Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective (Studies in Biblical Literature) [1 ed.] 9781433116247, 9781453902172, 1433116243

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
Editor’s Preface
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1: Prologue
Chapter 2: An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity
The Interplay Between Science and Religion
The Biblical Account of Creation
The View of Materialistic Naturalism
The Origin of Human Life on Earth
The Reality of Physical Death Predating God’s Creation of Adam and Eve
Conclusion
Chapter 3: The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments
The Absolute, Creative Power of God
The Son as the Underlying Agent of Creation
The Three-Tiered Concept of Reality
Conclusion
Chapter 4: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of Life and Death in the Old Testament
Death’s Permanency for Humans Commencingin the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:4–17; 3:1–24)
Death’s Subversion of the Human Drivefor Life (Gen 5:1–29)
Death’s Stark Reality (Eccl 1:1–18)
Death’s Finality (Eccl 3:1–22)
Conclusion
Chapter 5: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of Life and Death in the New Testament
Death through Adam, Life through Christ(Rom 5:1–21)
Present Suffering and Future Glory (Rom 8:1–39)
Jesus’ Resurrection and the Nature of the Believer’s Resurrection Body (1 Cor 15:1–58)
Jesus and the Destiny of Believers (Heb 2:5–18)
Jesus as the Believers’ Compassionate High Priest (Heb 4:14–5:10; 7:1–28; 9:1–10:18)
Jesus’ Final Victory (Rev 20:1–22:21)
Conclusion
Chapter 6: Progressive Covenantalism as anIntegrative Motif of Scripture
Theological Covenants
Biblical covenants
The Unity of the Covenant People of God throughout Salvation History
Conclusion
Chapter 7: Epilogue
Bibliography
Subject Index
References Index

Citation preview

Evolutionary Creation IN Biblical AND Theological Perspective

Studies in Biblical Literature

Hemchand Gossai General Editor Vol. 148

PETER LANG

New York y Washington, D.C./Baltimore y Bern Frankfurt y Berlin y Brussels y Vienna y Oxford

Dan Lioy

Evolutionary Creation IN Biblical AND Theological Perspective

PETER LANG

New York y Washington, D.C./Baltimore y Bern Frankfurt y Berlin y Brussels y Vienna y Oxford

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lioy, Dan. Evolutionary creation in Biblical and theological perspective / Dan Lioy. p. cm. — (Studies in biblical literature; v. 148) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes. 1. Biblical cosmology. 2. Cosmogony. 3. Creationism. 4. Evolution (Biology)—Religious aspects—Christianity. 5. Life—Biblical teaching. 6. Death—Biblical teaching. 7. Bible—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. BS651.L565 231.7’652—dc23 2011032664 ISBN 978-1-4331-1624-7 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-4539-0217-2 (e-book) ISSN 1089-0645

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council of Library Resources.

© 2011 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited. Printed in Germany

To my beloved wife, Marcia, for her affection and companionship; and to my precious son, Joshua, for his love and playfulness.

Table of Contents Editor’s Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Chapter 1: Prologue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 2: An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The Interplay Between Science and Religion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The Biblical Account of Creation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 The View of Materialistic Naturalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 The Origin of Human Life on Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 The Reality of Physical Death Predating God’s Creation of Adam and Eve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Chapter 3: The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 The Absolute, Creative Power of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 The Son as the Underlying Agent of Creation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 The Three-Tiered Concept of Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Chapter 4: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of Life and Death in the Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Death’s Permanency for Humans Commencing in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:4–17; 3:1–24). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Death’s Subversion of the Human Drive for Life (Gen 5:1–29) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Death’s Stark Reality (Eccl 1:1–18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Death’s Finality (Eccl 3:1–22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Chapter 5: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of Life and Death in the New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Death through Adam, Life through Christ (Rom 5:1–21). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

viii

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective Present Suffering and Future Glory (Rom 8:1–39) . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Jesus’ Resurrection and the Nature of the Believer’s Resurrection Body (1 Cor 15:1–58) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Jesus and the Destiny of Believers (Heb 2:5–18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Jesus as the Believers’ Compassionate High Priest (Heb 4:14–5:10; 7:1–28; 9:1–10:18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Jesus’ Final Victory (Rev 20:1–22:21). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

Chapter 6: Progressive Covenantalism as an Integrative Motif of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Theological Covenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Biblical covenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 The Unity of the Covenant People of God throughout Salvation History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Chapter 7: Epilogue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Subject Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 References Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

Editor’s Preface

M

ore than ever the horizons in biblical literature are being expanded beyond that which is immediately imagined; important new methodological, theological, and hermeneutical directions are being explored, often resulting in significant contributions to the world of biblical scholarship. It is an exciting time for the academy as engagement in biblical studies continues to be heightened. This series seeks to make available to scholars and institutions, scholarship of a high order, and which will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. This series includes established and innovative directions, covering general and particular areas in biblical study. For every volume considered for this series, we explore the question as to whether the study will push the horizons of biblical scholarship. The answer must be yes for inclusion. In this volume, Dan Lioy observes that creation versus evolution, by its very designation, pits one system of ideas against the other as to be exclusive. He argues that this position, being generated by narrowly construed ideologies, is a betrayal of both science and religion. Instead, in this well-documented and copiously researched study, he proposes a “biblical and theological analysis of evolutionary creation, along with creation themes pertinent to origins science.” He argues that there is a fundamental congruity between the “works of God” and the “Word of God.” He further suggests “that when a consideration of evolutionary creation is done in an objective, balanced, and informed manner, the view is wholly compatible with classical theological metaphysics.” This is an important and wide-ranging addition to the already wellestablished body of scholarly work on this topic, and it is one that I believe will surely expand the discourse in significant ways. Certainly, not everyone interested in this topic will embrace the thesis and arguments of the author; nonetheless, this study will in fact have to be reckoned with as the conversation evolves. The horizon has been expanded. Hemchand Gossai Series Editor

Acknowledgments

A

variety of people have read portions of the manuscript and offered kind and intelligent critique. Ultimately, the views expressed in this monograph are my own and not necessarily those of any institution or individual mentioned below. To begin, I want to thank the following academic institutions for the privilege of accessing a wide variety of scholarly sources through their respective research libraries: North-West University (Potchefstroom campus, South Africa); George Fox University (Newburg, Oregon); and Marylhurst University (Marylhurst, Oregon). The assistance offered by the information specialists at each of these universities proved to be timely and invaluable, especially in utilizing publications that were rare and difficult to obtain. Next, I want to thank the following individuals for their feedback: Dr. Kevin Smith (Vice-Principal, South African Theological Seminary); Dr. Franklin Jabini (Head of the Undergraduate School, South African Theological Seminary); Dr. Zoltan Erdey (Head of Academic Quality Assurance, South African Theological Seminary); Dr. Mark Pretorius (Research Associate, Department of Dogmatics, University of Pretoria); Dr. Dennis Bielfeldt (Professor of Philosophy and Religion, South Dakota State University); Dr. Randall Isaac (Executive Director, American Scientific Affiliation); Dr. Darrell Falk (Executive Director, The Biologos Foundation); Dr. Timothy Howell (Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, Montreat College); Mr. Val Armstrong (Branch Manager, Dallas Public Library); Rev. Don Brandt (Senior Pastor, Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, Salem, Oregon); Rev. Tom Hux (Associate Pastor, Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, Salem, Oregon); and Rev. Rick Hogaboam (Senior Pastor, Sovereign Grace Fellowship, Nampa, Idaho). Others have attentively listened while I expounded on this idea or that theory related to the investigation undertaken in this study. I wish to express my thanks for their careful reading and comments both perceptive and constructive. Still others, whether friends or travelers, have shared stimulating conversation over aspects of the concepts and arguments, and in ways unknown to themselves given encouragement and

xii

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

direction. A note of thanks is given to the Editorial Board of Conspectus (a refereed theological e-journal published biannually by South African Theological Seminary) for permission to reuse portions of the following journal articles: Lioy D 2006a. Checkmating the human drive for life: A biblical-theological examination of Genesis 5, Ecclesiastes 1, and 1 Corinthians 15:50-58. Conspectus. 2:1-22 (reused in chap. 4). Lioy D 2006b. Progressive covenantalism as an integrative motif of Scripture. Conspectus. 1:81-107 (reused in chap. 6). Lioy D 2008. The divine sabotage: an exegetical and theological study of Ecclesiastes 3. Conspectus. 5:115-135 (reused in chap. 4). Lioy D 2011a. An evolutionary creation process for the origin of humanity. Conspectus. 11:115-165 (reused in chap. 2). Lioy D 2011b. Jesus’ resurrection and the nature of the believer’s resurrection body (1 Cor 15:1–58). Conspectus. 12 (reused in chap. 5). A note of thanks is given to the Peter Lang Publishing for permission to reuse portions of the following: Lioy D 2003. The book of Revelation in Christological focus. New York: Peter Lang (reused in chap. 5). I especially want to express my love for and appreciation to my wife, Marcia. Without her encouragement, affection, and companionship, the long hours of writing would not have been possible. My son, Joshua, likewise remained patient and understanding during the manuscripting process. Finally, I’m indebted to my other family members and friends for their prayers and support during this venture. Dan Lioy Salem, Oregon August 2011

Chapter 1

Prologue

T

he motivation for undertaking this research project arises from a mixture of both personal and professional reasons. Since my youth, I have had a keen interest in science. For instance, I remember enjoying college preparatory classes in geometry, algebra, biology, chemistry, and physics while I was a high school student growing up in New Jersey. I also began to explore the world of electronics, and this is why I later did a tour of duty in the U.S. Navy as an avionics technician. In turn, these experiences influenced my decision to major in electrical engineering as an undergraduate student at the University of Southern California (USC). While attending USC during the late 1970s and early 1980s, I took a heavy load of courses in math and science. It was also during this time that I had a conversion experience that established within me a growing interest in the history and text of the Bible. Accordingly, I opted to take some elective courses in the liberal arts, including western civilization, classical Greek, and contemporary Hebrew. Moreover, alongside my formal university classes, I got involved in various parachurch groups, such as InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, the Navigators, and Campus Crusade for Christ. My participation in these organizations exposed me to the study of the Christian Bible, albeit at an introductory level. During those college years, the mentoring I received from two local church pastors enabled me to do in-depth studies in Scripture and theology. Following my graduation from USC in 1981 with a BSEE, I served a few more years in the Navy. Then, after my military commitment ended, I decided to attend Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS). It was at this evangelically-oriented graduate school that I learned how to engage the biblical text in a more formal, rigorous manner. After finishing up at DTS in 1988 with a Th.M., I worked as a theological editor and curricu-

2

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

lum writer for two Christian publishing companies. Doing so gave me an opportunity to broaden and deepen my understanding of Scripture and theology. The latter circumstance, along with the training I received at DTS, helped prepare me to successfully complete a Ph.D. in New Testament studies in 2002 at the Potchefstroom campus of North-West University in South Africa. I’ll fast-forward to the mid-2000s, which is when I found myself becoming more engrossed in the science versus religion debate. My interest was piqued as a result of co-leading an integrated learning module (ILM) at Marylhurst University (in Marylhurst, Oregon) with faculty members who are specialists in biology and English literature. The course is titled Evolutionary arguments: why can’t science, religion, and the media play nice? Year after year, I am energized by teaching the faith and reason portion of the ILM. This is due in part to the fact that it gives me an opportunity to engage a wide range of scientific, philosophical, and religious literature connected with the course content. Just as importantly, I am able to explore a fascinating subject with a diverse and interesting group of faculty members and students. There is quite a bit of give-and-take in the process of team-teaching this university-level course. In turn, this forces me to think hard about the interrelationship between Christianity and evolutionary science (both cosmic and biological). I began to notice that the tough questions my students ask in class and the issues they wrestle with in their research papers are not isolated to them. Even when my son, Joshua, was a high school student, he struggled with figuring out a way to interrelate the domains of science and religion, and especially biological evolution and Christianity. I regret, though, that there were times when he felt disheartened by the process. This is particularly due to input he received back then from sincere but misinformed Christians about what the Bible teaches concerning the age of the universe, how life began on earth, from where humankind traces its origins, and so on. The struggle I remember observing in my son’s life, as well as in the lives of the students I teach, impelled me to explore these matters in greater detail; and the present work is one result of that endeavor. Part of the larger backdrop to this study is the entrenched conviction

