Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament

A Book-by-Book Survey

Vanhoozer, Kevin J.

• Editorial: Baker Academic
• Año: 2008
• ISBN:
  9781441202024
• Categoría: Theologie & Religion
• Categoría: Bibelkritik & -auslegung

The groundbreaking Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible ( DTIB ) introduced readers to key names, theories, and concepts in the field of biblical interpretation. It has been well received by pastors and students, won book awards from Christianity Today and the Catholic Press Association, and was named the ECPA 2006 Christian Book of the Year. Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament features key articles from DTIB, providing readers with a book-by-book theological reading of the Old Testament. The articles are authored by leading scholars, including Daniel I. Block, Tremper Longman III, J. Gordon McConville, Walter Moberly, Richard Schultz, and Gordon J. Wenham. This handy and affordable text will work particularly well for students in Old Testament/Bible survey courses, pastors, and lay readers.

1

Genesis

GORDON J. WENHAM

Introduction

By its very position as the first book of the Bible, Genesis (Greek: “origin”) has been the focus of more attention than most other parts of the OT. It sets the scene for the rest of Scripture and is one of the books most quoted in the NT. Genesis orients the Bible reader to study the following books with appropriate assumptions about their context and theology. Its narratives have been an inspiration to countless authors and artists. Even in today’s secular West, its stories and themes are still familiar.

But familiarity is no guarantee of interpretative integrity. Texts used out of context are liable to be misunderstood and misused, so here, as elsewhere in this dictionary, the aim is to understand Genesis both as a text of its time and as a key witness in the canon of Holy Scripture.

History of Interpretation

“The early chapters of Genesis had arguably a greater influence on the development of Christian theology than did any other part of the Old Testament” (Louth xxxix). Early Christian writers, following the lead of the NT, drew heavily on the opening chapters of Genesis to explain the doctrines of creation and the fall. The typology of Christ as the second Adam, who triumphed where the first Adam failed, was very important in patristic theology. Vital too was the understanding of humanity created in the image of God. Though this image was marred in the fall, God’s ultimate purpose was its restoration in the new creation.

Symbolism was important in early Christian interpretation of Genesis, but that is not to say that they took the stories allegorically. They were accepted as literal accounts of the origin of the cosmos, just as the patriarchal narratives that follow them were understood historically. The problems posed by modern science did not trouble Christian interpreters till the nineteenth century. The Reformers and their immediate successors continued the same essentially literal approach to Genesis, with less emphasis on the symbolic dimensions of the book. Throughout this time it was assumed that Moses was the author of Genesis.

From the seventeenth century and the dawn of the Enlightenment, however, these traditional views began to be questioned. Spinoza in his Tractatus theologico-politicus (1670) suggested that Ezra had compiled the Pentateuch from Mosaic materials. A landmark for the discussion of Genesis was Astruc’s Conjectures on the Memoires Used by Moses to Compile Genesis (1753), which proposed that Genesis was compiled from several parallel sources. This idea that Genesis and the other books of the Pentateuch were composed of various sources was intensely debated throughout the nineteenth century. Thanks to the brilliant advocacy of Julius Wellhausen in Prolegomena to the History of Israel (1878), a form of the documentary hypothesis came to be widely accepted by biblical scholars. This approach distributes Genesis into three main sources, J (Yahwist, 950 BCE), E (Elohist, 850 BCE), and P (Priestly, 500 BCE). These three sources were combined successively, so that Genesis reached its final form in the fifth century BCE, about 800 years after Moses. This entailed a quite skeptical approach to the content of Genesis. The accounts of the patriarchs do not reflect their own historical situation, “but only of the time when the stories about them arose. . . . This later age is here unconsciously projected . . . into hoar antiquity, and is reflected there like a glorified mirage” (Wellhausen 319).

While historical skepticism was battering the patriarchs, scientific discovery was undermining the traditional understanding of Gen. 1–11. Early Christian writers read these chapters more as narrative theology than as history, but nevertheless tended to assume that the chronology of Genesis was credible. But the development of geology indicated that the earth originated much earlier than 4004 BCE, as Archbishop Ussher had supposed in the seventeenth century. This made the interpretation of the genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11 problematic. Further discovery showed that the processes of creation had probably taken many millions of years, not six days. And Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) led many to conclude not only that the timescale of Genesis was wrong, but also that its ultimate assertion, “God created the heavens and the earth” (1:1), was misleading. Chance mutation was a sufficient explanation of the diversity of life on earth: the idea of a creator was superfluous and indeed just the superstition of a less-enlightened era.

