Review of The Theology of the Book of Genesis by R. W. L. Moberly

I am not the first to review R. W. L. Moberly’s Theology of the Book of Genesis, the latest contribution to Cambridge University Press’ Old Testament Theology series. I find myself overwhelmingly in agreement with Ben’s assessment over at kilbabo, so I will attempt to avoid unnecessary repetition and explore a little further the uniqueness of this interesting yet frustrating book. Those who have not read Ben’s review are encouraged to read it in concert with my own.

Moberly, by his own admission, did not write a theology of the book of Genesis.

The discussion of the biblical text will necessarily be selective. . . . I am painfully aware of what is not included; for this I ask the reader’s indulgence (and forgiveness). What follows is a guide to, rather than a comprehensive coverage of, what theological understanding and appropriation of Genesis today may involve. (20)

Indeed, what Moberly demonstrates in this book is not simply what theological understanding and appropriation of Genesis today may involve, but what theological understanding and appropriation of any biblical text should involve. For this reason, the most valuable part of Moberly’s book is the introduction (though I hesitate to say that it is “worth the price of the book”). Moberly begins by briefly exploring the various ways in which the word “theology” has been understood historically, and asserts that one must “recover a more classic sense of theology, as an attempt to understand everything in the world in relation to God” (5), in order to truly arrive at a theology of Genesis.This is precisely what the book does.

Apart from his definition of “theology,” Moberly’s refusal to focus only on the text itself reflects his conviction that studying Genesis is not like studying other ancient texts. “Genesis is not a freestanding ancient text, like the Epic of Gilgamesh, but is part of the authoritative scriptures of synagogue and church, wherein there has been an unbroken history through the centuries of living with the text in a veriety of ways” (6). This admittedly confessional approach suggests that biblical theology cannot fail to account for the reader’s own context and how that context shapes the biblical text:

It follows from this that there is something intrinsically contextual and provisional about theological use of the biblical text. Theology is not a once-for-all exercise in finding the right words and/or deeds, but rather a continuing and ever-repeated attempt to articulate what a faithful understanding and use of the biblical text might look like in the changing circumstances of life. (19)

In a recent post, I include a quote from Mark Smith’s new book, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (review forthcoming), where I believes he does just this regarding the motif of God creating through violence. Moberly accomplishes this by focusing on specific texts and entering into dialogue with modern conversation partners regarding the issues raised by the text. For example, in his chapter “Genesis 1: Picturing the World,” Moberly engages in dialogue with Jon Levenson and the views he expresses in Creation and the Persistence of Evil, as well as Richard Dawkins and the views he expresses in River out of Eden: a Darwinian View of Life and The Blind Watchmaker: Why  the Evidence of Eveolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. Those interested in the intersection of faith and science will find this chapter to be a very exciting reading. As you can imagine, these encounters make Moberly’s book very relevant, but unfortunately, it does not help in shaping an overall theology of the book of Genesis.

It is worth mentioning for those interested in Genesis 12:1-3 that Moberly has proposed a reading that would challenge a long term consensus view of this passage. In summary:

The supposition that those who invoke Abraham in blessing actually receive the blessing invoked is a non sequitur that goes well beyond the meaning of the Genesis text. The textual concern is to assure Abraham that he really will be a great nation, and the measure of that greatness is that he will be invoked on the lips of others as  a model of desirability. The condition of othe rnations in their own right is not in view, beyond their having reason not to be hostile to Abraham. (155)

Overall, the book is well written, and it will certainly engage those who are interested in how the texts of Genesis treated in the book speak beyond their ancient horizon to our modern context. Moberly models an approach to Genesis, and the whole bible for that matter, that is engaging, relevant, and ultimately theological. While the book has a lot to offer, knowing that it is selective in what it addresses will help those who are interested in a comprehensive treatment of the theological message of Genesis not to get their hopes up.

Review of The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, Part Five

Immortality and Resurrection: Conflict or Complementarity?

