Print
John 1:1-13: Creation, Divinity, Salvation
Introductory Observations
The question of the origin of life has fascinated individuals from all walks of life. On one hand, Christians have long asserted that all life on earth originated from God in the seven day Creation described in Gen 1 and 2, about 6,000 years ago. On the other, a majority of scientists are convinced that life is the result of a random process of evolution that took many millions of years. Recently, a number of Christians have tried to bridge the gap between Creation and Evolution asserting that God did create the world but through or in parallel to the process of evolution.
The scientific debate is fascinating. But beyond it the believer will want to know what the Bible really says about origins and whether it leaves room for theories alternative to the story of Creation. In this, while Christian philosophers may experiment with different models of origins, biblical scholars, even many who don’t believe in Creation, assert that the way the text of Gen 1 and 2 is structured indicates that the author wanted to convey the message that the world was indeed created in one week. The text does not allow alternative models.
Equally or even more importantly, is the witness of the rest of Scripture, especially the New Testament (NT). Scattered throughout are a multitude of explicit and implicit references that testify to a belief in the veracity of the Creation story. Luke, listing the genealogy of Jesus follows the account of Genesis all the way back to Adam and God: “[Jesus] ...the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God” (Luke 3: 37-38, ESV throughout). Paul points back to Adam to explain the importance of salvation in Jesus: “Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come” (Rom 5:14); and “as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22); and “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim 2:13). Likewise Jesus lists Abel as the first martyr: “So that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar” (Mt 23:35). Heb 11:3-34 begins with the Creation story and then lists a multitude of Old Testament heroes assuming throughout that all these stories are true. References could be multiplied (Mt 13:35; 19:4,5; 25:34; Mark 2:27; 10:6,7-8; 13:19; 16:15; Luke 11:50; John 17:24; Acts 4:24; 10:12; 11:6; 14:15; 17:24,26; Rom 1:20,23,25-27; 4:17; 5:12,17-19; 8:19-22,39; 11:36; 1Cor 6:16; 8:6; 11:8-9; 15:45; 2 Cor 4:6; 5:17; 11:3; Eph 1:4; 3:9: 5:31; to name a few). To question Creation means not only to question Gen 1&2 but the inspiration and accuracy of all Scripture, something no Christian should venture to. It is in light of the above that John 1:1-13 is best understood.
John 1:1-13, Creation, Divinity, Salvation
John 1:1-13 is rightly considered a hymn to the divinity of Jesus. But often overlooked is that this divinity is presented in the context of the Creation story. Seven elements tie John 1:1-13 to Gen 1-2.
1. John 1:1 begins with the same words as Gen 1:1: en archē, “in the beginning.” John clearly wants to draw the reader’s attention to Gen 1. Before everything, Jesus was there.
2. In Gen 1:1 God is the focus of attention: “In the beginning, God…” So also in John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The difference is that while Genesis presents the person of God in summary fashion as one unity, John unwraps this concept to explain that God is composed of at least two persons, the Father whom here he calls “God” and Jesus, the Logos, who is also God.
3. The noun logos, “Word,” used here as a title for Jesus also originates in the Creation story. The cognate verb legō, “to speak” from which logos derives, appears 11x in Gen 1 (Gen 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,22,24,26,28,29) always in relation to God’s creative acts. Likewise, logos is elsewhere used in reference to Creation: “By the word [logos] of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host” (Ps 33:6). By tying Jesus as the Logos, with the logos of God which brought everything into existence, John makes Jesus the acting agent in the work of Creation.
4. John continues his paean to Jesus with a further reference to Creation: “All things were made [egeneto] through him, and without him was not anything made [egeneto] that was made [gegonen]” (John 1:3). In this one verse, three times John uses forms of the verb ginomai, “to make.” This very verb is the one used profusely in Gen 1 (23x) of God’s creative acts. The fact that John clarifies that “all things” were made by Jesus, leaves no room for alternative means of origins for life. As such the use of the verb ginomai by John further elucidates the concept of Jesus as the acting agent of the work of Creation.
5. John continues, “In him was life [zōē], and that life [zōē] was the light of men” (John 1:4). The double reference to zōē is not accidental. In the Creation story God breathed into Adam’s nostrils the “breath of life [pnoēn zōēs]” (Gen 2:7) and Adam became a “living creature [psuchēn zōsan].” He did not posses life on his own accord but rather received it from God. When Eve was created Adam named her “Eve” (“life,” zōē in the LXX), because “she was the mother of all living” (Gen 3:20). The syllogism then runs like this. All humans owe their life to Eve, since she is the mother of all, and she in turn was created from Adam’s side. Adam in turned received his life from God. In that sense, the life of all humans is borrowed from God, the originator of life. By contrast, Jesus has life in Himself, uncreated and unborrowed, It is His life that was shared with Adam and with all the created order.
