still being faithful to what I would call the genuine relational aspect involved with the living Christian God; and in this sense, it’s a very neo-orthodox approach, a label I’m sure you by no means mind. And on my end, it is a shade of what I find admirable in neo-orthodox thought: the appeal to God Himself. Along with that, I applaud your desire to view the text theocentrically. Genesis 2, as with all Scripture, is primarily about Him. Your comments on His care in creating Adam are also warmly received. Now, as this is a response to your post, I suppose I should draw some sort of alternative viewpoint on what you’ve written.

I do appreciate advertising the direction your post will not being going in your intro (I did nearly the same), but does admitting you will not be interacting with authorial intention, as well revealing your disbelief in any literalness in terms of history, perhaps exclude any divine intention that may be contained within the text? Obviously, the aforementioned revelatory aspects concerning God’s character and attributes are present, but does not authorship, whether divine or human, add to the particularity of any biblical text in conjunction with any larger general characteristics inherent within Scripture? That is, all texts may generally teach us about God and His character, but is that all they teach? Further, in comparing the Genesis accounts with extrabiblical sources, I must ask, what is the purpose of attempting to show that the Genesis account is not completely unique? Does it claim utter uniqueness or does its veracity depend upon utter distinction?

Moving on to your section entitled “Yahweh is not the only one with something to say; nor is he the only one with something to do and the power to do it,” I tend to agree with much of the examples when listed individually (God wants involvement from His creatures, God allows and wants our communication, etc.); however, grouped as they are under such a heading and coupled with some of the later quotes from Trible and Fretheim, the section seems to be hinting at some unexpressed theological point. Coming off the heels of your closing statement from the previous section (“Yahweh is deeply affected by his relationship with humans”), and I wonder if some of your open theism views aren’t finding their way into your exegesis. God is of course affected by His relationship with humans, but in what way and to what extent needs elaboration and contextualization, a balance between His immanence and His transcendence.

Also, the quote by Fretheim stating that implies human decision helped in creation of the world seems misguided, or at least mis-worded, especially within an interpretive framework that assumes Adam and Eve are representative of Israel (a point that seems completely unjustified from the text itself, but I’ll only mention it in passing, since you did the same. Really, I would have liked to see this proposition more developed from the text because of both its magnitude and bookend-ish nature within your post). And while I could appreciate the Jolle quote that immediately follows (marked footnote 14), it would need some sort of prefacing, such as “allegorically,” “symbolically,” or “devotionally” in order to hold more weight. Left uncategorized, it comes off extremely mystical almost unto a Gnostic level.

Moving on to “The human will can stand against the will of Yahweh,” and I wonder if my theological suspicions above are being confirmed. “Here is a God who does not always get his way.” Confirmed? As you would guess, I wouldn’t agree with such a claim; but more importantly, from the text, I don’t see that such a statement can be inferred. Textually, God is only asserting a prescriptive will for His Adam and Eve; nothing more. It’s says nothing of any decretive will or overarching divine, which clearly come in when the passage is considered in a wider canonical context of a creation-fall-redemption metastory.

In closing, your summary about Genesis 2 teaching about God’s character is provocative. I would submit that within a context of Genesis 1, creating man in His image does allude to some sort of self-glorification. Who after all creates an image of himself without at least some desire of relishing in that image? Think profile pics on social media sites. In relation to my largely liturgical treatment and greater biblical-theological motifs in Scripture, I would also allow more room for the worshipful aspect with which man was created. As you say though, God’s love for humanity is unquestionably displayed, and He is shown superior to any and all challengers.

[Read John Daniel's response to this here]

Paul Imbrone holds an Associate's Degree in Practical Theology, and is a senior in Biblical-Theological Studies at Regent University (find his blog here). 

