I have not done a book giveaway in a while. As it turns out I have several books I have been setting aside for a time such as this. In fact, I get occasional emails from readers wondering when I am going to give away another… today is that day.
As I mentioned in the original review, Manifold Beauty is a biblical-theological reading of Genesis 1. Each chapter represents a unique theological interpretation of the creation story. Although the authors do not deny Genesis 1 is a literal creation story, they are more interested in the theology of the creation story than the mechanics of creation. Although the principal topic is Genesis 1, the chapters provide a full canonical perspective for each theological topic.
In the introduction, Davidson and Turner are clear that none of their suggested layers are entirely new, each layer draws on previous scholarship. They argue the themes presented in this book are complementary, they all “contribute to and reinforce the unified message of Genesis 1” (11). The authors agree with the Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy but understand a distinction between the literal meaning and a literalistic interpretation. In the full review, I summarize the seven theological layers covered in Manifold Beauty, so read that post for more details on the book.
If you want a free copy of this book, leave a comment with your name and email (if it is not in your profile already) so I can contact you if you win. I will put all the names in a spreadsheet, randomize them, then use a random number generator to select a winner on November 15, 2021 (one week from today).
If you don’t win this book, check back for another giveaway starting November 15.
Davidson, Gregg and Kenneth J. Turner. The Manifold Beauty of Genesis 1: A Multi-Layered Approach. Grand Rapids, Mich. Kregel, 2021. 210 pp. Pb; $22.99. Link to Kregel Academic
This new book on Genesis 1 from Kregel Academic represents a biblical theological reading of Genesis one. Each chapter in The Manifold Beauty of Genesis 1 represents a theological interpretation of the creation story. Although they do not deny Genesis 1 is a literal creation story, the authors are more interested in the theology of the creation story than relating the seven days of creation to any scientific theory. Although the principal topic is Genesis 1, the chapters provide a full canonical perspective for each theological topic.
Gregg Davidson is a professor and chair of the School of Geology and Geological Engineering at the University of Mississippi. He contributed to The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth (Kregel 2016). Kenneth Turner is professor of Old Testament and biblical languages at Toccoa Falls College. His Ph.D. dissertation was published as The Death of Deaths in the Death of Israel: Deuteronomy’s Theology of Exile (Wipf & Stock, 2010) and edited the Daniel I. Block festschrift (Eisenbrauns, 2013).
The first two chapters of this book lay out their method. Using the metaphor of geological layers, the authors suggest scripture often contains many layers of truth. For example, Isaiah’s messianic prophecies can be interpreted as a prediction of a king who will break the power of the oppressor (Isaiah 9:1-7). But those same prophecies include the suffering servant (Isaiah 52:13-53:12). The second chapter offers a second analogy for a theological reading of Genesis. Comparing the genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, they argue that both are true, even if there are some differences. Ancient eastern cultures often use numbers symbolically in ways that western culture does not. That Matthew has three groups of fourteen in his genealogy and Luke has seventy-seven names from God to Jesus is significant theologically. “Truth claims of the Bible should not be measured against literary norms of a culture 2000 years removed” (20). Drawing the analogy to the creation story in Genesis 1, the authors wonder about the separation of light and darkness twice in the chapter. How can there be light (1:3-5) before God creates the sun (1:14-18)? The numbers three and seven are pervasive in the creation story. Both observations point to the theology underlying the creation story.
In the introduction, the authors are clear that none of their suggested layers are entirely new. This is true, each of their suggested layers draws on previous scholarship, as demonstrated by footnotes to both ancient and contemporary literature. They argue the themes presented in this book are complementary, they all “contribute to and reinforce the unified message of Genesis 1” (11). The authors agree with the Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy, but understand a distinction between the literal meaning and a literalistic interpretation.
A potential objection to a theological reading of Genesis 1 is the motivation to harmonize Scripture and science. The authors point out that literary understandings of Genesis 1 were popular long before apparent conflicts were raised by science. Both Origin and Augustine believed in the authority of Scripture but also wrote figuratively on the days of creation. In addition, many of the biblical scholars they cite in the course of the book specifically disavow evolution (39). Some readers may be challenged by the assertion that Genesis 1 can teach seven different themes. For example, how can the days in Genesis 1 be literal, but not literal? How can the days be both sequential and not sequential? Throughout the book, the authors stress that these are not seven competing views of Genesis 1, but layers of meaning that are all present in the text. They do not want to assert that one is more important than another, including a literal reading of the seven days of creation.