In this final chapter, Barr discusses the line that has divided those who have been proponents of immortality and those who favor resurrection. Those who favor immortality speak of a soul that exists apart from the body and lives on even when the body ceases to live. Those who favor resurrection tend to reflect the modern view that man is a psychosomatic unity, and that life exists only insofar as the body exists.  He observes that these two camps have historically lived in conflict with one another. Barr examines the dynamics that have driven each of these camps and weighed the implications of their positions. His discussion is, as always, thoughful and thought provoking.

Barr concludes that the biblical material does not necessarily support one view over against another. For Barr, the biblical material is inclusive of a number of differing views:

We have seen that the Old Testament and the following period of Jewish thougth left various themes open: immortality of the soul, resurrection of some few, general resurrection, no resurrection at all, ‘eternal life’ earned and enjoyed here and now, and other eschatological schemes. (113-14)

His treatment of the story surrounding the Garden of Eden has sought to legitimize the perspective of immortality in light of the overwhelming emphasis presently (in his day) placed on resurrection.

Immortality, then, was on the biblical agenda from the very beginning, with Adam and Eve. in the Garden of Eden there was the tree of life. The human pair might just have got to that tree, but they did not, because God stopped them; no one was to enter the Garden, and the cherubim with flaming sword stood there to guard the gate. Humanity was not fit to come near the tree. Nevertheless the tree remained there in the garden. Later one came to redeem the defect of humanity. Immortality was brought to light. (116)

Reflections

Barr’s analysis of the Garden of Eden story has both strengths and weaknesses. Barr does an exceptional job of asking the types of questions people often never think to ask of this story. Sometimes, these questions are meaningful and lead to significant observations. In particular, Barr’s understanding of death (chapter 2) contributes significantly to correcting a misunderstanding of the theology of death in the Hebrew Bible. This leads him to reject the Augustinian reading of Paul that interprets the Genesis 3 as an ontological fall. His insight into these issues is particularly keen and worth engaging.

As to the thesis of his work, I remain unconvinced that immortality is the main concern of the Garden of Eden. I do not doubt that immortality is a theme that is not insignificant to the story, but Barr’s concern regarding the conflicting or complementary nature of immortality and resurrection in Scripture seems to have created a somewhat imbalanced reading of the Tree of Life over against the (more prominent) Tree of Knowledge. Much like the five Olympic rings, there are overlapping themes in the Garden of Eden story, none of which can claim to be the central or main theme of the text. Furthermore, it seems to me that the conclusion in Barr’s final chapter can be reached regardless of whether or not immortality is understood as the main concern of the Garden of Eden story. I don’t know how arguing this (instead of highlighting it as a theme in the story) helps him to arrive at his conclusion.

The book will prove an excellent resource for those interested in certain exegetical questions regarding the Garden of Eden story and especially the theology of death in the Hebrew Bible. Those interested in systematic theology will benefit from the discussion in the final chapter.

Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five

Master of Arts in Biblical Theology

I would like to propose a new type of Masters degree that focuses on preparing men and women to become competent interpreters of the Bible for any number of ministry vocations. I make this proposal at the end of my own degree, the Master of Divinity, in light of my personal dissatisfaction with using this degree as a springboard into doctoral studies. The alternatives to the M.Div degree, however, I find to be inadequate for various reasons. But I am more interested in offering my proposal than I am in bashing other degree programs. So here is my proposal:

Master of Arts in Biblical Theology (MABT)

Languages (18 hours)

• Hebrew A, B, Readings (9 hours)
• Greek A, B, Readings (9 hours)

Biblical Backgrounds and Methods (18 hours)

• Theological Research
• Issues in Canon and Theology
• Ancient Near Eastern World and History
• Second Temple World and History
• Ancient Biblical Interpretation
• Modern Biblical Interpretation

Genres and Literature of the Bible (18 hours)

• Narrative Literature of the Hebrew Bible
• Narrative Literature of the New Testament
• Prophetic Literature
• Wisdom Literature
• Apocalyptic Literature
• Epistolary literature