Prologue

3

among a vocal religious minority that there is an erosion of belief among Christians with respect to the primeval narrative of Genesis 1 (e.g. the shunning of a literal six-day view of creation). Supposedly, because mainstream evangelicals want to obtain greater academic esteem, they use human reason to force Scripture to fit their politically-correct agenda. Likewise, it is asserted that they end up abandoning the authority of God’s Word to make room for the latest scientific conjectures. It is alleged that this theological compromise is the first arrogant, rebellious step along the path of jettisoning other essential doctrines of Christianity. Furthermore, it is claimed that the biblical account of creation cannot be reconciled with the (presumed) insidious lies found in macroand micro-evolutionary theories. Christians who accept the findings of science regarding species origin and development are accused of holding to an opinion that is absurd and filled with superstition. In the minds of some, believers who affirm evolution are guilty of spreading confusion, promoting heresy, and undermining faith in God (cf. Hanby 2006:476–477; Howe 1982:151–156; Hughes 1955:39–47; Lamont 2011; Lane 1994a:19–31; Lane 1994b:160–174; MacArthur 2002:5–32; Morris 1995:82–84, 93–95; Payne 1965:85–86; Ryrie 1967:66–67; Schneider 2010:209; Theokritoff 2002:365). I think this harsh anti-evolutionary rhetoric is problematic on a number of fronts. The assertions represent a clear misunderstanding of basic scientific, theological, and hermeneutical concepts. Moreover, the above-mentioned litany of accusations are marred by gross-generalizations, leaps of logic, ad hominem attacks, mischaracterizations, and flimsy, slippery-slope arguments that do not hold up under scrutiny. It is beyond the scope of this project to provide a detailed, point-by-point refutation of the sorts of derogatory opinions summarized in the preceding paragraph. Furthermore, my aim is not to be exhaustive in exploring and arriving at a consensus view of the creation versus evolution debate. Instead, it is to extend the dialogue and encourage further examination of a heatedly disputed topic. For the purposes of this study, I make an effort to adopt an informed, balanced, and nuanced stance to discern the theological meaning and message of a representative set of biblical creation texts. The latter can be summarized as follows: the triune God brought the universe into existence; humankind

4

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

sinned, bringing moral and spiritual corruption to themselves and their world; and now the Godhead has made redemption possible through the atoning work of the Son. The divine plan of redemption began at Calvary, continues even now, and will one day be complete when God creates a new heaven and new earth. Throughout this study, a text-centered, inner-canonical, and integrative hermeneutic is used to engage pertinent Judeo-Christian Scriptures in their literary, historical, and theological settings. The process involves a “dialectic between ancient text, reception, and contemporary context” (Moberly 2009b:20) to clarify the “theological significance” of selected passages. This approach maintains that there is a “unity of divine revelatory purpose” (Gage 1984:3) and “consistency” of “prophetic and apostolic interpretation” found in the metanarrative of God’s Word. Because this work treats the Bible in its present form, such matters as source, form, and redaction criticism are not discussed. Together the Old and New Testaments are understood to be divinely inspired and inerrant in the originals (and by implication, completely truthful and trustworthy in what they assert). Admittedly, other relevant ecclesiastical and scientific sources are affirmed and considered. This stance is based on the recognition that it is prudent to bring “all spheres of knowledge ... into the conversation” (Birch 2005:30) in order to comprehend the “way the world has come into being”. Still, these wellsprings of information neither supplant nor eclipse the supreme authority of Scripture. The preceding statements reflect the predominately classical, ecumenical, and historically orthodox interpretive approach taken in this work, in which Scripture is given pride of place throughout the process of deliberating the findings of modern science within the context of a robust theistic framework (cf. Guinness 2008:6; Morris 2001b; Pierard and Elwell 2001:406). Furthermore, this study regards all existence as being centered in the Lord Jesus. Indeed, as Bielfeldt (2010) explains, the Son is the basis for “deep dialogue with the contemporary intellectual horizon”, including the compatibility of origins science with Christian belief. Bielfeldt puts forward several “foundational theological principles” that are shared by this study and hold sway over its approach to the topic of evolutionary creation (also called theistic evolution). For this reason,

Prologue

5

these propositional statements are worth delineating here. First is “theological realism”, in which the absolute fact of God’s triune existence extends “beyond human awareness, conception, and language”. The second value is “semantic realism”, in which the divine “gift of language” makes it possible for people to make objective, nonempirical “truth claims” about the Lord. That said, “human emotion, thought, and language” are not the ultimate determinants of “what is true or false about God”. The third principle is “theophysical causality”, in which it is declared that the triune God revealed in Scripture “can and does act in the world”. A corollary is that God’s involvement in creation “must not be construed as mere metaphor”. The fourth postulate is that dialogue with “science and technology” enhances the believers’ “recognition” that the Lord manifests His presence in the “natural order”. Also, the manner in which He does so augments their “understanding” of Him (cf. Barth 1968:78–79; Barbour 1989:127; Bube 1971:26; Collins 2006b:200–201; Falk 2011; Kelsey 1985:178–179; McKim 2001:34–305; Pannenberg 1991:39–40; Pannenberg 2006:109–110; Stek 1990:253–254). With the preceding tenets in mind, the upcoming chapters of this work undertake a biblical and theological analysis of evolutionary creation, along with creation themes pertinent to origins science. Put another way, this work seeks to engage “science in the theological interpretation” (Brown 2010:9) of God’s Word. Though the study approaches the task from a classical Christian perspective, it strives to be ecumenically sensitive to a wider audience of educated readers who are interested in the ongoing dialogue between science and religion. Also, while the discussion endeavors to be substantive and thoughtful, it is beyond the scope of this work to provide a plenary treatment of the scientific topics that are broached. Additionally, no pretense is made that the biblical passages being considered masquerade for a detailed, verseby-verse critical and exegetical commentary. Such an undertaking would duplicate what is already in print and result in several massive tomes. On the one hand, an effort has been made to interact extensively with an assortment of monographs, periodical literature, and standard commentaries. On the other hand, while these diverse sources of information serve as useful reference points, the vastness of the material con-

6

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

cerning the relationship of origins science with Christian belief, rules out the possibility of consulting everything in print. For a representative (though not exhaustive) list of various works providing a meticulous analysis on specialized topics explored in this study, one is encouraged to consult the bibliography included at the end of the volume. Even though a broad range of publications have been utilized to guide, inform, and substantiate the examination of God’s Word, the presentation seeks to be as clear and accessible as possible for the benefit of both specialist and non-specialist readers. The goal, then, in the upcoming chapters is to provide a biblical and theological analysis of theistic evolution, as well as topics related to God’s creation of the cosmos that are relevant to origins science. An unwavering conviction is that God remains sovereign “over the whole created order” (Alexander 2008:181), especially in successfully fulfilling His “plan and purposes for both creation and redemption”. With this broad objective in mind, chapter 2 plays a central role in taking stock of the underlying process for the origin of humanity. The key supposition is that a fundamental congruity exists between what the Lord has revealed in nature (i.e. the book of God’s work) and in Scripture (i.e. the book of God’s Word). This postulate is the basis for taking seriously the scientific data, as well as engaging Scripture in its historical, cultural, and sociological contexts. The intent is to put forward a theologically informed harmonization of evolutionary theory with creationist teachings found in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures about the genesis of Homo sapiens (i.e. modern humans). The second chapter raises a number of issues connected with the subject of evolutionary creation that merit fuller treatment. For that reason, an overt effort is made in chapters 3 through 6 to draw upon observations, insights, and conclusions made in chapter 2. As a consequence of doing so, a strong conceptual link is forged within and maintained throughout the study. Chapter 3 takes up one of these important topics, namely, doing justice to the historically-conditioned nature of the biblical texts by analyzing the prescientific cosmology found in them. The underlying premise is that the covenant community, along with the other inhabitants of the Fertile Crescent, living in the third millennium B.C.E. through the first century A.C.E., shared the three-tiered

Prologue

7

concept of reality found in the Genesis creation account. Furthermore, this mindset influenced the way in which biblical writers thought about the spatio-physical world, both orally and in writing. The next two chapters undertake a biblical and theological analysis of the concepts of life and death presented in Scripture. Making this effort helps to shed light on ways in which Christian belief is compatible with creation themes pertinent to origins science. With that rationale in mind, the intent of chapter 4 is to consider a representative collection of Old Testament passages dealing with life and death (namely, Gen 2:4–17; 3:1–24; 5:1–29; Eccl 1:1–18; 3:1–22). Next, chapter 5 continues this endeavor by focusing on a selective set of New Testament passages (namely, Rom 5:1–21; 8:1–39; 1 Cor 15:1–58; Heb 2:5–18; 4:14–5:10; 7:1–28; 9:1–10:18; Rev 20:1–22:21). Then, chapter 6 appraises the theological motif of God’s covenantal relationship with His people, a topic that is repeatedly touched on in the earlier portions of the study. That being the case, chapter 6 deepens and expands the discussion by introducing and developing at length the concept of progressive covenantalism. Finally, chapter 7 brings closure to the work by giving a synopsis of its major findings. N.B: Unless otherwise stated, biblical quotations are taken from the Zondervan TNIV Study Bible (Barker 2006).

Chapter 2

An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity

T

he intent of this chapter is to consider an evolutionary creationist process for the origin of humanity.* As the analysis unfolds, a number of broadly interrelated issues are explored in an integrated, synthesized manner. A major premise is that a fundamental congruity exists between what the Lord has revealed in nature (i.e. the book of God’s work) and in Scripture (i.e. the book of God’s Word; cf. Bube 1971:124–125; Carlson and Longman 2010:132; Ciobotea 2008:7; Driscoll and Breshears 2010:80, 103; Ingram 1965:73; MacKay 1974:226, 236, 242; McMullin 1993:304, 328–329; Polkinghorne 2009:173; Rhodes 1965:45– 46; Schaab 2008:10–11; Sprinkle 2010:5; Tracy 2008:108). A corollary supposition is that “faith in God as Creator can be consistent with an evolutionary understanding of the history of the universe and particularly life on Earth” (Baker and Miller 2006:169). The preceding postulates are the basis for considering an evolutionary creationist process for the origin of humanity that is in agreement with both the biblical and scientific data (cf. Attfield 2006:115, 121, 210; Day 2009:118–120; Rana and Ross 2005:43–51, 247–250). Concededly, this is being done from the perspective of a specialist in biblical and theological studies, whose treatment of the subject will tend to be exploratory and provisional in nature. That said, it is possible for even a non-scientist to make a useful and pertinent contribution to the present topic, especially since it is heatedly debated within both Christian and scientific circles (cf. Collins 2006b:4–5; Delio 2009:1–2; Falk 2004:23–26; Fisher 1997:41, 104; Lamoureux 2008:2–4; Pigliucci 2002:27–32). * What follows in this chapter is a revision of material in my journal article titled, “An evolutionary creation process for the origin of humanity”, which appears in the March 2011 edition of Conspectus (cf. Lioy 2011a).