6. John declares that Jesus was “the light of men” and that this “light shines in the darkness” (John 1:4b-5). The contrast between light and darkness again harkens to Creation whereby the light was the first thing God created and the element that dispelled the darkness beginning the process of creation; from darkness to light, from chaos to order. John takes this motif and gives it a spitirual dimension in the sense that the world in its sinfulness and without God is dark, but the coming of Jesus has began to disperse the darkness and bring order and spiritual beauty. Just as Jesus brought forth light at Creation to disperse the darkness, likewise He brought spiritual light to disperse the spiritual darkness of sin. The work of redemption thus is a replication of the work of creation.
7. John has a final reference to the Creation in the concept of sonship that he builds. Adam was a “son of God” by virtue of Creation (Luke 3:38). Those who believe in Jesus are also sons and daughters: “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12). He then adds that these, “were born, not of blood [aimatōn] nor of the will of the flesh [sarkos], nor of the will of man [andros], but of God” (John 1:13). All three noted words, blood, flesh, man, appear in the Genesis account. The blood is a symbol of human origin in God (Gen 9:9). The flesh points back to the creation of both Adam and Eve (Gen 2:21,23) and more importantly to the divine plan of marriage and procreation instituted in Eden (Gen 2:24, “they shall become one flesh [sarka mian].” “Man” points back to Adam as the father of all humans and even the source from which Eve was created: “she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man [andros].” What John is expounding here is that the new birth experience is essentially a repetition of the act of creation but in a spiritual sense and is sourced in God. Just like humans could not create themselves, likewise sinners cannot recreate themselves. It takes an act of God to bring the new birth experience to reality and turn sinners into sons and daughters of God.
Synopsis and Synthesis
It is evident from all the above that John, in harmony with other writers in the NT, accepts the Genesis account at face value as a true representation of events as they transpired. He uses Creation language to define the divinity of Jesus. God created everything through Jesus, the Logos, who is equal to the Father. He is the originator of all life. In that sense John expounds and gives deeper clarity to the origin of life. John then picks the language of Creation to describe the new creation. The coming of Jesus brings light that disperses the darkness of sin just like the light created by Jesus at Creation dispersed the darkness enveloping the earth. And furthermore, just like He gave physical life to Adam, He offers spiritual life to all who believe in a process of recreation through which sinners are transformed into sons and daughters of God. Without doubt the Creation story plays a central formative role in both John theology and soteriology.
User login
Recent
- Joe Erwin Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Anonymouswon Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Carrol Grady Should Seventh-day Adventists be Republicans?
- Sirje Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Fred Eastman The Role of Institutions in Evangelism – A Call to the Adventist Business Community
Newsletter
Organizations
Fri, 08/31/2012 - Sun, 09/02/2012
Job Dybdahl, Sigve Tonstad, Harri Kuhalampi
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
". . . the way the text of Gen 1 and 2 is structured indicates that the author wanted to convey the message that the world was indeed created in one week. The text does not allow alternative models."
But were they all 24 hour days? Especially in light of the 7th one(day) which is not bracketed by an evening and a morning. Or was the creation of holiness within time (a rest) significantly different from the other creations? Or is it something we as a church hold sacrosanct since it bears directly on the sabbath - a rest in Christ or a rest within a 24 hour period of time? Or is this outside of your synopsis and synthesis?
There is no doubt that John 1 offers a Christian midrash on the Genesis Creation account. From "in the beginning," Christian readers were conscious that they needed to offer an interpretation of the Torah that explained who Jesus Christ was and the role Moses and Jesus in the divine scheme. However, John's theology is a CHRIST-ian reading of Genesis, and we should expect something more in it we find in Genesis, which is a Jewish text written under completely different conditions.
It is a misreading, therefore , that "accepts the Genesis account at face value as a true representation of events as they transpired." If this was true, then there would be no need for a Christian interpretation. It is because the Christian view does not appear on the surface of the text--"at face value"--that John finds opportunity to combine Jewish understandings with Greek philosophical notions of the Logos and develops his unique theology.
If John was truly dependent on the Genesis creation account, then what are we to infer from the fact that the Gospel does did NOT use the seven days as part of its theology? I don't see how we can safely infer anything about the seven days of Creation from John's gospel, except that it was a key source. Anything else is the projection of our contemporary anxieties about creation onto the text.