What are the strengths of this degree? This degree is designed around a holistic view of the Christian canon. I think we do ourselves a disservice by continually driving a wedge between Hebrew Bible and New Testament studies. This degree seeks to overcome this by requiring that students become familiar with all portions of the biblical  text, and on certain occassions by having students study them in tandem, studying them in a way that allows them to interact. For example, the Ancient Biblical Interpretation course would include (among other things) the phenomenon of biblical intertextuality, both of the HB using the HB and the NT using the HB. The Apocalyptic Literature course would include texts from the Hebrew Bible like Daniel and Zechariah and texts from the New Testament like Revelation. Also, built into the design of this course is the ability for schools to incorporate literature outside the biblical canon(s) into the lessons. The Apocalyptic Literature course would by no means be restricted to the biblical literature labeled apocalyptic. The Wisdom literature course could (should) include Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach. Additionally, the division of ancient and modern methods of biblical interpretation would help prevent the subordination of what ancient people were doing with Scripture to what we today do with Scripture. I find this problematic, and might explore this further in an upcoming post.

Are there any weaknesses to this program? There is no church history. I do feel that having an understanding of church history is important, but when the M.Div exalts church history over biblical history (not many M.Div programs–if any–put the same emphasis into their biblical history as they do their church history) they commit an unpardonable sin. I don’t feel that I have committed a mirror sin (under-emphasizing church history), because I don’t believe that subject belongs to the field of biblical theology. But more on this momentarily. There is also no systematic theology. Opps, I forgot to put this comment under strengths of the program (I’m just sayin’)! In all seriousness, historical and systematic theology should be taught in ministry degrees, not in biblical theology degrees. (This is assuming that systematics should be taught at all, something I don’t assume!) If this were to be adopted, then I believe we could completely rid ourselves of the M.Div degree and replace it with the combination of my proposed degree (MABT) and a Master of Ministry. Schools could offer them in tandem for those interested in ministry. Those interested in doctoral studies would have a more comprehensive and integrated foundation at the masters level to springboard them into Ph.D. programs.

What do you think? I would appreciate some feedback on this one.

A New Graduate School of Biblical Theology

The field of Biblical Theology, and more narrowly of Old Testament Theology, is of particular interest to me. I have heard of graduate programs in Bible, theology, and religion, but never one in Biblical Theology. Thus, I was a little excited to hear about a new graduate school of Biblical Theology.

A local Catholic university is responding to one of the Church’s greatest needs by opening a graduate school of biblical theology. The new graduate school at John Paul the Great Catholic University will open in September.

Before beginning their graduate-level studies, students will first complete a series of prerequisite courses in philosophy, theology and Scripture; by January 2010, they will begin working toward a master’s in biblical theology.

“The Church teaches that the Bible needs to be the soul of theology, but in a lot of places, you can get a degree in theology and only take one or two courses in Scripture,” said Michael Barber, who serves as the university’s professor of theology, Scripture and Catholic thought.

What makes the curriculum at the new school so unique, he explained, is that it will teach dogmatic, moral and liturgical theology with a “heavy scriptural emphasis” and require students to study the various books of the Bible in depth.

I know nothing about John Paul the Great Catholic University, but I find it very exciting that this school is starting a new graduate degree program emphasizing Biblical Theology. The program appears academically balanced and pastorally pragmatic. While the Roman Catholic perspective will make this degree most useful to those in the Catholic tradition, I wonder if this program will spark the interest of other protestant schools. While the M.Div is a good program, I think a program more focused on simply creating competent/critical biblical interpreters would be of greater service to those interested in ministry.

You can read more about the school and the new program at the school’s website.

The God Behind the Curtain – 2

Doug has responded to my own post about his thoughts on divine impassibility. One point of clarification, I am not exactly an OT scholar . . . yet. As a lowly M.Div student, I recognize that I must wait before I can accept such a title. We will see, come March or April, if any of the Ph.D. programs I am applying to think I am worthy of that path.