A Response to Paul Imbrone's Commentary on Genesis 2

[Read Paul's original post here]

Paul,

I find it interesting that at times we made the same points, and at other times we are quite far apart in our thinking. For example, you start off by saying that the Bible is God's self-revelation; whereas I would say it contains God's self-revelation, because God's ultimate self-revelation is Jesus. While this, of course, isn't a central point of your paper--and, as far as I could tell, our differing views of Scripture didn't affect our essays--I figured I'd point it out, just so people know that this is an area in which we are quite different. Mostly, I only noticed small things like this with which I disagreed. Generally, I enjoyed your post very much and found it to be a good assessment.
Now, to my response.

First of all, academia does not posit that socio-cultural context, grammar, and historical setting are everything, but that they are essential to understanding the passage, which they indeed are. Christians spent way too many centuries reading texts at face value and imposing their worldviews on them, yielding results that are contrary, or at least in conflict, with the original intended meaning (the chapter we're studying is a perfect example of when this has occurred!). I have found that passages become more powerful when the proper exegetical tools are incorporated in the study (not that your point was that they shouldn't be used).

I also had trouble with what you say is the main theme of the narrative, which "is that of one, sovereign God, Who operates with two motivations; the first of which is His worthiness of praise throughout His creation." I find it interesting that this motif isn't really mentioned in the rest of your post; and I'm not surprised, as I find it hard to maintain. What in the text points to such an understanding? You yourself said that the narrative is "very man-centered," and it really is.

A gem I thought your essay had was the bit about the tabernacle and its connection to creation. This is something I came upon in my research but didn't find relevant for my trajectory. I even found that the Garden of Eden correlates to the tabernacle, as well as the temple, in striking ways. John Walton provides that "the waters flowing through the garden in Genesis 2 are paralleled by the waters flowing from the temple in Ezekiel 47:1-12 (cf. Ps 46:4; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2)."(1) Furthermore, David Chilton finds it very significant that both the Garden and the Tabernacle were entered on the east side (see Gen. 3:24 & Ex. 27:13-16). He says, "to enter God’s presence through redemption is a gracious re-admittance to Eden."(2) Gordon Wenham highlights some other similarities: "kĕrûbîm [from Gen. 3:24], Akkadian kuribu, were the traditional guardians of holy places in the ancient Near East" (see 1 Kgs 6:23-29; Ex.. 25:18-22, 26:31); also, the Tree of Life resembles the tabernacle menorah (Ex. 25:31-35) and points to the life-giving element of the sanctuary; finally, the human’s duty in the garden is the same as that of the Levites in the sanctuary (see Gen. 2:15 & Num. 3:7-8, 8:26, 18:5-6).(3) If you are interested in further pursuing this topic, you should check out Walton's The Lost World of Genesis 1, Wenham's article "Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story," and Chilton's Paradise Restored. The presence of tabernacle/temple images in the creation narratives shows us that there's something else going on here other than a simple historical telling of the creation of the world.

I am also pleased that you pointed out the man-centered nature of the narrative, and its subsequent stress of God's "thorough and genuine concern for the well-being of humanity." This, you say, can be seen in God's emotional recognition that man was alone; being a relational, Trinitarian being, as you pointed out, God wanted man to be so relational. Here, we are very much singing the same song. However, you say in your Trinitarian comment that "God glorifies himself within the Trinity." This may be true indirectly (in the Trinity's oneness), but I would say that each member of the Trinity is other-focused, glorifying each other. In this, it is not self-glorification, but, for lack of a less hippie phrase, a circle of love.

I'm glad you covered the male-female relationship. I came upon this issue a lot in my research. Your comments on the role of the woman in the narrative, however, are typical of complementarians: you say the husband is head over the wife, and then stress their equality (using a beautiful Matthew Henry quote, I might add--one with which he rises above his usual lack of profound insight). Many rightfully find that to be a very deficient "equality." You should read my recent blog on this topic (here) that I wrote during my research for our collaboration, in which I address the points you bring up regarding this issue. Side note: I'm surprised you didn't connect the 'naming = sovereignty' point to the human's naming of the animals, showing man's sovereignty over the earth.