Graeme
I am stunned. I logged on as usual several hours after publication and there are only 2 comments. What an eloquent silence!
Lets face it. The creation/evolution debate (which I have listened to for many decades) is just SO boring and fruitless.I am so pleased that it has not sprung up here. PLEASE don't start it up again now!
The SS Quarterly title is "Glimpes of God".
Dear Audience:
1. What glimpses of God do I / YOU get from the story of The Beginning?
2. What glimpses from 'it was Good'? from 'Rested', from 'Choas to Completion'?
3. What can I / YOU learn (to think/say/do) as a result of heart-knowing the praise songs of scripture in the wider context that refer to 'the beginning' (Ps8, 19, 147-8, Prov 8 to name but 4)
4. What can I / YOU learn from the start and end of Scripture. (By that I mean the 1st three and final three chapters of the Bible.
5. How does my/your reading of 'the beinning' strengthen my/your relationship with God?
Kim You state quite correctly
"In this, while Christian philosophers may experiment with different models of origins, biblical scholars, even many who don’t believe in Creation, assert that the way the text of Gen 1 and 2 is structured indicates that the author wanted to convey the message that the world was indeed created in one week. The text does not allow alternative models."
But this does not at all stop us from reinterpreting these passages to align with our understanding of the cosmos as we have come to accept it through the processes of scientific endeavour over the last 400 years.
1] How many Adventists take the words of Genesis 1 as it was intended and accept the view of the writers that the firmament was a hard dome placed to keep the water above from the earth below and that the stars moon and sun were placed beneath this firmament across the face of which flew the birds of the air. That the rain came down as the windows of heavens were opened and the water above was released onto the earth. (I would highly recommend Bull and Guys summary of the ancient cosmology in God Sky and Land, for a clear articulation of the original writers intent)
2] How many Adventists would reject the words of Matthew 17 concerning faith and healing and accept a naturalistic basis for disease in seeking for a cure based on modern naturalistic evidence based medicine? It seems incongruous to me that we can accept a naturalistic basis for healing, contrary to the plain teaching of Jesus about reliance of faith and miracles, but quite arbitarily cannot accept a revised naturalistic explanation for origin. You cannot be consistent and have one without the other as they are based on precisely the same mechanisms and thought processes.
3] How many Adventists would be like the Amish and be prepared to give up most of the products of the scientific tradition which is based on rejecting a notion of God as the cause for everything and accepting that there is a natural explanation. Western civilization came about because people sought an explanation beyond "God said it it must be so!" Most Adventists would not think twice about using electronic devices though they are based on explanations for the world that previous cultures would have considered a denial of God powers or a blasphemy. Every time you press a computer keyboard are you denying the power of God? If you accept the arguments implicit in the doctrine of creation that most Adventist seem to accept, you must conclude that you are for the message seems to be that we must accept as foundational the understanding of origins that the original writers had (but not really see 1 above) and that the the subsequent early Christians and Christ Himself articulated.
A clear articulation of a doctrine of creation is increasingly important in a world where the success of operational naturalism and it's child evidence based medicine is self evident to all. This is leading to increasing acceptance of philosophical naturalism as the dominant view. As a Christian and as a life scientist I cannot but accept the former and totally reject the latter. Unfortunately the dialog on these critical issues within the Adventist church has been fixated on the mechanics rather than the meaning and relevance of a doctrine of creation. Consequently the church's position is likely to become increasingly irrelvant to the modern mind and less credible to the young educated people who are a product of the churches enduring emphasis on education and health.
The NT writers all very liberally used the Midrash style of re-interpreting the OT, using their writings completely re-interpreted to introduce Jesus, who was clearly unknown by the original creation writers. John has added to the Creation story by introducing Jesus as the Creator. This is a bald midrash without any evidence from Genesis; but an artilcle of faith with most Christianity.
Christianity is guilty of re-writing much of the OT to suit their purpose: to introduce Jesus as the Messiah (annointed one) as God. Sadly, this reconstruction has been most effective in essentially replacing the one God of the OT into Jesus as having all the same attributes. That this was not immediately accepted is reflected in the hundreds of centuries' discussions, even violent confrontations, before the force of the Roman emperor dictated the persuasive results. But they were not universally adopted as evidenced by the continuation of this controversy in the 21st century. Which is probably as it should be when it can neither be proved nor is essential to the Christian's life.
It is interesting that Adventists who reject this emperor's designation of a rest day, yet accept his decision on the Trinity!
Elaine
Dear MichaelJ, thank you for 5 useful questions I can ask tomorrow in SS class. I haven't seen a more succinct version of a teacher's guide for SS lesson. Thanks again.