This dismissal of Genesis and its theology as just the misguided notions of an ignorant age seemed to be confirmed by texts from ancient Nineveh of a flood story similar to Gen. 6–9. G. A. Smith deciphered and announced the Gilgamesh tablet 11 in 1872 and published it the next year. Though Smith was no skeptic, works by him and others led many to regard Gen. 1–11 as just another ancient oriental myth, with no more credibility or authority than the creation myths of any other people. The nineteenth-century intelligentsia concluded that Western science is the source of real truth.

The twentieth century was kinder to Genesis. Although for most of the century the documentary hypothesis with its late dating of the sources reigned supreme, there was a concerted attempt by scholars to find early authentic elements in these sources. Alt and Westermann argued that elements of the promises to the patriarchs went back to very early times. Scholars well-versed in archaeology and comparative Semitics (Albright; Speiser; de Vaux) found many parallels between the names and customs of Genesis and those of early-second-millennium Mesopotamia. This allowed them to argue that the stories of Genesis contain more historical information than their date of composition might have led one to expect. Though more skeptical voices (Van Seters; Thompson) have been raised in the late twentieth century, the archaeological evidence still tends to speak in support of Genesis (Millard and Wiseman).

The discovery of yet more ancient texts paralleling Gen. 1–11 (Sumerian King List, Flood Story, and the Atrahasis epic, among others) has led to the recognition that Genesis is not simply reproducing the ideas of surrounding cultures. At least at the theological level, it is contesting them fiercely (see below on “The Message of Genesis”).

Finally, the last quarter of the twentieth century has witnessed many assaults on the documentary hypothesis (e.g., Whybray), so that it is now widely agreed that a better explanation of the growth of the Pentateuch ought to be found. Meanwhile, a vogue for final-form canonical readings has swept through biblical studies, including work on Genesis. This has bypassed much of the debate about sources and led to scholars asking about the structure and message of the books in their extant form. Though some of this work is driven more by literary concerns than by theological interest, it has often revealed some very instructive points about the theology of the book.

The Message of Genesis

Like many other books, Genesis has suffered from attempts to read its parts separately. This is most obvious among commentators who accept the documentary hypothesis. The Yahwist’s (J) love of simple anthropomorphic descriptions of God is contrasted with the Priestly writer’s (P) lofty transcendental approach. Whereas P tells of God speaking, in the Elohistic (E) source God tends to reveal himself in dreams. In commentators wedded to this theory of distinct sources, it is unusual to find much attempt to describe the theology of the book as a whole, to see these different emphases in polyphonic harmony as opposed to clashing dissonance.

More traditional readers of Genesis have also been guilty of directing more attention to one portion of the book than another. Christian commentators tend to devote disproportionate attention to Gen. 1–11 because of its importance in NT and later theologies. Jewish readers, on the other hand, are more interested in the stories of the patriarchs because they tell of the origins of the Jewish people and their claim to the land of Israel.

If we are to be fair to the text, however, we must be wary of privileging one part of the book over another. We should look at individual parts, but it is necessary to integrate the message of one part into the overall picture.

The Structure of Genesis

The coherence of the book is demonstrated by its carefully articulated structure. The opening creation account (1:1–2:3) is followed by ten sections, each headed by the same (toledoth) title: “These are the generations/descendants of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; “story,” 37:2 NRSV). The sections alternate between extended narratives, such as chapters 2–4 and 37–50, and terse genealogies, such as chapters 5 and 36. If extended narratives are compared, such as the career of Abraham (chs. 12–25) alongside that of Jacob (chs. 25–35), certain similarities emerge, suggesting a typological reading. This is particularly evident in the comparison of Adam and Noah, where the latter is clearly a second-Adam figure. Like Adam, he is the father of the whole human race; and like Adam, he sins (9:20–27).