10

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Moreover, this chapter affirms cosmic and biological evolution as a “cornerstone of modern science” (Ayala 2008:xi) and a theoretical model that is “supported by abundant evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation” (47). This chapter also maintains that God sovereignly controls the “origin of species by evolutionary processes” (Waltke and Yu 2007:173). It bears mentioning that, contrary to the pronouncements of some (cf. Lane 1994a:22, 28–30; Lane 1994b:155–156, 166, 171, 174; MacArthur 2002:11–12; Payne 1965:85, 89; Plantinga 1991:8–9; Ryrie 1967:66), this view is wholly compatible with classical theological metaphysics (including Augustinian and Reformed doctrinal orthodoxy; cf. Duncan 2007:2302, 2313, 2361; Klapwijk 2008:207–208; Martin 2010:10, 12, 51, 111, 144; Noll 2010:4–5; Spencer and Alexander 2009:25–26). Furthermore, this view is supported by ecumenical, historically confessional Christians who affirm the divine inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and authority of Scripture (cf. Blocher 1997:39; Driscoll and Breshears 2010:93–94; Falk and Gilberson 2009:1–7). That being the case, it is erroneous to insist that one must choose between either a “Judeo-Christian concept of creation by God from nothing” (Ruse 2005:4) or the theory of evolution. As the forthcoming discussion explicates, the latter contention represents a false dichotomy (cf. Edwards 1999:12–13; Finlay 2006:237; Lamoureux 2008:33–34; Wiley 2009:3). These assertions having been made, it is beyond the scope of this chapter to explore, debate, and resolve the issues connected with the philosophy and social movement known as Intelligent Design (ID). Proponents of ID maintain that “evolution alone” (Spencer and Alexander 2009:9) is insufficient to “explain the complex structures of some living things”. For that reason, the “intervention of a designer”, or all-embracing intelligence, is “needed at key stages” (32). Detractors counter that there is definitive scientific evidence for complex structures and systems developing gradually through natural, evolutionary processes. It is also argued that the idiosyncratic approach utilized by ID cannot be “defended as being either required by Scripture or encouraged by sound scientific judgment” (Van Till 1999:198). As it turns out, “intelligent design research” (Peterson 2010:257) has failed to “make any groundbreaking discoveries” or upend “any widely accepted biological explanations”. In point of fact, ID “remains a fringe activity” (Collins

An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity

11

2006b:187) that has garnered “little credibility within the mainstream scientific community”. For an analysis and critique of ID and other likeminded views, cf. Alexander 2001:289–310; Alexander 2008:293–331; Ayala 2008:37–45; Baker and Miller 2006:153–172; Lamoureux 2008:21– 52; Lett and Vardy 2007:7–15; Moreland and Reynolds 1999; Pennock 2001; Pigliucci 2002; Ruse 2005:147–167, 242–261; Scott 2009:53–164; Snow 1990:166–202; Van Till 1998:352–364; and Youngblood 1999. The preceding disclaimer notwithstanding, one objective of this chapter is to take seriously the scientific data (including evidence from fields as varied as molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, and astronomy). A second objective is to engage Scripture in its historical, cultural, and sociological contexts (cf. Dickson 2008:2; Hill 2007:129; Thompson 2005:4). The underlying approach is one of “discerning openness” (Trader 2010:27) in which the canon of Scripture functions as a “filter”. Numerous scientific “concepts” are accepted, while others are set aside; also, as the situation necessitates, “alternatives” are proposed. The intended outcome is to “constructively relate” (Baker and Miller 2006:154) the biblical data about human origins with the “science of evolution”. Put another way, it is a preliminary attempt to “accommodate or integrate” evolutionary theory with creationist teachings found in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures about the genesis of humanity (15). Doing so affirms (rather than denies) the literary, historic, and theological value of God’s Word (cf. Bishop 2011:9; Van Till 1999:172–173). The Interplay Between Science and Religion At the outset, some key definitions are in order. Theology may be defined as the study of the metaphysical—including the nature of God, the content of religious belief, and the character / conduct of religious practice—done through an examination of revelation, Scripture, personal experience, and culture (cf. Barth 1955:1–2; Erickson 1998:22–23; Grudem 1995:21; Schwöbel 1992:9–10). Philosophy refers to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, done primarily through speculative means (rather than empirical methods; cf. Boersema 2005; Klapwijk 2008:3; Leslie 1998; Preston 2006). Science may be defined as the investigation of physical reality, done through a

12

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

complex interplay of theory, observation, and experimentation (cf. Ayala 2008:10; Baker and Miller 2006:98–99, 163; Day 2009:62–63; Schafersman 1997). Evolutionary creation refers to the triune God bringing the “universe and life” (Lamoureux 2008:29) into existence by using an “ordained, sustained, and design-reflecting evolutionary process”. Furthermore, theistic evolution is the “scripturally derived belief that God normally acts” (Berry 2001:4) via “processes” that can be studied “scientifically” (cf. Alexander 2008:33, 181; Badger and Tenneson 2010:95; Bowler 2007:20, 28–29; Collins 2003:496–497; Collins 2006b:200; Duncan 2007:2364; Giberson and Collins 2011:19; Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:21, 172–173, 252; Harbin 1997:641; Newman 2003:119– 120; Ostling 2011:24–25; Russell 2003:339; Van Till 1995). Hyers (1984:33) explains that science “moves along a horizontal plane”, is concerned with “immediate causes”, and searches for “naturalistic explanations for phenomena”. In contrast, religion travels “along a vertical plane”, crisscrosses the “horizontal plane from beginning to end”, and adds a “supranatural dimension” to its outlook. Stenmark (2004:267–268) advances the discussion by offering a helpful four-tiered prototype to link the disciplines of science and religion. The following are the levels he advocates taking into account. The first is the “social dimension”. This calls attention to “science and religion as social practices”, in which specialists work together “within a particular historical and cultural setting”. The second level is the “teleological dimension”, which concerns the “goals of scientific and religious practice”. The third level is the “epistemological or methodological dimension”. This refers to the “means developed and used to achieve the goals of science and religion”. The fourth level is the “theoretical dimension”. Of concern here are the “beliefs, stories, theories, and the like that the practice of science and religion generates”. While the issues at the center of science and religion are intricate, each discipline informs the other in mutually meaningful and constructive ways. Ward (2008:4–5) considers the “beginning and end of the universe”, the “origins and nature of consciousness”, and the “human religious experience” to be just a few of the relevant “contact points for discussion between scientific and religious perspectives”. Moreover, Russell (2000) favors using “critical realism” as a “bridge between the-

An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity

13

ology and science, making possible real dialogue and growing interaction”. This “philosophical view of science and/or theology” maintains that what is known about the world accurately corresponds to the “way things really are” (both ontologically and epistemologically). Admittedly, this understanding is “partial”, especially since perceptions of reality are filtered through a variety of conceptual frameworks. Moreover, one’s notion of reality is always open to revision, particularly as new “knowledge develops” (cf. Alexander 2001:242; Finlay 2008:108; Louis 2010:3). The Biblical Account of Creation Concerning the two interrelated objectives mentioned on page 11, the starting point is the creation account recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis (specifically, 1:1–2:3). This theocentric, cosmological manifesto uses an “exalted prose narrative” (Collins 2006a:44) to describe six acts of creation, with each one occurring on separate days, followed by God’s rest on the seventh day. What Moses (the presumed author of Genesis) set forth is God’s “systematic differentiation of the cosmos” (Brown 2010:38) so that carbon-based life could begin and flourish on earth. God has “equipped” (Van Till 1999:185–186) the universe with “all the necessary capabilities” to be transformed over time from “elementary forms of matter into the full array of physical structures and life-forms that have existed”. This “physical reality” (Peters and Hewlett 2006:78–79)—by some estimates consisting of 300 billion stars and 50 billion planets in the Milky Way galaxy (out of an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the entire observable universe)—is characterized by “dynamism, openness, contingency, self-organization, and freedom”, in which the “whole is greater than the sum of the parts”. The biblical creation narrative should be seen as a highly stylized, literary depiction that is figurative and symbolic in content (cf. Blocher 1984:37; Keller 2009:4; Lucas 2004:12; Waltke and Fredricks 2001:56). Above all, the rendition is theological and “nonscientific” (Hyers 2003:32). It arises from an “ancient phenomenological perspective of the physical world” (Lamoureux 2008:151) that would have been familiar to Moses (cf. Goldingay 2003:61; Moberly 2009b:47–48; Painter 1997:250). Walton (2009a:12–13) explains that when Moses lived, people

14

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

visualized the earth as being a “flat, disk-shaped” landmass that was completely surrounded by water. The ground was “upheld by pillars”, while the sky was “supported by mountains” located on the distant horizon. The sky itself was thought to be a “solid” dome or tent-like structure on which the “celestial bodies” (namely, the sun, moon, and stars) were “engraved” and “moved in tracks”. In this ancient threetiered “view of the cosmos”, rain, hail, and snow from an immense body of water located above the overarching sky “fell to earth through openings”. God’s temple was located in the upper heavens, which in turn rested atop the sky (or lower heavens). The shrine in Jerusalem was the earthbound counterpart to the divine abode. A series of “graves led to the netherworld” (sheol), which was located beneath the earth, while “mighty Leviathan” skulked in the “depths” of the seas. With respect to Genesis 1:1–2:3, a literary analysis of the biblical text indicates that the material can be divided into three separate, interconnected portions (cf. Lioy 2005:25–28): I. The primordial earth (1:1–2) II. The ordering of creation (1:3–31) III. The perfect result (2:1–3) Genesis 1:1 reveals that it was a direct act of God that brought about the absolute beginning of the cosmos (cf. Ps 19:1; Wis of Sol 13:1–9; John 1:1–3; Rom 1:20; Col 1:16; Heb 1:3). Genesis 1:2 indicates that before God began issuing His royal creation decrees, the primordial earth was “formless and empty”. The implication is that God simply chose to create by beginning with formless matter and then giving it form. From a literary structural perspective, Day 1 seems to correspond to Day 4, Day 2 to Day 5, and Day 3 to Day 6. As the following chart shows, the first triad of days was devoted to God’s forming the earth. In contrast, the second triad of days was given over to God’s filling what He had formed (cf. Alexander 2008:155; 109; Cassuto 1961:16–17; Clifford 1988:164–165; Clifford 2001:522; Brown 2010:39; Harlow 2008:173; Hyers 1984:69–70; Hyers 2003:30–31; Irons and Kline 2001:224–225; Kass 2003:31; Kidner 1967:46; Lamoureux 2008:193; Lucas 1989:90; Ross 1988:103–104; Simkins 1994:16; Wilkinson 2002:24).