Sabbath School is finished. Sabbath lunch is done! The Sabbath afternoon is ahead of us in Melbourne, downunder. And what a great Bible study to have on a Sabbath morning.
Thank you to Kim Papaioannou for the insights into John 1 and the relationships existing with Genesis 1 & 2. Very much appreciated. Thanks also to Michael J for the provocative questions asked with respect to the creation and our relationship with the Godhead.
When I think of those peddling the theory of evolution, and other "unsound" doctrine, I cannot but consider the words of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor 1:18-27), "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God ... Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? ... For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks, foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. ... But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty ... "
Bolstie ... just another sinner in need of grace!
It is baffling to realize that there are those who want to stretch out the creation time frame at all, as though God were not great enough to manage it in seven 24-hour spans. God could have accomplished the entire thing in a twinkling, if He had deemed it best.....
Kim,
The scholarship on Genesis 1 & 2 overwhelming indicate that the two chapters, or more correctly, Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:4 and the rest of Genesis 2, are the products of at least two or more different writers or schools of thought, who tell two different creation stories-- (an obvious example that the two are different accounts stem from the different names given to God in Gen 1 and Gen 2, the P and J hypothesis)-- from two different periods in Israeli history. An editor or editors for the Genesis account decided to present both stories and place them side by side at some point, probably to illustrate their recognition that no one creation story is definitive.
How about the idea that evening and morning in Gen. 1 is used everywhere else in the Hebrew Scriptures to indicate 24 literal hours? Why would Genesis 1 be an exception?
Thanks...
Frank
Thank you all for your comments. We had a lovely Sabbath discussion this morning in church and it seems that the question of origins is a very important issue for many. Just a few rejoinders on the discussion above.
1. It is true that the NT contains midrash, or commentary on the Genesis story; naturally since NT writers are not claiming to present something new. While midrash may offer new insights or approaches to a text, it also assumes its historical reliability. It is precisely because a text is considered important and true that commentary is written on it. As such, while NT commentary on the Creation story offers fresh insights (e.g. John 1:1-13) it never negates the story.
2. The documentary hypothesis whereby the Pentateuch was composed by 4 or 5 writers and compiled sometime around the exile is much touted as scientific but is not, if by scientific we mean something based on measurable evidence. It was created in the 18th century on the basis of different names used for God in the Pentateuch but does not have any documentary or historical evidence behind it. Evidentially speaking, the unity of the Pentateuch is supported by thousands of manuscripts, from many locales and dating from as early as the 1s century BC and by the unanimous witness of all ancient historians and theologians from the 5th century BC onwards. As far as historical scientific evidence is concerned therefore, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of its unity.
3. When it comes to what one believes about origins, of course, as thinking individuals we are called to weight the evidence and make intelligent choices for ourselves. Much will depend on the weight one puts on the biblical evidence and what one believes concerning biblical inspiration. If the Bible is considered the ultimate authority and historically accurate, it is hard to substantiate any view but Creationism. If, conversely, the Bible is seen as a document reflecting the norms of the times it was written without the direct imprint of God, then its witness need not be considered as binding. Such decisions are made on an individual basis. My task as a biblical theologian is to determine what the biblical text says and in that sense I am more than confident that the apostle John was a thorough creationist.
A blessed Sabbath to all.
Thank you, Kim, for this erudite essay - and for writing something that is on the SS lesson, rather than a disquisition on science vs scripture. You sum it up nicely in your point no. 3, immediately above - we can do with scripture what we each prefer, based on our own beliefs about the nature of scripture; but it's very helpful to have this clear argument about what scripture actually says.
Hey, a comment was added while I was starting to write mine! Oh well, a bit of a rewrite ... As it happens, I really agree with what David Trim says. I also want to underscore what Kim P. says about "the documentary hypothesis" - I know many "Spectrumites" (to use Bonnie Dwyer's word from another article) have all kinds of doubts about the Sanctuary and Investigative Judgment, and rightly so! But the fact is, it's got far more substantive textual biblical basis than the documentary hypothesis, which was just enlightenment and post-enlightenment German scholars way of coping with a text that wasn't written like they would write it - instead of thinking about different cultures, they came up with a massively complicated theory with no direct evidence and which, when you try to apply it to problem texts, completely fails the Ockham's Razor test, unlike taking those texts as having a more straightforward meaning. Anyway, thanks a bunch, Dr Papaioannou.