Keywords form another device linking and unifying the book of Genesis. The terms “bless” and “blessing” are used more often in Genesis than in any other book of the Bible. At creation, God blesses birds, fish, humankind, and the Sabbath, but it is preeminently the patriarchs who are blessed. Indeed, Abraham’s name contains two of the three consonants in the word “bless” (barakh), suggesting that he is the incarnation of blessing. A second key term in Genesis is “seed” or “offspring” (zera‘), first used of human seed in 3:15 and then frequently in the promises to the patriarchs. The third important word is “land/earth,” first occurring in 1:1 and often again in the patriarchal promises.

These keywords tie the introductory eleven chapters to the following stories about the patriarchs. They cluster thickly in 12:1–3: “bless/ing” occurs five times, “land/earth” three times, and the whole passage revolves round the promise of descendants: “a great nation.” Genesis 1–11 tells of the disarray between the nations; 12:3 declares that in Abraham all the nations will find blessing. The call of Abraham is the answer to the problems of the world.

The Sections of Genesis

To grasp the message of Genesis more exactly, however, we need to examine the contribution of each section in more detail. It falls into three distinct sections:

1. First Exposition: The Hexaemeron, 1:1–2:3

2. Second Exposition: The Protohistory, 2:4–11:26

3. The Core: The Patriarchs, 11:27–50:26

The opening expositions not only give the background to the core; they also foreshadow its themes.

The Hexaemeron

The magnificent overture tells of God creating the cosmos in six days (hence the Greek title “Hexaemeron,” “six days [of creation]”) and gives the first exposition of the theology of Genesis. Its first verse, “In the beginning God,” mentions not a pantheon but only one God, who takes the initiative and orders the whole of creation. Implicitly, this rules out polytheism, the general belief of antiquity.

Second, this one God is sovereign. There is no fight with competing deities, as in other creation myths. God simply speaks, and there is light, dry land appears, and fish swarm in the sea. This is a God whose word effects what is spoken. The God who spoke in creation is the God who spoke to the patriarchs and who will do what he promised them.

Third, not only is this one God almighty, but also the celestial bodies— such as the sun, moon, and stars, worshipped by much of the ancient world—are merely creatures. Indeed, the significance of the attention given to the creation of these bodies and the dry land is that they are vital for human existence.

Fourth, the Hexaemeron climaxes with the creation of human beings in the image of God. Everything builds to this point, and God himself draws the attention of the rest of creation to it by inviting the heavenly host to watch the creation of the human race: “Let us make man in our image” (1:26). Humankind is not only blessed but also encouraged to propagate: “Be fruitful and multiply” (1:28 NRSV).

Here the contrast with Babylonian thought is again evident. In the Atra-hasis epic, the creation of humanity is an afterthought, to supply the gods with food; later the gods regret making humans and therefore curb human fertility. Genesis, on the contrary, sees God supplying human beings with food and encouraging their proliferation.

Finally, the Hexaemeron concludes with God resting on the seventh day, another unique feature of this account. The implication is clear: since human beings are made in God’s image, they too should rest on the seventh day. The erratic patterns of ancient pagan festivals and holidays are replaced by a weekly Sabbath, on which not only God rests but also his creatures, humankind and beasts (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:14), must rest as well. The goal of creation is thus rest and peace, not ceaseless activity: this is a vision reaffirmed in Jacob’s blessing (Gen. 49).

The Protohistory

The second exposition, or Protohistory (2:4–11:26), simultaneously reaffirms the ideals of Gen. 1 and explains how the present sin-dominated world emerged. The Garden of Eden was a place of harmony, where a benevolent Creator provided all humankind’s needs: water, food, animals, and companionship. First, 1:28 urges humankind to be fruitful and multiply; then, 2:21–25 portrays the archetypal marriage, in which God creates the perfect bride and presents her to Adam. Yet in a world where humanity lacks nothing, Adam and Eve break the one injunction given to them, and their cosmos turns to chaos.

Their relationship of mutual help and companionship turns sour. The harmony between humankind and beast now becomes a deadly struggle: “He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (3:15 RSV). Since the serpent will suffer in the head and the man only in his heel, the text clearly predicts the eventual triumph of man over beast, of humankind over the power of evil; but the focus of the text is on the ongoing violence within creation. Humankind will battle not just with animals, but also with plant life while struggling to grow food rather than weeds (3:18). And the result of it all is death (3:19).

Death comes quickly in chapter 4: Cain kills Abel, and L...