The rest of the book explores seven layers of meaning in Genesis 1, highlighting various aspects of biblical theology. For each layer, the authors present a theological reading of the creation story, followed by several challenges and responses. For example, “this view is new, so it can’t be true,” or “this view is too complicated to be plausible” (140-41). In each case, they briefly deal with potential objections to the theological reading. Chapters end with a series of discussion questions useful for classroom or small group Bible study.
First, Genesis 1 can be read as a song. In this chapter, the authors highlight the literary and poetic framework of the first chapter of Genesis. There is a parallel structure to the days of creation, with the first three days dealing with the formlessness of creation by giving it proper form, and the second three days dealing with the emptiness of creation, filling it with various things (birds, fish, animals, humans). I first encountered this idea in Allen Ross, Creation and Blessing (Baker, 1996), although this is a common view.
Second, the creation story can be read as an analogy. Although the content of this chapter is the biblical theology of work. In Exodus 20:8-11, Israel was to consider the creation week a model, or an analogy, for the human rhythm of work and rest (43) and the idea of Sabbath is embedded in the creation story itself. The authors will return to the idea of Sabbath in their chapter on Genesis 1 as calendar.
Third, Genesis 1 is often described as a polemic against the gods of the ancient Near East. Genesis 1 is an origin story which is in some ways comparable to Babylonian, Egyptian or Mesopotamia mythology. But there are important distinctions. For example, Genesis highlights human worth as image bearers of God. Another major distinction is God considers his creation good, something missing from ancient near eastern creation stories.
Fourth, the creation story is often related to a larger theme in biblical theology, covenant. Following Daniel Block’s Covenant: The Framework of God’s Plan (Baker, 2021), the authors observe that the idea of covenant plays a critical role in the biblical narrative. After comparing the Mosaic covenant with the form of a Hittite vassal treaty, they briefly describe Abrahamic and Noahic covenant. For many, the creation covenant might be described as a “royal land grant.” Adam is like a vassal placed in the Garden of Eden to perform certain tasks for the sovereign. In a land grant, when the vassal fails, they are exiled from the land. When Adam broke the clear commandment of God, he was exiled from the Garden of Eden. This has become a pervasive theme in biblical theology in recent years, for example, see Matthew S. Harmon, Rebels and Exiles: A Biblical Theology of Sin and Restoration (IVP Academic 2020) or L. Michael Morales, Exodus Old and New: A Biblical Theology of Redemption (IVP Academic 2020)
Fifth, Genesis 1 is sometimes compared to a temple. Following Greg Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission (IVP Academic 2004) or John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (Zondervan, 2009), the authors compare the biblical description of creation with ancient Near Eastern temples, especially the idea of a cosmic mountain where the gods lived. They point out many texts drawn from the whole that compare the original creation to the garden of Eden. This cosmic temple is the unique place of God’s presence as well as the place of God’s throne, where his priestly inhabitants live and serve him. There are several parallels between descriptions of the Garden of Eden and Solomon’s temple (helpfully summarized in several charts). Looking ahead to the end of the canon of Scripture, they draw attention to the new heavens and new earth in Revelation 21-22 as a restoration of the original creation (see also Harmon’s Rebels and Exiles).
Sixth, Genesis 1 can be read in the context of calendars, or, to put it differently, a biblical theology of time. The chapter surveys the importance of festivals and liturgical dates in the law and draws analogies to how these times are associated with Noah’s flood, the Exodus and the wilderness wanderings, and the creation story. Once again, several charts helpfully illustrated these points. The chapter follows Michael LeFebvre’s Liturgy of Creation (IVP Academic, 2019).