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand." (Job 38:4)
This is probably my favourite text when it comes to the conflicts around the creation "story" / "report". I appreciate the effort of the author of the above essay to look at the theological significance of creation, which is something quite different than defending its literalism (see pauluc's comment). By building an apologetic around 6x24 hours (while in fact referring to the twinkle of an eye and a "fiat" that just takes seconds) we are in danger of missing the meaning and significance of creation (and thus - even the Sabbath).
Michael J
The eloquent silence is the result of the essay itself. In it Kim makes very clear that other interpretations are not up for discussion:
" To question Creation means not only to question Gen 1&2 but the inspiration and accuracy of all Scripture, something no Christian should venture to."
If her main point is that John believed in a literal 7 day creation then I agree; and let me stipulate that I think Peter, Paul and Jesus believed the same thing.
Kim essentially tells us that she is not interested in dialogue and so she is getting none.
I'm puzzled by people who argue that the significance or meaning of an historical event doesn't depend upon whether the event actually took place. But if something did not happen, how does it have any deep theological meaning?
I suppose if everyone believes something happened, then it will still have significance even though it never really took place. But the folks arguing for the deep theological significance of a creation event that they themselves do not believe happened . . . How does one explain that?
In the Adventist Review of December 15, 2011, in his essay, GENESIS, there is a breathtaking declaration by Lael Ceasar that the universe is 6000 years old, give or take a year or two.
“Before Genesis 1:1 there was only God. There was no sky, no sea, no flower, no tree, no bird, no you, no me. There was no galaxy or cosmos, no item or atom, no gravity or density. There was only the singularity of eternal God.”
I think I understand why Christian fundamentalists are so fearful and unhappy. They have been told that they have to choose to believe either the story of the creation as found in Genesis (There are actually two radically different stories in the first two chapters, but that doesn’t seem to phase these religious know-nothing authorities.) or an evolutionary story that denies the existence of God. These are the only choices available, and denying the first will keep them out of Heaven.
In times of economic uncertainty, natural calamity, and/or war, fear can override reason in the general population. This fear is intensified if fundamentalist leaders tell their followers that these events are God’s punishment for behavior that demonstrates unbelief.
Imagine trying to believe that the universe was created 6000 years ago.
Imagine trying to believe that the Grand Canyon was created by a universal flood that covered the highest mountain 4500 years ago and all fauna, with the exception of life in the sea, are the descendants of creature pairs that only survived because of their ride in Noah’s ark that ended up on top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey.
Imagine trying to believe that personal unbelief delays the Second Coming of Jesus?
Imagine trying to believe that scientists are used by the Devil to destroy the faith of children.
I believe that the people asked to believe these things can’t do it by themselves. They have to memorize the words of charismatic religious leaders, and can only quiet their common sense by repeating authoritative pronouncements and irrational claims.
Depending on the survey, 50-90% of educated young people from Adventist homes apparently lack the required “imagination” and are currently not attending church. As long as Lael Caesar speaks with organizational authority, that trend will continue.
@David Read
Well, you seem to work on the assumption that asking questions or admitting that we do not have all the answers equals "unbelief". It is this assumption I do not share. GOD himself says with splendid irony: "You were not there!" . He incidentally also invites Israel: "Come, let us reason together." (again - with the intention to come to an awe of God and understanding of our limitation, rather than to gain all the answers, and become all-knowing).
"Imagine trying to believe that the universe was created 6000 years ago."
I have no problem imagining this.
"Imagine trying to believe that the Grand Canyon was created by a universal flood that covered the highest mountain 4500 years ago and all fauna, with the exception of life in the sea, are the descendants of creature pairs that only survived because of their ride in Noah’s ark that ended up on top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey."
I have no problem imagining this either. The highest mountain would have been much lower and current mountains are the result of uplift since the flood. How about canyons in Iceland that even secular scientists admit were created in 3 days by floodwaters from glacial floods? By the way, how long did it take Surtsey to be "colonised" with plant and animal life after its "creation"?
"Imagine trying to believe that personal unbelief delays the Second Coming of Jesus?"
Because it takes longer to take the gospel to all the world. If we took it more quickly, Jesus would come sooner.
"Imagine trying to believe that scientists are used by the Devil to destroy the faith of children.'
They are, but they don't know it. Women in Western countries are oppressed just as in Islamic countries (although in a different way), but they don't know it either. They think they must have a boyfriend and must have sex with them in order to be "someone", and if they are single then something is wrong with them. If you are mid-way through your teens and have no boyfriend there obviously must be something wrong with you. This way of thinking is pushed onto them by society and culture and they fail to see the reality that they are just being used as sex objects. The mainstream media is manipulating them into thinking that the sexual revolution has liberated them whereas it has in fact enslaved them.