There were a few other minor things that I found that highlight our differences. I find it surprising that you attribute authorship to Moses (or at least alluded to the idea). Most OT scholars abandoned the idea of Mosaic authorship a long time ago. I am interested to hear your response to Gen. 12:6, 14:14 (cf. Judg. 18:29), and 36:11, the historical details of which make it highly improbable that the author was Moses. As someone who accepts the documentary hypothesis, this is another point on which we differ greatly.

I also disagree that the passage supports the ex nihilo doctrine in the concrete way you seem to assume (and am a little surprised you didn't come upon that in your research, as almost every commentary I used acknowledges this). Am I going to argue that God can't/didn't create out of nothing? No. But my point is: this passage itself doesn't support the doctrine.

My final response point regards your assessment of God resting. In my post, I didn't deal with vv.1-4a, as they are really part of the first creation narrative (maybe I should have told you I was planning to do it that way?), but I do want to respond to your conclusion there. I don't think lack of mention of God exerting himself is a good enough reason to reject the word 'rested'. Some would say that the very work of creation in six days was God exerting himself. Some would also say that the point is not that God is exhausted, but that God was modeling a way of abundant living, one which includes a day of rest at the end of several days of working.(4) Walter Brueggemann, for one, would have some problems with your assessment, as he describes beautifully the need for the Sabbath day of rest, even for God.(5) I'm not sure if I agree with Brueggemann's theological conclusion here, but I don't disagree with it outright. That may be my next point of study; we'll see.

Overall, I enjoyed your post, and definitely enjoyed the collaboration. This has been fun.

[Read Paul's response to this here]

Notes:
(1) John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis 1 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 81-82.
(2) David Chilton, Paradise Restored (Reconstruction Press, 1985), 29
(3) Gordon Wenham, "Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story," in "I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood": Ancient Near Eastern, Linguistic, and Literary Approaches to Genesis 1-11, eds. Richard Hess and David Toshio Tsumura (Eisenbrauns, 1994), 401.
(4) See Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1982), 35-36.
(5) I'm sure he makes this point in writing somewhere, but I have only heard him makes this claim in presentations. See his, "Sabbath as a Means of Transition from Anxious Scarcity to Grateful Abundance," presented at Eastern Mennonite University. This is episode 250 on the EMU podcast on iTunes.

Guest Post: A Commentary on Genesis 2 by Paul Imbrone

My friend Paul Imbrone and I have been working on a collaboration on the theology of Genesis 2. Part 1 of this collaboration consists of individual posts on each of our blogs (in case you haven't read it yet, here is my post). Part 2 of the collaboration will consist of my response to his blog, and his response to mine (both of which I will post here).

This is not meant to be a debate of any kind. While we are of two very different theological convictions (he is reformed), this project is about aspiring biblical theologians approaching a text from different angles as friends and brothers in Christ.

With that said, here is Paul's theological commentary on Genesis 2.

A Commentary on Genesis 2 by Paul Imbrone:
 

First, at the outset, I will be looking at the Genesis 2 text primarily from a theological perspective based in the passage’s immediate literary context and loosely to its relation with the overall canon. So things like socio-cultural context, grammar, and original setting won’t be emphasized, though that doesn’t mean they will necessarily be excluded either. These ancient settings are important to any biblical text; however, I don’t believe they are everything (as academia posits). The Bible is the Word of God: the revelation of Himself (character, will, and attributes) to His people. A revelation framed around a narrative of redemption of sin through the person and work of Jesus Christ.