Seventh, the creation story introduces an important theme found through the Old Testament, Land. The authors are following John Sailhamer and Seth Postell in this chapter, but there are other biblical theologies of land, such as Walter Bruggeman’s The Land: Place As Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith (Fortress, 1977), Oren R. Martin, Bound for the Promised Land (IVP Academic, 2015) and Benjamin L. Gladd, From Adam and Israel to the Church (IVP Academic, 2019). In this chapter, the authors draw some analogies from the Garden of Eden to the promised land, but the main comparison is between Adam and Israel. Just as Adam was to serve as a priest in the temple (the garden of Eden) Israel was to be a kingdom of priests. Comparisons between Genesis 1 and the Law are summarized in two detailed charts (150-51). Adam’s failure anticipates Israel’s failure to be priests, but it also opens the door to future messianic hope. This is signaled as early as Genesis 3:15, but also in the blessing of Jacob (Genesis 49), and the rescue from Egypt (Exodus 15), the second generation in the wilderness (Numbers 24), and in the curses and blessings of the law (Deuteronomy 32- 33).
Conclusion. Each of these seven layers are excellent introductions to a full monograph on the biblical theology of covenant, temple, or land, etc. These are all popular biblical theology themes, as illustrated in the New Studies in Biblical Theology series or the Essential Studies on Biblical Theology series (both IVP Academic).
As expressed in the introduction to the book, the authors hope readers will appreciate the grandeur and beauty of the creation story after reading this book. But they also want readers to recognize that a proper understanding of Genesis 1 is not limited to a single perspective. The creation story reflects the manifold beauty of God’s creation in its diverse theological aspects.
Thanks to Kregel Academic for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.
Goldingay, John. Genesis. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2020. 808 pp. Hb. $59.99. Link to Baker Academic
The goal of the first volume of the Baker Commentary on the Old Testament: Pentateuch is to be critically engaged and theologically sensitive. Although less important for a commentary on Genesis, this series on the Pentateuch will consider advances on how the legal corpora relates to narrative. John Goldingay is a prolific writer well known for his WBC Commentary on Daniel and this ICC Commentaries n Isaiah 40-55 (with David Payne) and Isaiah 56-66. He has previously contributed a three-volume commentary in this series on the Psalms for this series published by Baker Academic and his Hosea-Micah volume is due in January 2021. In addition to a popular commentary on each First Testament book (to use his preferred title for the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible) and his own translation of the First Testament, Goldingay also wrote a massive three-volume Old Testament Theology (IVP Academic, 2003-2009).
Goldingay outlines his method for writing this commentary in the introduction. Commentaries in this series begin with a fresh translation of the Hebrew text. Goldingay uses his own The First Testament (IVP Academic, 2018). He then wrote the commentary with “what I had in my head and my imagination” using only the latest Hebrew text (BHQ). The initial commentary used no secondary resources at all. He then read commentaries in several categories: early Jewish interpretation (LXX, Jubilees, the Targums) and interpretation early Christian interpretation (Theodotion, the Vulgate, Jerome, Origen, and Augustine). He then turned to medieval Jewish interpreters such as the Genesis Rabbah, Rashi and Qimchi, and Reformation Christian interpreters (Calvin, Luther, and Willet), nineteenth-century interpreters such as Keil and Delitzsch, Skinner, twentieth-century interpreters such as Von Rad, Westermann, Wenham, and finally twenty-first-century interpretation, including African and Asian American commentators. After this reading, he modified and expanded his draft with the help of his wife Kathleen. He does not indicate where his views agree or disagree with the majority or with recent scholarship. The result is a readable commentary that does not get bogged down with minute details of the text yet reflects both the best Jewish and Christian scholarship.
The introduction to the book is quite short, only twelve pages. This might disappoint some readers, since Goldingay almost completely ignores critical questions about the origin of Genesis. He suggests the canonical form of Genesis dates to after the fall of Judah to Babylon in 587 B.C. although it certainly makes use of earlier tradition. “It is implausible to think of Genesis being created from scratch in the Babylonian” (8). In the body of the commentary usually does not refer to the latest critical views on the origin of Genesis, “not least because they will not be the latest critical conclusions by the time you read this commentary” (9). Nevertheless, occasionally he says things like “according to traditional source criticism…” (364) in the body of the commentary.
Like most outlines of Genesis, Goldingay divides the book into four parts based on the book’s use of genealogies (tolodoth): Genesis 1:1-11:26 (The lines of descent of the heavens and the earth); 11:27-25:11 (Terah’s line of descent, focusing on Abraham); 25:12-35:29 (Isaac’s line of descent, focusing on Jacob); 36:1-50:26 (Jacob’s line of descent, focusing on Joseph).