Imagine - there was nothing and it was nowhere and had no dimensions, because even empty space is something. And the a quantum fluctuation (which came from where exactly?) resulted in a tiny point which consisted of all matter in the universe, and this expanded and organised itself into all elements, and then organised itself into a universe with structure. Then some of it organised itself into complex self-replicating cellular structures and came to life, and then mutated into all living creatures we know today.
It's such arrant nonsense. You need to develop unprovable theories and invent your own mathematics which account for this, but any reasonably intelligent, thinking person, without prior exposure to this type of thinking, would see it as ludicrous. Just because a mathematical model or computer model works does not mean that something is plausible.
I have to disagree. While Genesis 1 does describe literal 7 days, that does not mean that the story is history. It's to be taken metaphorically, which is reinfoced by the story in Genesis 2 which, if taken literally, contradicts Genesis 1.
When are we going to learn that something need not be literal to be true.
The fact that New Testament writers use the events and characters from the Old Testament says that the writers take these stories seriously - not necessarily that they take them literally.
Donna Haerich - Sat, 01/14/2012 - 03:29
The fact that New Testament writers use the events and characters from the Old Testament says that the writers take these stories seriously - not necessarily that they take them literally.
One of my favorites comes' from Luke
Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
...
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Was Joseph literally the son of Heli? What does Luke mean when he says that Adam was the son of God? I fail to see the figurative meaning in this literal genealogy which, as far as I can see, is supposed to be literal for everyone except Adam. I find it difficult to say that Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did not believe that Adam was Created as described in Genesis 1-2.
Many thanks, Kim, for your summary ...
"Without doubt the Creation story plays a central formative role in both John theology and soteriology."
John asserts that like fiat creation, salvation is the result of God's work and thus is utterly independent of the creatures or our environment. In Jesus' words in John, it is God's love of the World that gives rise to salvation as well as creation.
It is no small thing that Seventh-day Adventists most determined to stress that the Bible unambiguously asserts that God made everything in a few days a few thousand years ago, including humanity in total and without depending on nature to have improved upon itself over time, are also those who are most likely the most determined to deny soteriology is the result of God's fiat recreation as John apparently teachers, but rather is 'the work of a lifetime' in a radically evolutionary process called sanctification that requires as little help from God as possible, until one stands boldly alone, 'without an intercessor' against all odds.
Indeed, there is a strain of belief among Seventh-day Adventists that asserts that God is utterly dependent on an evolving remnant who will on the exercise of their own 'free will' justify God to 'the universe' by their having evolved to a state of perfection that gives God the moral authority to eradicate 'sin' through a pogrom that will rock the universe in its destructive force in forever ending the lives of creatures of lessor evolutionary attainment, and that the delay in the return of Jesus since 1844 is the time necessary for such perfection to evolve in the human species.
... or something like that ...
Resolving to accept salvation as in every way utterly and mysteriously a fiat creation will go a long way in taking the edge off the Genesis conversation.
Thank you Kim for showcasing John's linking creation and soteriology for us!
Bill Garber
Oh thank you for this article! I am blessed in the reading.
I am encouraged that without an understanding of the creation account informing my world view, I cannot have a saving relationship with the Gracious God who recreates me in His Image. Both acts of creation and recreation are supernatural and miraculous!
God isn't interested in behavior modification, He's interested in life transformation!
To the anti literal proponents, how is God going to create the new heaven and new earth?
The work God did independant of his creatures at creation was perfect. It was not just a legal claim, he beheld and it was good/perfect. I find your analogy contradictory in the sense that the work God does in us will leave us with sin somehow. I believe that as the work at creation was perfect God's work in us will leave us perfect. GOD Does not work in people and leave the job half done. If it is God's work it will be perfect and complete as he is able to keep us from falling and present us faultless.
@ Andrew Hanson,
"In the Adventist Review of December 15, 2011, in his essay, GENESIS, there is a breathtaking declaration by Lael Ceasar that the universe is 6000 years old, give or take a year or two.
“Before Genesis 1:1 there was only God. There was no sky, no sea, no flower, no tree, no bird, no you, no me. There was no galaxy or cosmos, no item or atom, no gravity or density. There was only the singularity of eternal God.”"
I personally find this view as an exta-biblical concept dictated by the punctuation added to the text to "help" it's readability. And it totally limits the idea of an eternal, creative God.
"in the beginning" ...of what, of who? Of substance, of time? How long ago was the beginning?
There is absolutely no evidence definitively, in scripture, saying anything on the matter.
If God is eternal, and eternally creative, then I have to believe He has been in the business of creating for millions of years.