Doug seems to agree with my metaphorical use of the Wizard of Oz, so I will continue to use it. He does clarify, however, that “the anthropomorphisms reflect the experience of our relationship with God, but that the impassible transcendence of God represents the fruit of reflecting on those experiences so as to understand better what is being said.” This clarification seems to assume that “the experience of our relationship with God” does not correspond with “the impassible transcendence of God,” or perhaps we could say the God behind the curtain. This lack of correspondence (and I think it is important to clearly understand this) does not simply mean that there is more to God than Scripture reveals, but that what Scripture reveals (i.e. God suffers) can and occasionally should be cast aside for what is really being said (i.e. God does not suffer). Obviously there is more to God than what Scripture reveals. But I remain unconvinced that God’s God-ness will not correspond with what God has revealed. In other words, if God reveals himself in Scripture as someone who changes his mind and is moved by humanity, than I have no reason to assume that this does not correspond with the God behind the curtain.

Now let me be clear, it could very well be that there is a God behind the curtain who is not like the anthropomorphically revealed God of Scripture. I am not ruling that possibility out (though shouldn’t that possibility strike us as a little frightening??). Simply put, even if there is a God behind the curtain that does not correspond to the anthropomorphically revealed God of Scripture, how and where does Scripture encourage us to pursue this knowledge? If Scripture does not encourage us to pursue this knowledge, what justification could there be for pursuing this knowledge? And what is it precisely that enables us to arrive at this knowledge? Would this information not be considered revelation? Where or how do we receive this revealed knowledge of God if not in/by Scripture? All of these questions beg to be answered by those who argue that God should be understood differently than he is revealed in Scripture. I believe the burden of proof should lie with those who argue God is other than what he reveals himself to be.

Furthermore, are there no implications to the fact that “the anthropomorphisms reflect the experience of our relationship with God?” If the anthropomorphic God is in some way connected to our earthly experience of God, why then do we pursue to experience the God behind the curtain? Why does our liturgy and our prayers so often reject the anthropomorphically revealed God in exchange for the God behind the curtain? Why does the God behind the curtain become our spiritual anchor in life? Did God not reveal himself anthropomorphically for a reason? Could there be a reason behind the fact that he did not reveal himself as impassible (immutable, omni- . . . etc.)?

Doug also writes that “God cannot be acted on by any external force or human reaction in such a way that God’s active and creative love towards humankind can be turned aside.” On what basis could this statement actually be made? The story of the flood argues against such an understanding of God. God’s active and creative love (the latter of which would refer to God as the providential sustainer of creation) was indeed turned aside for humanity.

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” Gen 6:5-7

Fortunately, for the sake of humanity, we read that “Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD” (vs. 8). But notice, it is not God’s God-ness that preserves Noah and thus the human race, but rather it seems to me to be Noah’s righteousness and blamelessness that moves God (vs. 9) . In a similar situation, it is Moses’ pleading with God that preserves Israel, not God’s God-ness.

Rather, I would argue that God’s God-ness, in so far as Scripture reveals this to us (however incomplete that revelation may be), is in his willingness to be moved by his creation. If there is something more to God than what is revealed in Scripture, then I don’t know how I would go about finding that out. Thus, I would continue to encourage Christians to pay no attention to the God behind the curtain!

Pay No Attention to the God Behind the Curtain!

Doug Chaplin, a.k.a. Clayboy, has recently raised the issue of our understanding of God and impassibility. I would like to engage his line of thinking on a few points.

In attempting to define/defend an understanding of God’s impassibility, he recognized that one must overcome the obstacle of the well attested biblical (Old and New Testament) image of God’s passibility (pathos, suffering, whatever label fits best here). He hits on one particular point that I didn’t expect, but really appreciated.

I think that whatever is involved in speaking of God, all God-talk is of necessity metaphorical or analogical. This is true of language of God’s anger, and it is true also, I think, of language of impassibility.