An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity Forming the Creation Day 1 – Light (1:3–5) Day 2 – Sky (1:6–8) Day 3 – Land, Seas, and Vegetation (1:9–13)

15

Filling the Creation Day 4 – Luminaries (1:14–19) Day 5 – Fish and Birds (1:20–23) Day 6 – Land Animals and Humans (1:24–31)

Moreover, in each triad of days, the creation narrative moves from the sky to the earth. During the first triad, God demarcated three sets of earthly realms: day and night, sky and sea, and land and plants. Then, during the second triad, God populated these realms with stars and planets, birds and sea creatures, and land animals and humans. Thus, in the first three sets of days, the various domains of the cosmos are demarcated, while in the second set of three days, the rulers of these domains are delineated. Additionally, in both triads, a single creative decree (Day 1 and Day 4, respectively) is followed by one creative act with two aspects (Day 2 and Day 5, respectively). In turn, this gives way to two separate creative acts that result in the earth being characterized by yielding, producing, or bringing forth (Day 3 and Day 6, respectively). Day 3 serves as the climax for the first triad, while Day 6 serves as the climax for the second triad. Further observations can be made about the passage’s highly symmetrical, densely structured, and fixed (perhaps liturgical) arrangement. By way of example, each day of creation follows a recurring pattern. There is an announcement: “God said”. This is followed by a command: “Let there be”; a report: “And it was so”; an evaluation: “good”; the exercise of sovereignty: “God called”; and a literary, sequential, atemporal marker: e.g. “first day”, and so on. In this arrangement, only the seventh day has no counterpart. God, while reposed in imperial splendor in His heavenly temple, blessed and set apart the seventh day as holy. Throughout biblical literature, the number seven symbolizes fullness and completeness. Accordingly, God’s hallowing the seventh day suggests that it was at this moment that His creation activity came to a fitting and satisfying conclusion. Be that as it may, there is a sense in which the seventh day is “suspended above temporal regularities” (Brown 2010:39). This gives it a “timeless character”, in which the final day anticipates the ever-present, creative potential found throughout the cos-

16

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

mos (cf. Collins 2007:461–462; Domning and Hellwig 2006:92, 184; Irons and Kline 2001:245; Mosert 2005:126–127; Peacocke 2001:77–78; Polkinghorne 2009b:109–110). In short, God created everything—spiritual beings, physical beings, matter, energy, time, and space (cf. Prov 3:19–20; 8:22–31; Eccles 11:5; Isa 44:24; 45:18; Jer 10:16; John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb 1:2; Frame 2002:301; Kaufmann 1960:68; Kline 1996; Schönborn 2007a:42; Waltke and Fredricks 2001:59; Wilkinson 2002:20; Woloschak 1996:91). On the one hand, the main focus of the biblical text is pre-history (or protohistory; cf. Brueggemann 1982:11; Day 2005:19, 26; Harlow 2010:181–182; McMullin 1993:309–310), which means that what Scripture reveals “lies beyond the reach of either written records or eyewitness” (Thompson 2005:18). On the other hand, God’s Word points to historical and theological truths. More specifically, Genesis uses a temple-creation motif to describe the formation of the universe (cf. Alexander 2008:24–25; Brown 2010:40–41; Clifford 1992:59; Gordon 2007:234–235; Lioy 2010:14–15). In this regard, the “seven days” (Walton 2009a:23) of creation are “comparable to seven-day temple dedications at the end of which” almighty God “takes up his rest in the temple” (cf. Exod 20:8–11; Deut 5:12–15). Furthermore, the original universe that God brought into existence serves as the prototype that looks ahead to future venues in which the Lord and the covenant community would enjoy fellowship together. These include the garden in Eden, the Israelite tabernacle in the wilderness, the temple in Jerusalem, and the new heavens and the new earth. Excluding the last-named item, perhaps the rest could be understood as smaller representations of what the original universe signified and prefigured (cf. Alexander 2002:131; Alexander 2008:25; Emmrich 2001:5– 6; Gage 1984:4–5, 50; Lam 2010:3; Levenson 1988:90–91; Lioy 2010:6). Admittedly, there are differing views regarding how literally or figuratively the creation days should be understood (cf. Hamilton 1990:53; Lewis 1989:455; Waltke and Fredricks 2001:61). From a literary perspective, the “seven days are seven components” (Samuelson 1994:159–160) of the “single, unified, complex event of God’s creation”. The broader theological point is that of “God’s sovereignty over time” (Saebø 1990:27), as well as “day and night” (Verhoef 1997:420) being “totally subordinated” to the Creator (cf. Ps 74:16). On a more specific, semantic

An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity

17

level, some think the individual creation days should be taken as literal, sequential, 24-hour time periods. Allegedly, when God issued His royal decrees, He instantaneously brought complex physical entities into existence. This gives rise to the notion that the earth is relatively young (for example, around 10,000 years or less). Support is claimed by the appearance of the recurring phrase “there was evening, and there was morning” and by the ordering of the week in Exodus 20:8–11 (cf. Kaiser 2008:39; Lioy 2005:40; McGrath 2010b:39–40). Despite the popularity of the preceding view among some interpreters, the overwhelming evidence from a wide range of scientific disciplines points to the cosmos and earth being billions of years old. In this regard, the usage of the Hebrew term yôm (typically rendered “day”) in the opening chapters of Genesis is somewhat varied. For instance, the word can refer to the light portion of a 24-hour period (cf. Gen 1:5, 14; Exod 20:9–11; Deut 5:13–14) and also to an unspecified period of time (cf. Gen 2:4; Ps 20:1; Prov 11:4; 21:31; 24:10; 25:13; Eccles 7:4; Isa 61:2; Carter 2009:1038; Jenni 1997:529, 537; Moberly 2009a:5). Based on the latter observation, the “day-age” theory has been proposed, namely, that the “days” of creation refer to prolonged epochs or ages of time. Admittedly, while the universe gives the appearance of considerable antiquity, the presence of the phrase “morning and evening” in the opening chapters of Genesis seems in conflict with the “day-age” theory. Also, the idea of intervening ages between isolated 24-hour days is not evident from the biblical text (cf. Berry 2007a:3; Fisher 1997:44–45; Futato 1998:16–17; Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:91–93; Kline 1958:155–156; Lioy 2005:40). Due to the deficiencies associated with the above two (concordist) views, the framework hypothesis (a non-concordist interpretation) has considerable exegetical merit. Based on the preceding literary analysis of the biblical text, the creation “days” form a rhythmical structure around which the prose-narrative is topically (or non-sequentially) arranged (in contrast to a strict chronological order; cf. Blocher 1984:50; Duncan 2007:2342–2347; Horton 2011:382–383; Irons and Kline 2001:219; Keller 2009:5; Kline 1996; Lamoureux 2008:196–197; Waltke 2009a:6). Thus, the so-called “days” of creation are seen as literary constructs to make known enduring historical and theological truths. Ultimately, of

18

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

course, what the infinite Creator did at the dawn of time remains shrouded in mystery and exceeds the ability of human language to convey (cf. Job 38). Moberly (2009b:64) explains that the “proper theological sense of mystery is to express an inherently deep reality”. Paradoxically, the effort to make sense of the latter “intrinsically becomes ever more demanding the more fully one engages it”. The divine architect and artisan graciously accommodated His finite and frail human creatures by presenting the primeval account in literary terms and constructs they could understand. In a manner of speaking, the phenomena associated with the creation “week” are supra-historical, taking place above and beyond normal temporal and spatial constructs. Moses neither described all that happened nor explained how it happened. Instead, he unambiguously stated what happened, and he did so with a consideration for its broader historical and theological implications (cf. Berry 2001:162; Driscoll and Breshears 2010:81; Harlow 2008:165; Hyers 1984:30; Lioy 2004:41; McGrath 2010b:84; Spanner 1987:35; Stek 1990:213–214, 221; Westermann 1974:5; Woloschak 1996:107). The point, then, of the Genesis narrative is not to delineate a precise chronology, especially since primordial events did not occur on the plane of ordinary human history. Instead, the creation account is an introductory part of Genesis in which the historical narrative reports a series of past events for the purpose of instructing the covenant community (cf. Bergrant and Stuhlmueller 1985:154; Duncan 2007:2342; Lucas 2007:3; Ross 1988:59; Sailhamer 1990:13–14; Spanner 1987:29; Stek 1990:230, 237, 249; Waltke and Yu 2007:98). Here one finds that God is the focal point of the account, with man and woman serving as His vice-regents over the world. Such things as the luminaries of the cosmos, the material objects of the earth, and the planet’s creaturely inhabitants (namely, fish, birds, and land animals) do not occupy a central spot in the narrative, even though they are discussed. Their place in the ancient story helps set the stage for God’s creation of humankind. In this case, man and woman exist as stewards over the planet that God created and prepared for them (cf. Gen 1:26–30); and because God is the sovereign of the universe, He has the right to give the world to whomever He desires (cf. Jer 27:5). Furthermore, Moses depicted the creation of the heavens and earth as occurring

An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity

19

in six literary (not literal) “days”. This in turn served as a primary reason for the people of the covenant to imitate their Creator in their weekly pattern of work and rest (cf. Exod 20:11; 31:13, 17; Hyers 2003:25–26; Irons and Kline 2001:253; Kass 2003:52–53; Kaufmann 1960:117; Lioy 2005:41; Samuelson 1992:142–143; Samuelson 1994:163; Spanner 1987:107–108). On one level, the biblical narrative bears similarities to other ancient Near Eastern creation stories (or cosmogonies, especially Egyptian, Canaanite, and Babylonian ones; cf. Enns 2010:6; Fretheim 1994:323; Godawa 2010:1; Lam 2010:1; Mabie 2008:48; Oden 1992:1163; Parker 1994:234–235; Zimmerli 1978:33–34). On another level, the Genesis account is sufficiently distinctive to set itself apart from these violent and polytheistic myths (cf. Brueggemann 1982:24; Cassuto 1961:7; Collins 2006a:240–241; Gage 1984:18; Hiebert 1996:132; Ross 1988:52–53; Sailhamer 1990:20; Wilkinson 2002:22). Accordingly, one historical truth arising from the creation account would be that the universe had a specific starting point in space-time history. In the aftermath of an inaugural event occurring around 13.7 billion years ago (that is popularly referred to as the “Big Bang”), a “rich diversity of ordered structures” (Van Till 1990:111), such as “galaxies and stars”, has gradually emerged throughout the cosmos (cf. Barth 1968:105; Brown 2010:56; Colling 2004:31; Collins 2006b:64; Gingerich 2006:47–48; Küng 2007:10–11; McGrath 2009:114; McGrath 2010b:15, 152). A corresponding theological truth would be that almighty God brought all things into existence, with the result that what He created is “good”, both intrinsically and instrumentally (cf. Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31; Sir 39:16; 1 Tim 4:4; Lam 2010:2; Tracy 2008:113). This does not mean, as Spanner has noted (1987:53), that the primal creation was an “idyllic paradise” characterized by static perfection and quintessential “bliss”. Instead, the implication is that what the Lord brought into existence was superbly suited for its God-ordained function and purpose, as seen in “creation’s beauty” and “appropriateness” (Southgate 2008:15; cf. Birch 2005:42; Bishop 2011:1; Fretheim 2010:11, 13; Kass 2003:39; Oswalt 2003:852; Peacocke 1979:279; Samuelson 2002:139, 141; Schaeffer 1972:55–56; von Rad 1972:50; Walton 2009a:11; Walton 2009b:51, 149–150; Westermann 1974:61). Furthermore, through the un-

20

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

folding drama of the sacred text, one learns that the cosmos is God’s magnificent “work of art” (Dickson 2008:8). To be sure, there are those who regard the above set of theological observations as merely faith-based assertions or ad hoc explanations which cannot be proven using the scientific method (that is, involving empirical evidence and testable hypotheses; cf. Bube 1971:54; Carlson and Longman 2010:40, 48; Ingram 1965:78; Jeeves 1969:37–38; Peacocke 1979:33–34; Rhodes 1965:25, 34; Wiley 2009:74–75). Moreover, the widespread theory in physics of the existence of a near-infinite set of universes, allegedly eliminates the need for a supernatural agency (such as God) to explain the origin of the cosmos (cf. Barbour 1989:131–132; Barbour 2000:42–43; Collins 2006b:76–77; Hawking and Mlodinow 2010:8– 9, 118–119, 135, 143–144, 164–165, 172, 180; Isaac 2010:2; Kuhn 2007:31; Küng 2007:2, 66; Polkinghorne 2009b:53, 104). Still, the preceding comments need not categorically rule out the potential validity of the theological truths stated in the above paragraph (cf. Collins 2007:460–461; Stoeger 2007:455–456). For instance, it is common to wonder why anything exists in the first place (cf. Collins 2006a:257; Kuhn 2007:35–36; Mann 2009:139–140; Polkinghorne 2009b:99; Van Till 1999:188–189). Put differently, regardless of the underlying mechanism of creation, why is there something rather than nothing? The biblical perspective is that God, through a series of natural and supernatural processes, created the universe, established the Milky Way galaxy and solar system, formed the earth, and fostered the conditions necessary for multicellular carbonbased life forms to begin and evolve (cf. Day 2009:103; Ewart 2009:119; Gingerich 2006:84; Haught 2010:56, 101; Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:182–183; Murphy 2001; White 2007:4). The latter assertion intentionally allows the revelation of Scripture to take precedence over what some in the scientific community might otherwise declare about the origin of the cosmos (e.g. that it is self-generating and self-explanatory; cf. Hawking and Mlodinow 2010:180). From the standpoint of Scripture, such a faith-based stance represents a “metaphysical jump upward from the scientific data” (Lamoureux 2008:70; cf. Creegan 2007:513, 516; Gingerich 2006:70, 101; Schönborn 2007a:42; Sprinkle 2010:6–7; Walton 2009b:114–118; Westermann 1982:72, 85–86), and it can be understood as having four recognizable elements