How long was this earth "without form and void"?
As the text states, the Godhead came to this earth and hovered over an already existing planet, existing in darkness.
For me this is one of the problems fundamentalists have with their position of "everything is 6000 years old", when it is only the creation on THIS PLANET that is 6000 years old.
God isn't interested in behavior modification, He's interested in life transformation!
To tapiwa mushaninga:
You asked: "how is God going to create the new heaven and new earth?"
The answer: The same way he created the orignal heaven and the original earth.
Hope that answers your question,
an anti literal proponent.
.
"'Imagine trying to believe that scientists are used by the Devil to destroy the faith of children.'
They are, but they don't know it."
But Pago does. Hallelujah!
Kim,
can you tell us why a Christian shouldn't venture to question the inspiration of all Scripture?
If a true Christian needs to believe everything the Bible authors believed, why don't Adventists believe that Enoch wrote the book of Enoch?
BTW, according to what time zone was it morning, on the second day of creation? Was the dome of the sky created on multiple days of creation, let's say while it was noon at Jerusalem, still the night of the first day at San Francisco and probably the evening of the third day at Auckland, New Zealand? Or was the dome of the sky created gradually, let's say at noon above every meridian, which would mean that God had a 24 hour working day?
The Biblical authors believed infertility was exclusively a female problem. I hope all Adventists believe likewise, contrary to what delusional, Satanic doctors tell them.
Shall I go on? :)
TO MARTIN.
CAN YOU BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC. Will it be a process that takes a very long time? A process that includes death?
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." — F. Scott Fitzgerald
Graeme
Well, I propose Adventists should be both creationists and evolutionists, unless they want to be thought of as stupid.
To tapiwa mushaninga:
No I can not be more specific. This is because it is not clear exactly how God created all this in the first place, therefore I can't give definate predictions as to what he will do in the future. It is only by faith that I believe he is still in control and it seems that is the situation going forward. Of course, ultimately neither the past nor the future are as consiquential as the present. I think I once heard a wise quote that said: "do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own".
Sorry I can't even predict the future of death, ultimately only God knows what that is, though it does seem that people will not die then.
Martin
Graeme,
It's true that you have to be smart to be able to lie or to be capable of empathy. But is lying always good? Don't we have to make certain painful decisions in spite of being empathetic? Is wishful thinking always good? Is doublethink always useful? What use would it be to me (or anyone else) to hold simultaneously that the SDA church is both "the remnant of God" and "the synagogue of Satan"? Or that God exists and doesn't? Or that you are a good and a lousy therapist? :)
Hi Bogdan,
"It's true that you have to be smart to be able to lie or to be capable of empathy. But is lying always good? Don't we have to make certain painful decisions in spite of being empathetic? Is wishful thinking always good? Is doublethink always useful? What use would it be to me (or anyone else) to hold simultaneously that the SDA church is both "the remnant of God" and "the synagogue of Satan"? Or that God exists and doesn't?"
I enjoy jazz, preferably 50s-60s Bebop. What you describe above is like free or acid jazz. I can't dig it.
@ dl: :)
@ graeme: Have you ever tried to figure out how much of your religion is a product of cognitive dissonance (originally described as a rationalization of the irrational)? Isn't it remarkable that the first book to propose the concept was titled "When Prophecy Fails"?
@ dl: Maybe you like Jacques Loussier better :)
@ graeme: Add to the mix the fact that historicism (the tradition of prophetic interpretation) is a joke, and that the Adventist interpretation of the 2300 "days" isn't even properly historicist, since no one can verify a heavenly event.
I meant "heavenly".
Thanks Elaine!...You have given me something to consider. I feel like I'm about to find a home for another one of my puzzle pieces
"Maybe you like Jacques Loussier better :)"
Righteous.
If I may, Is it at all common for one holding a AU MDiv to become a free thinker? Seems rather rare, viewing from my Longitude (~120 deg W). If so, is there a discussion lounge ('forum' :)) for such?... a place where conservatives don't stand shocked and appalled by open discussions? I'd be interested in that type of site. I think I found your wordpress blog. Couldn't get anywhere in that I'm..... mono-lingual.
Cheers.
No, I can't imagine it's too common :) The MDiv in particular is a professional degree. Most want it because they want a career. I did it for pragmatic reasons too (other than looking for a career as a pastor), and for the freedom it allowed me to pursue all my theological interests. I've spent most of the last six years back in Romania, and I've been involved in an "open source church" (a discussion forum) and have written a number of blogs (on church law, Biblical exegesis, family psychology) - all in Romanian. Some of the most theologically fruitful public dialogue (akin to the medieval disputations, if you will) I've had was with a former professor of mine at the Romanian seminary (who also has a large internet footprint).