In my experience, classical systematicians tend to act as if the classical attributes of God are somehow immune to the same type of metaphorical or analogical limitation they place on the anthropomorphic language they cast aside. But what makes anthropomorphic language any more metaphorical/analogical than the language of classic systematic theology? Doug seems to be wrestling with this very question. On the one hand, he wants to recognize human speech as that which is metaphorical/analogical. This would be inclusive of the language of any theologian. On the other hand, he wonders “whether negative statements are less metaphorical than positive statements.” Thus, even if all our speech about God is metaphorical/analogical, could we not argue that some language is more accurate than other language?

To answer this question, we have to answer another question–What is the goal of our speaking about God with language that is less metaphorical? Doug explains:

Impassibility is about the “God-ness” of God, which traditional doctrine this article so strongly affirms: his perfection in eternity, and his being “not such a one as us” – not contingent, not in need of growth, not externally influenced.

How can we best describe what Doug is after here? When Dorothy and her three companions trepidatiously approached the Wizard of Oz, they were surprised to find that he was really nothing more than the man behind the curtain. This might be the best way of speaking of what Doug and so many others are after in their use of such language. They want the God behind the curtain! Only in our case, the floating translucent green head is who hides behind the curtain, and this represents God’s “perfection in eternity.” The cute little gray-headed man is who stands on the flaming platform at the end of the grand emerald hallway, and he represents the anthropomorphic portrayal of God in Scripture.

My thoughts on this move–trying to speak of the God behind the curtain–can be found implicit in many of the things I have written, although they are explicitly addressed here. Simply put, the type of move Doug is after is not one I think Scripture encourages or enables us to make. I am not arguing that there is no God behind the curtain, merely that we are to pay no attention to the God behind the curtain. We have no access to it.

Doug concludes his observations with these words of caution: “I’m not a systematic theologian – so much of that might be completely wrong-headed.” Naturally I would challenge the (unintended?) implication that being a systematician guards one from developing a completely wrong-headed theology. (In my experience/opinion, systematicians are notoriously wrong-headed!) The truth is, we are all systematicians of the material we interact with. The problem we most often run into is when we place more stock in the systems we set up rather than in the Bible itself.

Biblical Theology and Vern Poythress

I recently came across the online version of Vern Poythress’ article on biblical theology in last year’s Westminster Theological Journal. In the article, he proposes “to reassess the present-day possibilities for biblical theology’s relation to systematic theology.” Given my most recent post, I thought it would be an appropriate follow up. He concludes:

Biblical theology and systematic theology both need robust interaction with one another for the sake of deepening their methodological and doctrinal soundness. But each may legitimately adopt a variety of structures in communication, and not feel bound to copy in its macrostructure the structures typical of its companion.

Biblical Theology: “What It Meant” and What We Mean by It Today

If there were one label I would like to think that best captures what this blog is after, it would be either Old Testament or Biblical Theology (more on that in a future post). I find the field altogether fascinating. So, when my M.Div requires me to take a systematic theology class, you can imagine my utter dismay excitement about the paper. Fortunately, I was able to convince my teacher to let me address the intersection between biblical and systematic theology. Originally I was interested in the discussions between Barr and Brueggemann, but I decided to begin with Gabler and Stendahl and never made it past that discussion. The professor told me it was worthy of a brown bag luncheon (student paper reading), so I figured I would post it here if anyone was so inclined. The conclusion is as follows:

What can then be said regarding the relationship between biblical and systematic theology in light of this particular historical paradigm initiated by Gabler and articulated so persuasively by Stendahl? If Ollenburger’s critique is to be accepted, A. K. M. Adam believes it “should give way to a more hermeneutically sophisticated vision.” Sophisticated, however, does not mean simplistic. The distinctions articulated by Gabler and popularized by Stendahl were simplistic, condensing the unique roles of the two disciplines to two simple phrases: “what it meant” and “what it means.” The activities of these two disciplines cannot be divided into hermetically sealed compartments. Just as there is overlap between what the texts of the Bible meant to their original audiences and what they mean to everyone today, so also will the activities of biblical and systematic theologians overlap. To say that the activities in which biblical theologians are involved overlap with the activities of systematic theologians does not imply that there are not unique activities and roles these for these two disciplines. What must be developed are better ways of understanding these roles in ways that do not reduce their shared commitment to Scripture, both to what it meant and to what it means.