An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity

21

(cf. Heb 11:1). First is cognition, or an awareness of the facts; second is comprehension, or an understanding of the facts; third is conviction, or an acceptance of the facts; and fourth is commitment, or dependence on a trustworthy object. Popular opinion sees faith as irrational. It is supposedly believing in something even when one’s mind tells one not to. In contrast, the biblical concept of faith includes both reason and experience. Such faith, however, is not limited to what can be seen. It makes unseen spiritual realities perceivable, not by willing them into existence, but by a settled conviction that what God has said in Scripture about them is true (cf. Alexander 2008:15; Brun 1994:289; Bube 1971:69; Colling 2004:106; Collins 2003:36; Enns 2005a:297; Fisher 1997:108–109, 112–113; Jeeves 1969:52; Lioy 2007b:44–45; Lioy 2008:43–44; Lucas 1989:36–37; Powell 2003:6; Schwöbel 1992:28; Ysteboe 2009:88, 99). Additional inferences can be drawn from the highly stylized exposition of the Genesis creation account. One implication is that this material either contradicts or contrasts sharply with other ancient Near Eastern creation stories. For instance, while the latter end with the building of a sanctuary for the creation deity, these are counterfeit parodies of the truth, as represented in the opening chapters of Genesis. Furthermore, pagan notions of how the world began are characterized by the presence of antagonists and protagonists, evocative descriptions, and high drama. The Genesis creation account replaces this abundance of sensory detail with language that is reserved, measured, and reverential. One is left with the impression that God, in bringing everything into existence out of nothing (cf. Gen 1:1; 2:3; Ps 102:25; 2 Macc 7:28; John 1:2; Acts 4:24; 17:24; Rom 4:17; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 11:3; Rev 4:11), is all-powerful. Also, by imposing His design on the shapeless and empty planet, He demonstrates the inviolability of His will. God alone, as the sovereign Lord of the cosmos, is regal in splendor and wise in His decisions, for only He can bring longed-for order and restraint to an otherwise chaotic universe. As the one and only true God, the Lord alone deserves to be worshiped by humankind (cf. Alexander 2001:323–324; Alexander 2008:161; Blocher 1984:60; Brown 2010:46–47; Godawa 2010:5, 7; Harlow 2008:171; Hiebert 1996:133; Lam 2010:2; Lioy 2005:27–28; Lucas 2004:15; Stek 1990:222–223; Waltke and Yu 2007:200–201). Numerous critical scholars allege that it is implausible to view as

22

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

historical the creation account recorded in Genesis 1:1–2:3. Instead, it is maintained that Genesis is filled with mythic (i.e. fictional) narratives (cf. Brueggemann 1982:4, 16; Delio 2009:20; Fretheim 1994:324, 327; von Rad 1972:31–32, 40–41). So, in terms of the creation account, it would be a cosmogenic myth, namely, a philosophical and theological reworking of an earlier ancient Near Eastern tale of creation. In contrast, the view of this treatise is that to a large degree the opening chapters of Genesis point to events that actually happened (cf. Blocher 1984:155–156; Collins 2003:65; Collins 2006a:13; Collins 2010:149; Fischer 2008:xi; Hill 2007:130; Schaeffer 1972:15; Spanner 1987:28, 61). This remains the case, even though the literary form of the narrative is highly stylized, the presentation is selective, the sequencing of information is topical, and the data is filtered through a theocentric grid (cf. Oswalt 2009:15, 17; Wilkinson 2002:277). In contrast to the pagan myths written throughout the ancient Near East about how the world began, the simplicity and monotheism of the Genesis description are unmatched. Also, there is no conclusive evidence to show that the account recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis is actually a later plagiarized story, instead of being the original account from which these others (though possibly recorded earlier) may have come (cf. Lioy 2005:28–29, 39–40; Rüst 2007:185; Spanner 1987:30– 31). This perspective is borne out by the ordering of creation. It is disclosed that competing forces or deities did not engage in a primordial struggle of titanic proportions. Instead, each time when God effortlessly dispatched His royal decree, He summoned all things into existence and conformed them to His plan (cf. Pss 33:6, 9; 148:5). By highlighting these truths, Moses emphasized the sharp difference between the biblical account of creation and concurrent pagan myths. In sum, the Genesis narrative is a “theological polemic” (Spencer and Alexander 2009:49), that is, a “resolutely monotheistic” repudiation of rival “ancient Near Eastern polytheistic culture”. The power and effectiveness of the divine word resonates throughout the Genesis account as well as the rest of the Pentateuch. Ultimately, it is by faith that people believe both in the triune existence of God (cf. Heb 11:6) and His setting in order by His command the temporal ages as well as all that exists within them (cf. v. 3; Alexander 2001:321–322; Brown 2010:32–33; Cassuto 1961:8; Haarsma

An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity

23

and Haarsma 2007:115–116; Hamilton 1990:55; Hyers 1984:53; Lioy 2005:40; Lucas 2007:3–4; Moberly 2009b:52). As noted earlier, the Genesis rendition of how the primordial earth began is not portrayed as occurring within the normal course of human events. Because of this, some have tended to misunderstand the original intent Moses had in writing the creation account. He did not spell out with scientific precision the process by which the cosmos came into existence, but rather crafted an aesthetically pleasing, literary mosaic of God’s creation of the universe. Furthermore, instead of recording every event that transpired over billions of years, the human author chose incidents that historically recounted what occurred, along with conveying the theological implications of those events. Moses’ intent was to spotlight the divine Agent behind the natural and supernatural processes at work in the evolutionary formation of the cosmos and development of carbon-based life on earth (cf. Berry 1988:49–50; Brown 2010:60; Carlson and Longman 2010:125–126; Godawa 2010:4; Lioy 2005:31–32). The View of Materialistic Naturalism In contrast to the preceding theocentric outlook of Scripture, a view prevalent in the West is that “matter is the foundation of everything that exists” (Smith 2001:64) and science provides the “best window onto the world” (cf. Alexander 2001:273; Hawking and Mlodinow 2010:34; Hyers 1984:13). This mindset is the backbone of evolutionism, which refers to an atheistic dogma that affirms an entirely naturalistic process for cosmological and biological change (cf. Falk 2004:9, 40; Fisher 1997:67–68, 92, 94–95; Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:149; Hewlett and Peters 2006:178–179; Jeeves 1969:109–110; Lamoureux 2008:5–6, 38; Schönborn 2007a:12–13, 27–28, 48, 60, 120; Van Till 1990:120–121). Moreover, it is claimed that a unified theory (i.e. a postulate using one set of ideas and principles) can be found using only empirical methods to describe all of the forces of nature (cf. Barbour 1989:134–135; Haught 2010:18, 43; Hawking and Mlodinow 2010:7–8, 58, 117, 181; McGrath 2009:52; Polkinghorne 2009b:106). In turn, this mathematical “formula for the world” (Küng 2007:1) will be able to “solve the deepest riddles of our cosmos”. Allegedly, when this happens, the notion of a transcendent Creator-God becomes irrelevant and the claim of theistic metaphysics to possess dis-

24

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

tinctive ontological truths is invalidated (16). Despite the efforts of specialists and experts to fathom the created world’s puzzling questions, they continue to fail. This even includes the quest for a “single grand theory” (Küng 2007:16) that can combine the laws of physics at the micro and macro levels and thereby reveal nature’s perfect unity, orderliness, and harmony (cf. Day 2009:95). According to Polkinghorne (2005), “science describes only one dimension of the many-layered reality” of the cosmos. Also, it confines itself to the “impersonal and general” and fences off the “personal and unique” (ix). Consequently, science is only able to observe a “fragmented picture”. At best, it is a “patchwork of areas of insight only loosely, if at all, connected to each other” (7). Even in the face of the preceding limitations, some (though not all) scientists still regard the material universe as a purposeless entity in which life and mind (i.e. the faculty of thought, volition, and self-awareness) spontaneously arose over billions of years by a remarkable combination of seemingly improbable circumstances and arbitrarily juxtaposed events. Likewise, they assert that a completely different universe could have arisen, one that is absolutely sterile, inhospitable, and lifeless. Moreover, they claim that the human race evolved by the bloody, directionless, and unguided processes of chance. As well, people exist all alone in an immense, unfeeling cosmos. It is alleged that in the absence of empirical evidence, one must resort to sentimental wishful thinking to arrive at a different conclusion (e.g. the existence of an intelligent and purposeful supreme being who created a universe finetuned for biological complexity; cf. Alexander 2008:321; Haught 2010:57–58; Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:153; Lioy 2008:31; Spencer and Alexander 2009:38; Van Till 1999:190). For a discussion of the overall inability of science, as a discipline, to recognize God as the primary agent or cause behind the ordering and coherence of the universe, cf. Pretorius 2007. The author notes that science is able to “argue what reality is from as many realms and ideas” as it chooses; yet this hypothesizing is based on a “limited understanding of how the cosmos was formed”. In contrast, the Judeo-Christian Scripture “widens the picture”. Specifically, the Bible “gives deeper meaning to the purpose for creation and causes one to search for an-

An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity

25

swers to greater truths than science can produce” (41). In the final analysis, the “theistic worldview” is the “most biblically viable” paradigm “within which reality can be understood” (10). More generally, even the “most major alternate worldviews are self-defeating and inadequate” in making sense of existence (both physical and metaphysical). None of these constructs (whether philosophical or empirical in character) are able to “answer questions surrounding humanity’s journey of life and their final destination, life after death” (26). Despite the somber nature of the preceding observations, Pretorius rightly affirms that “both science and theology involve themselves in a journey of discovery, both seek answers, and both concern themselves with truth” (12). Furthermore, he maintains that it is possible for “science and theology” to “comfortably work to further each ones’ understanding of reality” (23). Based on the preceding supposition, it seems reasonable to consider “science and religion” as separate and complementary disciplines that “address aspects of human understanding in different ways”. Moreover, “attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist” (Ayala 2008:12; cf. Day 2009:83–83, 130; Gould 1997). The Origin of Human Life on Earth The point of concern at this juncture is the origin and actualization of carbon-based life on earth, including Homo sapiens (i.e. modern humans). As stated earlier, the best persuasive scientific explanation is offered by biological evolution (based on an analysis of the fossil record, genome evidence, morphological data, and so forth; cf. Ayala 2008:17– 35; Baker and Miller 2006:52–70; Day 2009:115–116; Hewlett and Peters 2006:173–176). The focus here is on mutations that are caused by genetic differences appearing in the offspring of mating organisms. This phenomena (also known as descent with modification) is the basis for simpler life forms being incrementally transformed into more complex ones over vast eons of time (by some estimates, spanning nearly 3.85 billion years). A case in point would be the earliest hominid predecessors to anatomically modern humans evolving from a common ancestral species of bipedal (upright walking) primates that are now extinct. This outcome resulted from a process of natural selection extending over mil-