I've contemplated writing in English for a long time now. Still haven't made up my mind. I'm sure there are Adventist pastors whose views differ from the "official" line. And I know of at least a couple of my former classmates who are atheists (not in the ministry). It's a growing thing.
One would hope that most people who receive a post graduate degree in religion would come away with a bit more sophisticated understanding of the topic then what Bogdan has; whether they maintain belief or not. He is about as coherent on religion as a teenager who just discovered atheism and is combing the internet for every obscure and inane argument against God that he can find. I would have more respect for him if stuck to the arguments like "Why a Good God and a bad world" sure it's old and cliched, but there's a reason for that - it's actually a challenging argument. There's a reason you don't hear the one about God eating Veal very, because it's not a challenge for anyone with more than an elementary understanding of religion. If by "Free thinking" you mean he has freed himself from thinking you might have a point.
On another note it's interesting to hear atheists speak of themselves as free thinkers. The logical position for a meta-physical naturalist is to not believe in free choice.There is no evidence that free choice is not an illusion, and as far as I can tell no way to ever prove it. In order to prove that there's free choice you would have to show completely identical organisms with identical forces operating upon them, making two different choices. Otherwise, the different circumstances or the difference in the organisms could be given as the reason for the different "choice." Thus it can be said that choices are merely the sum total of external and internal forces. From a naturalistic scientific approach this makes the most sense - we would not expect identical causes operating on two identical organisms to produce a different cause.Therefore, if we rewind time to before a "choice"was made and don't change the person or the circumstances, we would not expect the possibility of a different "choice," meaning there is no free choice in the natural universe as we understand it. In order for a choice to truly be free there would have to be the possibility that a particular person can stand at particular point in time and choose "A" or "B" meaning that that the only deciding difference between them having chosen "A" or "B" is the choice, meaning the choice is a cause without cause. That doesn't exist in the natural world of cause and effect and there's no reason for a metaphysical naturalist to think that it does exist.
Therefore, the atheist has no reason to believe anyone person is more of a free-thinker then another. They should not believe we have a choice in what we believe. Many atheists do not take this logical conclusion, however, because it kind of ruins the fun in being an atheist. Many atheists seem to take great pride in the idea that they are the smartest person in the room. Well, if no-one has a choice in what they believe then we're all equal. Some of the smarter atheists have recognized the problems with free-will. Others are atheists, out of convenience, and do not follow its' logic to its' bitter conclusion.
JM,
If my questions are sooo unsophisticated, would you please offer the answers? I take no pride in being the smartest person in the room :) Actually, I have no way of knowing which one of us is the smartest. And I would find that information utterly irrelevant.
Have you asked me what I think of "free will"? "Free thinker" is just a label, not a statement about the nature of freedom.
Or, let's talk sophisticated. What do you know about the apophatic tradiotion in Christian theology? How do you think it compares to the sufism of Ibn Arabi? Do you find better explanations for the derivation of plurality from oneness?
I should have clarified. The comment about free will was inre to DL's comment. I suppose one could just use it as a label, but the implication is that those who are not unbelievers are not free thinkers, which certainly implies free will. What DO you think about free will? As to answering your questions, I don't really get where the question lies. I have been as skeptical as Descarte, and even was essentially an atheist for a while over the question of omnipotence, benevolence and evil. Whether God did or did not eat veal never troubled me, I'm really not sure why it does you.
"Or, let's talk sophisticated. What do you know about the apophatic tradiotion in Christian theology? How do you think it compares to the sufism of Ibn Arabi? Do you find better explanations for the derivation of plurality from oneness?"
I don't question your superior knowledge of religion. What seems questionable with your focus on such obscure things such as God and veal, is your ability to think outside a very narrow box and understand theology systematically. You probably have 100 times the puzzle pieces I do, but I don't get your method to putting them together.
"the implication is that those who are not unbelievers are not free thinkers"
There is no such implication.
"What DO you think about free will?"
That it's a useful fiction, with the potential of actually providing some freedom :) How do you define freedom?
"Whether God did or did not eat veal never troubled me, I'm really not sure why it does you."
It doesn't trouble me at all, and it's not in itself a reason for disbelief. It's just important to realize that there is no consensus whatsoevere as to what God might be. And that points to the origins of theology.
Btw, I have asked many other questions.
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
"...to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them; to use logic against logic..."- G. Orwell Nineteen Eighty-Four
Yeah, welcome to 'doublethink', welcome to Oceania! :-)