My thoughts are therefore a mixture of several approaches to biblical theology: (1) “the classic approach,” where “the message and theological content of individual biblical books” precedes the synthesis of these findings into overarching themes across various corpora (Pentateuch, Old Testament, whole Bible, etc.); (2) a central-themes approach, where the Bible oriented through several major scriptural motifs; and (3) the story approach, where a grand metanarrative guides the Bible’s diversity into unity.(1) 

With that bit of presuppositional work in place, let us consider the overall book which houses the passage under discussion. Want to talk about the origins of life from a biblical perspective? Want to talk about Christian anthropology, ethics, epistemology, or ontology? Want to learn about the principal covenant that guides Scripture and the unfolding biblical narrative? For all this and more come to Genesis. “It sets the scene for the rest of Scripture and is one of the most quoted books in the [New Testament].”(2) Narrowing the scope reveals that “the early chapters had arguably a greater influence on Christian theology than did any other part of the Old Testament.”(3) Along with creation, the Fall and significant Adamic Christ typology are also founded upon the opening chapters of Genesis (1-3), that bit of Scripture that records the ex nihilo inception of the cosmos, humanity, and the history that set the stage for God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. 

Genesis 2 finds itself in the midst of all this proto-action. It continues and accentuates the 6 day creation account in chapter 1 and simultaneously sets the scene for the Fall in chapter 3, while rightly standing on its own anthropological contributions to biblical theology as well. Man is made; woman is made; and marriage instituted. No small feat for twenty-five verses. Notably, as a hermeneutic, I would add the main theme governing the narrative is that of one, sovereign God, Who operates with two motivations; the first of which is His worthiness of praise throughout His creation. While the nature of the creation account is not the focal point of a Genesis 2 exegesis, it might be helpful to mention that chapter 1’s creation account can have a liturgical application from a biblical-theological perspective. Some scholars believe “that the seven days of creation directly correspond to seven speeches of God concerning the construction of the Tabernacle”(4) in Exodus 25-32:

the activities of each day of creation correspond to an aspect of the construction of the Tabernacle. The Tabernacle and the later Temple are, therefore, intended to represent a microcosm of creation. Among the seven speeches establishing the Tabernacle, the seventh speech concerns the Sabbath, directly paralleling God's own protological Sabbath rest. It stands to reason that if…creation's formation directly corresponds to the erection of the Tabernacle, they both must also serve the same purpose, that is, the worship of God [emphasis added].(5)

 These allusions, which a Moses authorship would correspond with, are compounded by the priestly purpose God intended by creating man in Genesis 2:

The text's descriptions of Adam's activity in the garden possess verbal similarities with the ministrations of the priesthood elsewhere in the Pentateuch. This means that the author of Genesis describes Adam and Eve's care for creation as a true act of grateful worship, making it a liturgical activity.(6)

In other words, “Creation is an immense Tabernacle dedicated to divine worship,”(7) and man is the supreme minister of said worship within creation. It might then be said that it might “that the first humans are portrayed as priests presiding over the cosmic Temple and reflecting divine goodness and glory back to God.”(8)

Before any objections are raised regarding this thoroughly God-centered, doxological aspect of God’s revelation and will in the seemingly very man-centered subject content of Genesis 2, the second part of God’s motivation must also be considered; and that is His thorough and genuine concern for the well-being of humanity. He creates a habitable environment. He fills it with animals. He creates a suitable helper. He gives purpose. He gives language. He gives a mind and a spirit. He furnishes man with right and wrong and jointly provides a code to follow. God fellowships with man.  He graces him with existence and then divine fellowship. Remarkable and truly benevolent, kind, and good in every way. 

With these further thoughts to keep in mind, here is some specific commentary on the Genesis 2 verses themselves: 

2:1-3 God rested. In context “rested” is inappropriate as God is not described at all as having exerted Himself to exhaustion. In fact, no mention of effort on His part is in any way mentioned. Perhaps better is “ceased, desisted, completed His work, [or] stopped working.”(9) Note also the lack of an “evening and morning was the seventh day” clause, as was the established pattern for the six days. God’s ceasing from creative work here was final, and the form break emphasizes that. 