The bulk of the introduction deals with defining what he means by story, and how story relates to history. Goldingay suggests “the Holy Spirit inspired an author or authors to use their imagination to tell their factually based story” (5). The trouble is determining what is based on facts and what is based on the imagination of the author. Goldingay doesn’t seem to care: he believes the text of Genesis is what the Holy Spirit and the human author wanted us to study. Questions of historicity are therefore not of interest in the commentary. He has a similar view on the date of composition for the book of Genesis. “One cannot base and understanding of Genesis on knowing the date of its stories or on seeing it as an expression of the ideology of a particular group or period in Israel’s history” (9).
Each section of the commentary begins with an overview of the new chapter/unit in Genesis. Some units are brief. Goldingay’s chapter on Genesis 21:22-34 is a mere five pages. Others cover entire chapters, such as the section on Genesis 24 (sixty-seven verses in twenty-eight pages). Goldingay’s translation follows with footnotes for lexical and textual issues (alternate readings found in the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, Targumim, etc.) These notes occasionally deal with technical matters of Hebrew syntax. The interpretation by subunits. Occasionally he does a few verses at the time. When referring to the original text, Hebrew appears in transliteration, but this is not a detailed commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis. Goldingay uses his footnotes to point readers to other interpretive voices. Often these are other Genesis commentaries, but it is not unusual to see references to Church Fathers, Jewish sources, Reformation commentators, or even Karl Barth.
In many sections, Goldingay concludes with a brief section entitled “Implications” where he treats historical or theological ramifications of the section, reception history or other canonical connections. For example, this section compares the Flood narrative in Genesis 6:9-8:22 with other ancient flood myths. He comments on the theological implications of God seeing and opening wombs in Genesis 29:31-30:24. On the Sarah and Hagar story (Genesis 16), Goldingay’s comments drawn on postcolonial studies which point out Hagar is an African woman. Surprisingly, he does not deal with Paul’s reception of this story in Galatians 4, but rather how Hagar’s story overlaps with Philemon and the return of the slave.
The book concludes with a forty-page bibliography and forty-four pages of indices (subject, author, and Scripture and other ancient writings).
Conclusion: In his introduction to the commentary series, Bill Arnold described this commentary series as a reliable resource for the church dealing with themes rooted in the Pentateuch. This commentary achieves that goal. Goldingay is an excellent writer, and the commentary is entertaining to read. For example, at the end of the section dealing with Jacob wrestling the angel in Genesis 32, he adds a footnote “or rather a thigh-note” on the use of this story to prohibit eating the sciatic nerve even though this is not found in the Torah (516). This commentary is a serious contribution to the study of the first book of the Bible and will be valuable for both students and pastors working on Genesis.
NB: Thanks to Baker Academic for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.
Allert, Craig D. Early Christian Readings of Genesis One: Patristic Exegesis and Literal Interpretation. BioLogos Books on Science and Christianity. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2018. 338 pp. Pb. $36.99 Link to IVP Academic
Craig Allert is a professor of religious studies at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia and an expert on early Christianity and the development of Christian doctrine. His 2002 monograph Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation: Studies in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 64; Leiden: E.J. Brill) discussed how the second century writer Justin understood Scripture.
This new book is the fourth in the BioLogos Books on Science and Christianity series published by IVP Academic. Allert addresses the use and abuse of early church writers to support certain views of Genesis 1. The main purpose of the book is to correct common misconceptions about what the church fathers meant by literal interpretation and “creation out of nothing.” Throughout the book Allert draws on material produced by Answers in Genesis (AiG), Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Creation Ministries International (CMI). Some of this material appears in popular formats, including blog posts. These organizations generally reject any higher critical approaches to exegesis and “appropriate the church fathers as advocates of a nascent creation science position” (107).
After a preliminary chapter outlining what he means by the church fathers, Allert offers several examples of “how not to read the fathers.” He provides several examples of popular writers on the issue of creation who claim the church fathers read Genesis one as referring to literal days, usually alongside the claim the Church considered the days in Genesis 1 to be literal, 24-hour days until the Enlightenment, Darwinism, and theological liberalism. For Allert, there are several problems with the use of the fathers by most Creationists. First, they proof-text and overgeneralize. For example, Creationists cite Basil as an example of young-earth creationism in the church fathers, then assume he represents the whole of the “church fathers” (without citing any other examples). Second, among conservative Christianity, there is a general lack of knowledge about the church fathers so it is almost impossible to quote them with any helpful context. As a result, writers who claim Basil was a literal six-day creationist are pulling proof-texts out of context and not taking into consideration everything else Basil said about reading Genesis 1.