26

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

lions of years (cf. Berry 2007a:4; Colling 2004:103–104; Finlay 2007:1–2; Kidner 1967:26; Miller 2003:152). Just as God presided over the creation of the entire cosmos, so too He superintended the biological evolutionary process of all forms of carbon-based life on earth so that they developed according to His perfect will and for His everlasting glory (cf. Attfield 2006:83; McGrath 2010a:10). This includes His providential involvement in the planet’s history (through both natural and supernatural means) to foster the emergent complexity of life found across the globe (cf. Brown 2010:62; Jackelén 2006:623; O’Connor and Wong 2006; Peacocke 1979:61; van Huyssteen 2006:662–663). According to Murphy (2001), the latter circumstance has led to “creation’s functional integrity”. This means that while the universe is completely dependent on God for its existence, He has “endowed” it with the “ability to accomplish” its purpose without necessitating supernatural “corrections” or “interventions”. Horton (2011:338) clarifies that it would be mistaken to consider God to be “one agent among others vying for freedom, power, and control in the same ontological space”. Instead, the Lord is “mysteriously above, behind, and within the creation”. Furthermore, He is enigmatically present in the “ordinary relations of cause and effect with which he has endowed” the cosmos. To permit the advent of Homo sapiens at a precise moment in time, God brought about an optimal set of conditions on earth, in the solar system and Milky Way galaxy, and throughout the entire universe (a phenomenon known as the anthropic principle; cf. Collins 2006b:74; Edwards 1999:48; Gingerich 2006:12, 39; Kuhn 2007:28–29; McGrath 2009:xii, 85, 180; McGrath 2010b:154–155). Furthermore, God presided over earth’s climatic and geologic formation to make it ideally suited for human habitation, including the ability of people to survive and thrive (cf. Isa 45:18; Holder 2007:2–3; Polkinghorne 2007a:4; Sharpe and Walgate 2002:938; Waltke and Yu 2007:175, 203). Concerning Homo sapiens, they had a relatively recent origin (by some estimates, between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago) from a single location (most likely, eastcentral Africa; cf. Alexander 2010:3; Fischer 1993; Korsmeyer 1998:118– 119; Wilcox 2003:236–237, 242; Wilcox 2004:132–133). Beginning around 40,000 years ago, during the Upper Paleolithic

An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity

27

period (or Late Stone Age), a “dramatic behavioral shift” (Kline 1992:5) among humanlike hominids is observed in the archaeological record. A gradualist, evolutionary scenario claims that the “image of God and human sinfulness” (Lamoureux 2008:29–30, 290–291) progressively developed in some mysterious way through “many generations” of “prehuman ancestors” (cf. Brown 2010:111; Colling 2004:117–118; Day 2005:22–23; Domning and Hellwig 2006:58–59; Enns 2010:2; Falk 2004:225; Harlow 2010:180; Klapwijk 2008:169–170, 270–271; Ross 1985:240–242, 245; Schneider 2010:200–201; van Huyssteen 2003:168– 169, 176–177). In contrast, Genesis 2:7 and 21–22 reveal that at one precise moment, the original human pair were the direct product of divine activity from a distinct Homo species of ancient, pre-Adamite creatures. Put another way, it was from an initially small population (possibly numbering no more than several thousand; cf. Alexander 2008:224; Collins 2006b:207; Wilcox 2003:240, 245) that God brought the first anatomically modern humans into existence by special, instantaneous, and separate creation (cf. Gen 1:27; Deut 4:32; Isa 45:12; Acts 17:26; Collins 2010:160–162; Dyrness 1977:79; Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:222–223, 228; McGrath 1997). The above incident is called evolutionary monogenism (a term that literally means “one beginning”) and necessitated God interrupting the normal course of biological development (including its apparent ontological indeterminacy). It involved Him freshly creating Adam and Eve with apparent age (that is, as adults rather than as children) and giving them a genetic history that reflected their common ancestry with all other life forms (cf. Bonnette 2007:147, 150, 153, 172; Bube 1971:199, 208– 209; Frame 2002:307; Ryrie 1967:77; Wood 2001:1–2). Additionally, the “original state” of the primeval pair was characterized by “moral perfection in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness” (Strimple 2005). The episode also included God supernaturally forming the material (i.e. physical) and immaterial (i.e. spiritual) aspects of their being. The latter refers to God’s infusion of a soul in the primeval pair, as well as in the embryos of all subsequent humans (cf. Job 10:8–12; 31:15; 33:4; Pss 119:73; 139:13; Prov 22:2; Isa 43:7; Mal 2:10; Wis of Sol 15:11; Eph 2:10; 1 Pet 4:19; Bonnette 2007:110, 169; Brown 2003:502; Collins 2010:156; Duncan 2007:2364; Gray 2003:287; Held and Rüst 1999:232, 236; Hulsbosch

28

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

1965:36–37; Korsmeyer 1998:20–21). The soul has been traditionally understood as the “immaterial essence” (Lake 2009:585) or “animating principle” (Robeck 1988:587) of Homo sapiens that enables them to relate to God. Be that as it may, in “Hebrew thought, a person is a body-soul” (Wilson 1989:175). Expressed differently, everyone is “viewed as a unity, a single entity, an indivisible whole”. This implies that a “person is not a soul or spirit” who “now inhabits and will at death” abandon his or her “body”. Instead, “soul” or “spirit” denotes the “whole person or individual as a living being”. The implication is that people are “physical beings” (Brown 2003:503) who have “mental functions and spiritual capacities” (a view known as ontological holism; cf. Anderson 1998:182–183; Barbour 2000:149; Barr 1993b:36; Collins 2003:122; Driscoll and Breshears 2010:129; Edgar 2002:27–28; Eichrodt 1967:137; Green 1998:173; Green 2008:70–71; MacKay 1965:52–53; O’Brien 2007:71; Peacocke 1979:284; Prenter 1967:266; Rust 1966:159–160; Westermann 1974:79–80). In short, Adam and Eve were the sole historic, genetic primogenitors of all humanity (cf. Kaiser 2008:40; Keller 2009:10–11; Kidner 1967:28, 30). It seems that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Moses imaginatively reframed the opening chapters of Genesis to reflect the “ecological and cultural environment” (Hurd 2003:228) of the ancient Near East during the Neolithic period (or New Stone Age, which began about 9,500 B.C.E.; cf. Pearce 1976:15). If this supposition is true, Moses accommodated God’s truth to the preexisting worldview of the covenant community. Expressed differently, Moses artistically used “rhetorical and literary techniques” (Collins 2011:16) to describe an episode that occurred in the distant past, in “terms familiar” (Collins 2006a:253) to his contemporary “audience” (cf. Blocher 1997:40; Fischer 2008:6; Moberly 2009a:9–10; Turnbaugh 2002:317–319; Young 1995). Whatever the actual case may be, the “characters and plot” (Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:225) in the Genesis creation account are “references to real people and real historical events” (cf. chapter 4 of this study, which explores various ways of correlating the biblical and scientific data as it pertains to the first human pair.) To be sure, there is still the matter of accounting for Cain’s wife, as well as the individuals whom Cain feared would murder him (cf. Gen

An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity

29

4:13–17; Fischer 2008:51; Moberly 2009b:24–25). One possibility (albeit somewhat speculative) is that the immediate offspring of Adam and Eve interbred for a relatively brief period and to a minor “extent with the local archaic populations” (Wilcox 2003:246). This would lead to some absorption, or assimilation, of other humanlike hominids into the gene pool of Homo sapiens (cf. Gen 6:1–4; Alexander 2011; Fischer 1994; Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:219; Harrison 1979:1; Kidner 1967:28–29; O’Brien 2009:416; Spanner 1987:79, 109, 11–112). The subsequent migration of the first couple’s descendants (conceivably analogous to the “Out of Africa” theory) and the concurrent rise of civilizations across the globe were due to God’s intervention (cf. 11:1–9). Previously existing hominid species were either displaced or became extinct as a result of a pronounced increase in human population and expansion of human activity in shared ecological niches (cf. Edwards 1999:59–60; Fischer 1993; Kidner 1967:29; Klein 1992:5; O’Brien 2007:73; Pearce 1976:14). As with statements made earlier, some might regard aspects of the preceding theological observations to be merely faith-based assertions or ad hoc explanations that are “outdated in the light of the findings of modern science” (Day 2005:4). Admittedly, this is a situation in which the etiology of the first human couple can be explained without reference to the supernatural intervention of God (cf. Wilcox 2003:253). Be that as it may, the infallible, overruling authority of Scripture is given precedence (which is in keeping with the considerations and axioms delineated in the Prologue of this study; cf. Duncan 2007:2380; Keller 2009:9). Moreover, when it comes to the virginal conception of the Son of God, one could also say that such a notion has no real scientific support (cf. Matt 1:20–21; Luke 1:35). For that matter, the same holds true for the literal, bodily resurrection of the Messiah from the dead (cf. Matt. 28:1–10; Mark 16:1–8; Luke 24:1–49; John 20–21; Acts 1:3; 2:24, 31–32; 4:2, 33; 5:30–32; 17:18, 31–32; 26:23; Rom 1:4; 6:5; 1 Cor 15:3–7; Phil 3;10; 1 Pet 1:3; 3:21; Bonnette 2007:18, 176; Collins 2003:293; Falk 2004:210; Fisher 1997:31–32; Forysth 2006:10, 13; Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:118; Holder 2007:4; Hill 2007:130; Sloane 2005:3, 6). In both cases, the biblical depiction is that almighty God directly intervened to bring about a set of time-bound, historical circumstances and outcomes that are beyond scientific verification.

30

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

The same observation could be made about the miracles recorded in the four Gospels that Jesus performed during His earthly ministry. His miracles were extraordinary expressions of God’s power. When the Son performed a miracle, the Father directly altered, superseded, or counteracted some established pattern in the natural order. The miracles enacted by Jesus served several purposes. First, they confirmed His claim to be the Messiah. Second, they validated the Son’s assertion that He was sent by the Father and represented Him. Third, they substantiated the credibility of the truths Jesus’ declared to the people of Israel. Fourth, they encouraged the doubtful to put their trust in the Son. Fifth, they demonstrated that the one who is love was willing to reach out to people with compassion and grace (cf. Matt 11:2–5; Luke 7:20–22; John 20:30–31; Acts 2:22; 4:30; Heb 2:4; Alexander 2001:451–452; Alexander 2008:38–39; Bube 1971:115–116; Collins 2006b:48; Driscoll and Breshears 2010:88; Falk 2004:206–207; Fisher 1997:77–78; Frame 2002:258–259; Haarsma 2003:74, 83; Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:41; Harbin 1997:650; Humphreys 2004:2–3; Jeeves 1969:29–30; Lamoureux 2008:55; Louis 2010:8; Newman 2003:123; Pannenberg 2002:760–761; Polkinghorne 2007b:4; Van Till 1999:187–188; Worthing 2009:2, 5). In a similar vein, God’s special, instantaneous, and separate creation of a first pair of Homo sapiens was a supernatural manifestation of His power. Furthermore, the literary context and thrust of the Genesis account is universal in scope and deals with absolute human origins. The implication is that despite assertions to the contrary (cf. Alexander 2010:1–2; Collins 2003:481–482, 486; Enns 2010:2; Lamoureux 2008:165, 178, 201, 274, 319–320; Polkinghorne 2009:166–167), Adam and Eve are not fictional, generic characters appearing in an ancient Hebrew myth. Rather, they are a literal, historical couple who initially existed in a genetically pristine state as persons having moral integrity (that is, before original sin and the ensuing Fall; cf. Kidner 1967:27; Kuhn 2009:239; McGrath 1997; Thompson 2005:23), and with whom God entered into a covenant relationship (cf. Blocher 1984:111–112, 160; Collins 2006a:35, 113; Duncan 2007:2383; Horton 2011:959; Kline 1996; Lioy 2006b:85–87; Merrill 1991:18–19). These observations are reinforced by the specific, matter-of-fact reference to Adam in the following Old Testament passages: Genesis 4:25; 5:1, 3–5; 1 Chronicles 1:1; Job 15:7; 31:33; and Hosea