Good Question!

I enjoy the WordPress feature that allows me to see the top searches that have led people to my blog. Recently someone arrived here by searching “words wts uses that are not in the bible.” What a hoot! I really haven’t spent a lot of time dwelling on what led me to leave WTS, nor do I plan to. The whole mess has been thoroughly blogged and I doubt I could add anything that you couldn’t find anywhere else, particularly at Art Boulet’s blog.

Another recent search asked this very good question: “how does open theism affect traditional systematic theology”? I would like answer this question with a few of my thoughts. Open Theism is merely another system of belief. Like Calvinism and Arminianism, it is a closed system. It has clear boarders and boundaries that are ultimately unable to accommodate all the passages in the Bible. Sometimes Calvinists and Arminians can accommodate these verses and then use them to discredit the system of Open Theism. This type of argument is at best naive because no systematic theology ever has (or ever will?) accommodate every passage of Scripture (much less every aspect of life lived under the sun!).

But Open Theistic thought, thoughts like God can be moved by his creatures and will react to their decisions, is really crucial to the theology of the Bible (and biblical theologians were recognizing this long before systematic theologians were!). So if Open Theism allows for these very biblical thoughts to be brought into systematic studies, then it has affected traditional systematic theology in a very real way, giving voice to scriptures that have thus far been marginalized and explained away by those who have been unable/willing to listen to what they say. While I may not consider myself an Open Theist, I am very open to what Open Theists are saying!

A Prayer for Memphis

The following is a prayer which a friend of mine penned for the city of Memphis. He works with Memphis Urban Ministry, and apart from being a genuine, meaningful prayer, it is full of rich theological reflection.

Father in heaven, hallowed be your Name.

This evening we offer prayer for your mission in this city. We do this not so much because it is our city, but because it is your city. We pray to see the borders of your kingdom broadened, Father. We pray as those in solidarity with the poor; as those who mourn; as humble servants; as those who hunger and thirst for justice; as peacemakers. Father God, we ask that your reign of mercy, equity, and peace would fall upon Memphis in a mighty way.

Father, we ask these things not as spectators, but participants. We implore you as your servants, as your co-laborers, your children, and Christ’s ambassadors. We pray your grace on us as we go about your redemptive agenda in Memphis. We beg of you the courage to love and to comfort. To proclaim your truth boldly and without apology. We ask you to prune every unfruitful branch from us: prejudice, fear, sloth, a judgmental spirit, dissension, hypocrisy, and whatever else would hinder your mission to reclaim, redeem, and restore this city. We ask that the believers of Memphis would be united as we face the task at hand, so that when you return we will not be found arguing in the kitchen while your poor, distressed people of this city are starving for the bread of life just outside our walls. We want to see this city with your eyes, and that your vision for redeeming Memphis would inspire and provoke every facet of our ministry.

We pray that churches will be planted throughout this city that will offer rescue to the lost, prosperity to the poor, food to the hungry, and shelter to the homeless, battered, and mind-addled. We pray that a generation of leaders would arise in our churches and in this city who will continue your mission of reconciliation and restoration. That the public cemetery would not continue to overflow with the babies who die every other day in Memphis due to lack of basic health care. That empty lots and blighted sprawl would be replaced by community gardens and housing for the homeless. That community meals would erase racial and economic barriers and we would clearly see that we are all your children.

We ask your grace, blessing, mercy, guidance, and protection on us as we go about your mission, Father. May it never be said of us that we have left your needy children at the mercy of a world without any mercy.

All of this we ask in Jesus’ precious name. Amen.