2:4-7 “The Lord God” a phrase common in Genesis 2-3 (used eleven times in chapter 2 alone) but is hardly used elsewhere in the OT, including Genesis 1. The author introduces the title specifically when the creation of man is discussed. The two words convey that God is mankind’s creator and his friend or covenant partner. “The breath of life” in verse 7 signify that man will forever be more than mere matter, mere dust from the ground. He has been imparted with a spiritual element by His Creator God that cannot be coldly explained by materialistic evolutionary science.(10) 

2:8 Devotionally, this verse stuck out to me: “And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there He put the man whom He had formed” (ESV). God will create circumstances and stick you right in the middle of them. And it can be crazy sometimes. Thankfully, that last part of the verse offers some comfort: “there he put the man whom he had formed” [emphasis added]. God will always prepare you for the situations in life that He puts you in, whether we can understand it or not; He has readied us for His purposes in our lives. 

2:9-17 The aforementioned thorough and genuine concern for the well-being of humanity is expounded here. From ethics to aesthetics and pleasure to purpose, man is given his faculties that separate him from all other creatures. The environment is lush and pleasing; the work good; the rules given. Man has been thoroughly created in the image of God to reflect His glory. 

2:18-25 Here, God’s goodness even moves into the emotional realm. He saw that it was not good for man to be alone. The naming of the animals probably showed Adam that every species had two of a kind and therefore that he was missing his counterpart. And the Trinitarian nature of God Himself also needed some sort of representation in the imago Dei of man. As God fellowships and glorifies Himself within the Trinity, so man could fellowship with a suitable counterpart and together worship and glorify God with their existence and service in the garden. The theme of marriage obviously weighs in heavily at this point in the narrative. Immediately, the context is for humans. First, marriage should be permanent in their united into one flesh (v. 24; cf. cf. Mt. 19:5). Second, the wife is to be the primary relationship for man in life as he leaves his father and mother (v. 24). Third, the husband is also to be head over the wife (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3 and 1 Peter 3:1-6); Adam named Eve (3:20) and called her woman (v. 23), an act that biblically indicates authority over (cf. 2 Kings 23:34; 24:17). Fourth, despite any headship, the two are also equal companions: “he woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved;”(11) yes, the man should even subordinate his desires to those of his wife’s (v.24). So there is biblical roles to fulfill in marriage yes, but there is also total equality within the relationship. Finally, the account does support a one man and one wife marriage situation, not one man and many wives or one man and one man etc.(12)

In brief summary, Genesis 2 is a chapter about God’s goodness. It’s about His design for humanity to come together in celebration of His glory. It’s a description of life under God’s blessing. It’s about epistemological and ontological purity. But, it’s also a foreshadowing of the Second Adam, the second beginning for humanity found in Jesus, and the relationship He has with the Church. So read Genesis 2 to learn about biblical anthropology but also to glimpse at the loving God behind it all. 

[Read John Daniel's response to this here]
 
Paul Imbrone holds an Associate's Degree in Practical Theology, and is a senior in Biblical-Theological Studies at Regent University (find his blog here). 

Notes:

[1] Andreas J. Köstenberger, “The Present and Future of Biblical Theology”, Themelios 37, no. 3 (November 2012): 445-64, accessed July 15, 2013, https://tgc-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/themelios/37-3/Themelios37.3.pdf. 
[2] Gordon J. Wenham, “Book of Genesis” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J.Vanhoozer (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 246. 
[3] A Louth, Genesis 1-11, quoted in Wenham’s “Book of Genesis” article for the DFTIOTB. 
[4] Jack Kilcrease, “Creation's Praise: A Short Liturgical Reading of Genesis 1-2 and the Book of Revelation”, Pro Ecclesia 21, no. 3 (Summer 2012): 315. 
[5] Ibid., 315-6. 
[6] Ibid., 316. 
[7] Ibid., 317. 
[8] Ibid., 317-318. 
[9] F.F. Bruce, ed., The International Bible Commentary with the New International Version, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 116. 
[10] Gordon J. Wenham et al., eds., New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, 4th ed. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1994), 62. 
[11] Matthew Henry, Commentary on Genesis 2:21-25, E-Sword. 
[12] Wenham et al., eds., New Bible Commentary, 62-63.