An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity

31

6:7 (cf. Bouteneff 2008:12–13; Waltke and Fredricks 2001:80; Waltke and Yu 2007:249–250). The above inferences remain true, even though Adam and Eve are paradigmatic of every human being who has ever lived (cf. 2 Bar 54:19; Cohen 1962:43; Collins 2011:58; Dunn 1998:200; Paul 1997a:360; Scullion 1992:946; Seebass 1986:85; Wallace 1992a:62–63). Also, the aforementioned deductions continue to be valid even though Adam functions as the representative (or federal) head for the entire human race. In point of fact, everyone is organically connected, or ontologically united, to him (that is, biologically, spiritually, morally, and legally; cf. Gen 2:24; 3:16–19; Ps 51:5; Rom 5:12–14; 1 Cor 15:21–22; McGrath 1997; Prenter 1967:254–255; Ramm 1985:72, 116; Westermann 1997:33–34, 42; Witherington 2010:226–227). Furthermore, affirming Adam’s historical existence does not invalidate the fact that he was a primeval archetype of national Israel and its people. Expressed in a different way, circumstances and events in the life of Adam foreshadowed and paralleled what later occurred among God’s covenant people. For instance, both proto-Israel (Adam) and national Israel were created by God, placed in a fertile environment, given clear stipulations, disobeyed God, and were exiled (cf. Barth 1956:48–49; Blocher 1997:55–56; Bouteneff 2008:10, 38– 39; Giberson and Collins 2011:211; Moberly 1992:26; Ostling 2011:26; Simkins 1994:185; Spanner 1987:74; Waltke and Yu 2007:150, 250). Moreover, the New Testament regards Adam and Eve as the literal, historical first pair of Homo sapiens (cf. Blocher 1984:163–164; Blocher 1997:46–48; Cundall 2009:62–63; Duncan 2007:2380–2382; Irons and Kline 2001:220; Kreitzer 1993a:10; Lane 1994b:164–165; Lucas 1989:107; MacArthur 2002:15; Murray 1979:50; Reeves 2009:44–46; Ross 1988:54; Rüst 2007:185; Ryrie 1967:67; Spanner 1987:74; Waltke and Yu 2007:249– 250). For instance, in Matthew 19:4–6 and Mark 10:6–7, Jesus quoted from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to emphasize the sanctity and inviolability of marriage. His argument is premised on the fact that Adam and Eve were a real couple who lived at a distinct point in space-time history. In the Gospel of Luke’s version of the Messiah’s genealogy, it is revealed that Jesus ultimately traced His physical lineage back to a real, personal Adam, who as the “son of God” (3:38), was directly formed by the hand of the Creator (cf. Job 10:8–12; Pss 119:73; 139:14). To be sure, the fore-

32

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

most purpose of the Lukan genealogy is “theological and christological” (Witherington 1992:66). Even so, this intention need not undermine the essential historicity of the Savior’s “ancestral credentials as God’s selected agent” (Huffman 1992:257). Paul upheld this viewpoint when, at Athens, he declared that God “from one man made all the nations” (Acts 17:26). Other interpretive options notwithstanding, the apostle most likely was referring specifically to Adam as the biological progenitor of the human race (cf. Gen 3:20; Sir 40:1; Tob 8:6; Wis of Sol 7:1; 10:1–2). In Romans 5:12–21 (especially verses 12 and 14), the comparison and contrast that Paul made between Adam and Jesus has the most theological potency when both individuals are understood to be actual human beings. Oppositely, the persuasiveness of the apostle’s argument is substantially weakened when it is maintained that Adam was just a makebelieve, generic character who has no tangible, historical connection with the Savior. Moreover, it is impossible for the Fall to be real if Paul had in mind a nonexistent person named Adam who committed an imaginary sin in a mythical locale. Otherwise, his transgression becomes nothing more than a phenomenological notion or experiential axiom. In truth, the apostle did not present the dire consequences of the first man’s act of disobedience (e.g. the presence of guilt, condemnation, and alienation from God; enslavement to sin; and being condemned to die) as mere metaphors, but as objective, historical facts of human existence. Therefore, just because the biblical account of Adam and Eve’s creation and fall is extraordinary, does not mean it should be dismissed outright as a folk tale. In 1 Corinthians 15:22 and 45, Paul’s reference to Adam presupposes that he actually existed in space-time history. Also, in verse 45 (which quotes Gen 2:7), the apostle made a distinction between the “first Adam” becoming a “living being” and the “last Adam” becoming a “life-giving spirit”. If the first male Homo sapien was just a microcosm story for ancient Israel or a metaphorical prototype for all humanity, the forcefulness of Paul’s contrast is enormously diminished. Also, his contention in 1 Corinthians 15 for the reality of the future resurrection of all believers is undermined. Succinctly put, the efficacy of the apostle juxtaposing the first Adam with the last Adam hinges on Genesis 2

An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity

33

being an account that reflects an underlying historical reality (the “parabolic dress of the literary” form, notwithstanding; Blocher 1997:50). In 2 Corinthians 11:3, Paul referred to Eve as a literal, historical person whom the serpent deceived in the garden of Eden. To regard her as a literary fiction subverts the apostle’s case against the false teachers who were plaguing the believers at Corinth. In 1 Timothy 2:13–14, Paul’s line of reasoning is premised on the essential historicity of Adam and Eve. The apostle was quite specific in noting that God first formed Adam and then Eve. Likewise, Paul explained that Eve, not Adam, was first completely deceived by the serpent and transgressed God’s command. These distinctions and the apostle’s theological purpose in making them are far less compelling if Adam and Eve were not the literal, historical first pair of Homo sapiens. Finally, Jude 1:14 treats Adam as an actual individual who existed in space-time history. In particular, the writer included a brief genealogy in which he counted Adam as the biological progenitor of other descendants extending to Enoch and beyond. It is scientifically accurate to maintain that Adam and Eve shared physical characteristics with other creatures (including common anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic traits; cf. Finlay 2003:2–4). That said, it also remains true that the first human couple (along with all their physical descendants) differed radically from animals (including primates) both in degree and kind as self-aware, sophisticated individuals. A corollary is that people, far from being an accident of nature or quirk of fate, have intrinsic value and purpose. Put another way, because humans are made in the image of God (both ontologically and functionally), they are the pinnacle of His creation, having innate worth and significance (cf. Gen 1:26–27; 5:1–3; 9:6; 1 Cor 11:7; Jas 3:9). The latter is seen in humanity’s unique mental powers, intellectual capabilities, moral sensibilities, religious inclinations, cultural attainments, artistic productions, and technological achievements. In all these diverse ways, God’s image-bearers serve as His vice-regents over the earth and its creatures (cf. Collins 2006a:66–67; Collins 2006b:23, 200; Gingerich 2006:31–32, 107; Lam 2010:5; Lamoureux 2008:283, 286; Lioy 2010:14; Maass 1974:84; Sailhamer 1992:94–95; Smith 1993:184, 238; Thielicke 1961:67–68; Waltke and Fredricks 2001:46, 71; Wilcox

34

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

2004:123–124). While it seems valid to assert that God created the universe primarily for humankind, Scripture indicates there is more to it than that (cf. Collins 2003:499; Korsmeyer 1998:85–86; Munday 2003:465–466; Peacocke 1979:84; Schifferdecker 2008:65; Southgate 2008:37–38). Succinctly put, God’s purposes in creation, while including humankind, are not limited to the latter (cf. Rom 8:18ff). For instance, one meta-objective includes the Creator-King bringing glory to Himself in and through His creation. As a result, believers should avoid adopting a compartmentalized, either-or mentality when it comes to the temporal and eternal, the material and the immaterial, the physical and spiritual aspects of reality. In God’s sovereignty, every aspect of His creation has value, meaning, and purpose, at least from a theological point of view. Still, from the limited horizon of human existence, reality can at times seem to be filled with paradox, enigma, randomness, and so forth. A candid study of Ecclesiastes, the Psalms, Job, and so on, bears this point out. The latter observation notwithstanding, Hebrews 1:3 states that the Son is “sustaining all things by his powerful word”, including every aspect of the material universe in which we live. Moreover, Colossians 1:17 notes that in the Son “all things hold together”. The Reality of Physical Death Predating God’s Creation of Adam and Eve The findings of science indicate that physical death in the nonhuman natural world (including the mass extinction of countless, previouslythriving species) predated God’s special creation of Adam and Eve (cf. Alexander 2008:104–106, 244–245; Falk 2004:130, 199; Forysth 2006:17– 18; Lamoureux 2008:34, 225, 276, 305; McGrath 2009:90). Additionally, this evolutionary mechanism of creative destruction (along with nonhuman natural disasters, such as earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and so forth) has existed since God brought about the first forms of life on earth (cf. Braaten 2003433; Day 2009:103, 113; Greenberg 2003403; Polkinghorne 2009:165–166; Schönborn 2007a:100; Snoke 2004:119–120). Alexander (2001:352–353) clarifies that with the inception of “multicellular carbon-based life forms” on the planet, the “inevitable consequence” was a “dynamic natural order in which life and death”

An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity

35

were “integral parts”. In fact, all living organisms on the globe survive by “feeding on carbon-based molecules derived from other plants and animals”. Southgate (2008:16) observes that God providentially uses the preceding circumstance to bring about the “sort of beauty, diversity, sentience, and sophistication of creatures” found throughout earth. Furthermore, Miller (2011:92) argues that God intentionally “embedded” both “death and pain” within the natural world as part of His “will and purpose for it”. Expressed differently, “for nonhuman creation, pain and suffering provide the context in which animal lives” (93) continue to survive and thrive from one stage in descent to the next. Additionally, Munday (2003:459) reasons that because the termination of life is an inherent component of the biological evolutionary process, it is “not intrinsically immoral” (cf. Attfield 2006:150; Brown 2010:106– 107; Tracy 2008:114). Beyond any doubt, as Polkinghorne (2007b:3) explicates, humanity lives in a universe brimming with “potentiality”, which includes the “cosmic evolution of stars and galaxies” and the “developing complexity of terrestrial life”; but the “shadow side of evolving fruitfulness” is the presence of “evil and suffering”. (This difficult existential issue is a branch of philosophical theology known as theodicy.) Waltke and Fredricks (2001:68–69) offer a needed theological perspective. In their view, the existence of “darkness and chaos” in the “precreated earth” implies that “everything hostile to life is not the result of sin”. In truth, even the “malevolent forces of creation operate only within [God’s] constraints” (cf. Job 38:39, 41; 39:3, 16–17, 20, 25, 30; 41:14; Pss 104:19–21; 147:9; Isa 31:3; 45:6–7; Lam 3:38). The aforementioned discussion notwithstanding, the primeval account in Genesis points to a deplorable incident that occurred sometime after God created the first pair of Homo sapiens to be autonomous (or free) and responsible moral agents (cf. Ramm 1985:8–9, 76, 91). Specifically, when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden of Eden (by disobeying a direct command from God), the form of death they experienced was first of all spiritual (cf. Rom 5:21; 6:23; 7:10–11; 8:6). By that is meant their relationship with their Creator-King was immediately estranged (cf. Collins 2003:142–143; Collins 2006a:180–181). Whereas before the