In the third chapter of the book Allert discusses what the “literal interpretation” meant in Patristic exegesis. There is a popular misconception that a Patristic writer was either literal or allegorical (or spiritual) in their exegesis of Scripture. But as Allert demonstrates, the situation is more complicated than this strict dichotomy. Patristic writers often took notice of the plain meaning of a text, but then went on to create spiritual readings in order to challenge their listeners.
The main test case Allert uses in the book is Basil of Caesarea (329-379), specifically his book Hexameron (“six days”). Written around 370, the book is a series of sermons delivered during Lent on Genesis 1. The ninth sermon in the book is often cited by creationists as proof Basil interpreted the days of Genesis 1 as six literal days. But as Allert argues in this book, Basil is not attacking allegorical readings of Scripture, but “excessive allegorization” by the Manicheans (197). On closer examination, Basil uses the same method of reading Scripture as Origen (a church father usually vilified for his allegorical method!)
In the following two chapters of the book Allert examines two doctrines often cited as foundational by creationists; creation out of nothing (creation ex nihilo) and the literal day in Genesis 1. Creation out of nothing has been challenged as a theology not drawn from the Old Testament but rather constructed to respond to the eternal universe in Greek philosophy. For the literalness of the six days, Allert examines several oft-quoted church fathers and finds some support for reading the days as literal, 24-hour days. But there is nothing in Basil (for example) which indicates he thought Genesis 1 was giving a scientific (literal) description of creation (246).
Throughout the book Allert deals with the nature of creation and time. As the church accepted creation out of nothing as doctrine, Christian theologians and philosophers began to ask what God was doing before he created the universe. A possible answer to this question is my favorite line in this book: “he was getting hell ready for people who inquisitively peer into deep matters” (269). Allert examines Augustine’s view of time and eternity more closely in chapter seven. Most Christians have a sense “God is outside of time,” although likely drawn from C. S. Lewis rather than Augustine. Augustine argued God is eternal and created the world “with time” (273), and the days of creation are no more literal than God’s “rest” on the seventh day. Augustine cited John 5:17, “my father is working until now” as evidence God’s rest on the seventh day is not a literal time of rest (278). For Augustine, creation did not happen in “a time measured way” (287).
I have several comments about Allert’s book. First, I am convinced an allegorical method is not good exegesis when the text under examination is clearly not an allegory. For example, obviously Jotham’s fable in Judges 9 is some kind of an allegory, and there are figurative elements of Jesus’s parables, especially the Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13. Allert addresses this concern with an anecdote from John MacArthur who looked back on an early sermon he wrote as a “horrible” example of allegorizing a text (p. 108). I have to agree with MacArthur, that sort of exegesis is bad. Of course this opens up the question to what an ancient writer was trying to do with a text, but that is a topic for another book.
Second, Allert proves his case the ancient church fathers were not proto-creationists and current creationists ought to stop misinterpreting them. Selective citations in order to proof-text one’s view is dangerous, since there is plenty in Basil or Augustine which would not at all be acceptable to a modern conservative creation. But there is nothing in this book (or the church fathers) which anticipates other responses to Darwinism, such as progressive creationism (old earth creationism) or theistic evolution. Ancient writers read Genesis within their own worldview, a worldview which did not contend with modern science.
Third, Allert is correct to raise awareness the real problem is the nature of time and eternity. His discussion of Augustine’s view is important, but more theological and philosophical work needs to be done on God’s nature and his relationship with this universe. That creationists who hold to literal days in Genesis 1 do not worry too much about this issue is evident from the lack of citation of creationists in chapters 5-7 in this book.
This book is a necessary contribution to the ongoing discussion of Genesis 1. Allert corrects some serious misconceptions and offers a more contextual reading of Basil, Augustine and others who commented on Genesis 1 in antiquity.
NB: Thanks to IVP Academic for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.