36

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

couple had been “God-oriented”, now they were “self-oriented” (Paul 1997a:360). More specifically, the research done by Peacock (1995:2–3) indicates that the Eden narrative of Genesis 2:4–3:24 depicts “three realms of relationship” that were “broken as a direct consequence of sin”: (1) between God and humanity; (2) between individuals; and (3) between humanity and the creation (cf. Alexander 2008:250–251, 255, 261; Berry 2007a:4; Bouteneff 2008:42–43; Fretheim 1994:352, 369; Keller 2009:11–12; Lucas 2007:4; Merrill 1991:18; von Rad 1972:101; Waltke and Yu 2007:263). The gradual and long-term effect of Adam and Eve’s plight is seen in their physical demise (cf. Driscoll and Breshears 2010:154; Lioy 2006a:86–87). Prior to the Fall, they were “naturally mortal” (Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:217), but as a result of their sin, they lost their “potential for immortality”. Furthermore, Adam and Eve languished in a metaphysically “wretched existence” (Spanner 1987:142) due to the “guilt” (Strimple 2005) associated with their transgression and the “corrupted, depraved nature” it spawned. Tragically, this dire circumstance became the fate of all their descendants, each of whom share their spiritual and genetic fingerprint (cf. Gen 3:19, 22–24). The implication is that, except for the Son of God (cf. Isa 53:9; Luke 23:41; John 8:46; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet1:19; 2:22–24; 1 John 3:5), everyone is born in a state of sin and guilt, has an inner tendency or disposition toward sinning, and are powerless to rescue themselves from their predicament (cf. Eccles 7:29; Jer 17:9; 2 Bar 4:3; 17:2–4; 23:4; 43:2; 48:42–43, 46; 54:15, 19; 56:5–6; 4 Ezra 3:7, 21–22, 26–27; 4:30; 7:118; Sir 14:17; 15:14; 25:24; Wis 2:23–24; Rom 3:23; 6:23; 7:5, 13; Eph 2:1–3). Moreover, the Fall has ecological ramifications (cf. Rom 8:20–22; Berry 2008:122–123; Clifton 2009:130; Cunningham 2010:389; Edwards 1999:67; Greenberg 2003:398–399; Guthrie 1981a:79; Haught 2000:151; Peacocke 1979:260–261; Southgate 2008:15; Spanner 1987:73). For instance, God has linked the ongoing fertility of creation to the fate of Homo sapiens. To be explicit, it was due to the Fall that the Lord held back nature’s full potential to flourish and achieve its divinely intended goal. This constriction of earth’s fecundity is seen in the curse that God placed on the ground (cf. Gen 3:17–18; Ps 104:37; Isa 24:5–13; Gen Rab 12:6; 4 Ezra 7:11–12, 116–126). In a personified sense, all nonhuman cre-

An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity

37

ation presently groans under the burden of its intensified affliction. Furthermore, nature’s liberation from the menace of its vexing situation is linked to the destiny of redeemed humanity. Specifically, it is only when the Father resurrects His spiritual children at the second advent of His Son, that the cosmos will be renewed and ushered into the glorious freedom of eternal perfection (cf. Isa 65:17; 66:22; Jer 31:12–14; 33; 2 Bar 15:8; 1 Enoch 51:4–5; Matt 19:28; 2 Pet 3:10–13; Rev 21:1). Down through the centuries, believers have wondered why God allows profoundly degenerate and malevolent acts caused by Homo sapiens to occur on earth (cf. Hab 1:13). Whether one is considering evil attitudes, actions, or aims, this wickedness results from the absence of the moral perfection that God originally intended to exist among people. Ultimately, only God knows why He has allowed human evil to exist in the world. Nevertheless, it remains true that the Lord may use ungodliness to bring home to individuals the distressing fact of their mortality, to warn them of greater evils, to bring about a greater good, or to help defeat wickedness. The last two reasons are especially evident in the cross of the Messiah. Despite the tragedy of His suffering at Calvary, His atoning sacrifice resulted in a greater good (i.e. the salvation of the lost) and the defeat of evil (e.g. sin and death; cf. Beker 1987:11, 29, 72, 86; Braaten 2003:433; Creegan 2007:505–506; Daily 2011; Falk 2004:53; Harlow 2008:191–192; Haught 2000:38; Ingram 1965:102–103; Macdonald 2009:818–182; Mosert 2005:109; Peacocke 1979:332; Schönborn 2007b:105; Spencer and Alexander 2009:68–69; Southgate 2008:16; Tracy 2008:115). When all is said and done, it is only at the consummation of the age that the inherent “good” (Russell 2003:368) of God’s creation will be “fully realized”. Conclusion This chapter has considered an evolutionary creationist process for the origin of humanity. Throughout the analysis, a number of broadly interrelated issues were explored in an integrated, synthesized manner. The key supposition was that a fundamental congruity exists between what the Lord has revealed in nature (i.e. the book of God’s work) and in Scripture (i.e. the book of God’s Word). Accordingly, the endeavor involved taking seriously the scientific data, as well as engaging Scripture

38

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

in its historical, cultural, and sociological contexts. The resulting outcome was a theologically informed harmonization of evolutionary theory with creationist teachings found in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures about the genesis of Homo sapiens. In order to accomplish the preceding task, the interplay between science and religion was considered. It was found that while evolutionary science (both cosmic and biological) primarily deals with the mechanisms of existence at work throughout the cosmos, Scripture is mainly concerned with the deep-rooted theological meaning of creation. Be that as it may, some (but not all) relevant contact points between these two distinct disciplines included the origin of the cosmos, the inception and development of carbon-based life on earth, and the shared quest for greater understanding about the world in which people live. It was proposed that critical realism be the theoretical bridge linking the dialogue between specialists in science and those in religious studies. This irenic mindset stands in sharp contrast to the view of materialistic naturalism in which the physical substance of the universe is said to be all there is and atheistic scientists are depicted as the grand interpreters and gatekeepers of the hidden mysteries of the cosmos. The chapter next took up the biblical account of creation, specifically, Genesis 1:1–2:3. This passage was seen as a highly stylized, literary depiction that uses a temple-creation motif to describe the formation of the universe. Moreover, the content is figurative and symbolic in form and set against the backdrop of pre-history (or protohistory). This means that the Genesis rendition of how the primordial earth began is not portrayed as occurring within the normal course of human events. Furthermore, the creation “days” are best understood, not as literal, sequential, 24-hour time periods, but rather as atemporal markers within an overall literary framework. In short, the creation “days” form a rhythmical structure around which the narrative is arranged. Given the latter, it would be misguided to insist upon the Genesis narrative delineating a precise chronology, especially since primordial events did not occur on the plane of ordinary human history. A number of important theological truths arise from this literary and exegetical analysis of the biblical text. The most crucial point is that almighty God, through a series of natural (i.e. evolutionary) and

An Evolutionary Creationist Process for the Origin of Humanity

39

supernatural processes, created everything, including spiritual beings, physical beings, matter, energy, time, and space. This theocentric view contrasts sharply with the claims of materialistic naturalism, which entirely rejects the need for a supernatural agency (such as God) to explain the origin of the cosmos. In light of the metaphorical nature of the creation account, it is possible for those who hold to the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture to affirm the findings of science for the age of the universe (about 13.7 billion years old) and earth (around 4.5 billion years old). Moreover, when a framework approach is used to interpret the literary structure of Genesis 1:1–2:3, those who are committed to the inspiration and authority of Scripture can support the postulate that God worked through a biological evolutionary process to bring about carbon-based life on earth. From a finite, human perspective, evolution looks like a chaotic, improvisational dance. All the same, just as God presided over the creation of the entire cosmos, so too He superintended the incremental transformation of simpler life forms into more complex ones over vast eons of time (nearly 3.85 billion years). With respect to the origin of humanity, the findings of science indicate that Homo sapiens had a relatively recent origin (by some estimates, between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago) from a single location (most likely, east-central Africa) and arose from an initially small population of humanlike hominids (possibly numbering no more than several thousand). Furthermore, Genesis 2:7 and 21–22 reveal that God brought Adam and Eve into existence by special, instantaneous, and separate creation. This included God’s formation of the material (i.e. physical) and immaterial (i.e. spiritual) aspects of their being. Admittedly, science offers an explanation for the genesis of the first human couple without reference to the supernatural intervention of God. This is a case in which the overruling authority of Scripture is given precedence. The implication is that Adam and Eve are not fictional, generic characters appearing in an ancient Hebrew myth. Instead, they are a literal, historical couple who initially existed in a genetically pristine state as persons having moral integrity. Moreover, because humans are made in the image of God, they are the pinnacle of His creation, having innate worth and significance. Tragically, when Adam and Eve sinned in the

40

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

garden of Eden, they experienced spiritual separation from God. Also, as a consequence, all their physical descendants are born into this world as mortal creatures who are separated in their relationship with their Creator-King as well as one another. Thankfully, through the death and resurrection of the Messiah, all who put their faith in Him can have eternal life and enjoy eternal fellowship with God in heaven.

Chapter 3

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

T

he previous chapter considered an evolutionary creationist process for the origin of humanity. This included discussing the biblical account of creation recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis. In this chapter, I build on that information by considering other relevant portions of the Old and New Testaments. The goal is to do justice to the historically-conditioned nature of the biblical texts by deliberating on the prescientific cosmology found in them. On the one hand, the literature found in Scripture reflects an ancient Near Eastern cultural context. On the other hand, the biblical writers did not haphazardly appropriate concepts and terminology contemporary to them. Instead, they made use of the prevailing outlook of their pagan neighbors in a discerning, critical manner for illustrative, allusive, and polemical reasons (cf. Collins 2006a:242; Currid 2003:51; Fretheim 2005:27–28; Hyers 1984:61; Gordon 2007:230–231, 238–239; Harlow 2010:182; Hyers 2003:29–30; Kaufmann 1960:13–14; Levenson 1988:54–55; Mabie 2008:51; McGrath 2001:152–153, 155; O’Dowd 2008:60; Oswalt 2009:17–18; Powell 2003:10; Stadelmann 1970:17, 24, 178–179; Stek 1990:230–232; Van Till 1999:210). A case in point would be the way in which the inhabitants of the Fertile Crescent living in the third millennium B.C.E. through the first century A.C.E. conceptualized the spatio-physical world. Along with them, the covenant community shared the three-tiered concept of reality found in the Genesis creation account. Furthermore, this cosmogenic awareness influenced the way in which they apprehended physical and spiritual existence, both orally and in writing. The latter observation is substantiated by the selective examination of relevant biblical passages undertaken in the following sections. Before doing so, however, the highlights of Walton’s research (2009a:12–13), which were summarized

42

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

in the preceding chapter, are restated here for the sake of continuity and clarity. Walton explains that when Moses lived, people visualized the earth as being a “flat, disk-shaped” landmass that was completely surrounded by water. The ground was “upheld by pillars”, while the sky was “supported by mountains” located on the distant horizon. The sky itself was thought to be a “solid” dome or tent-like structure on which the “celestial bodies” (namely, the sun, moon, and stars) were “engraved” and “moved in tracks”. In this ancient three-tiered “view of the cosmos”, rain, hail, and snow from an immense body of water located above the overarching sky “fell to earth through openings”. God’s temple was located in the upper heavens, which in turn rested atop the sky (or lower heavens). The shrine in Jerusalem was the earthbound counterpart to the divine abode. A series of “graves led to the netherworld” (sheol), which was located beneath the earth, while “mighty Leviathan” skulked in the “depths” of the seas (cf. Anderson 1994:20–22; Brown 2010:50–51; Clifford 1988:157, 166; Clifford 2001:513; Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:112–115; Harlow 2008:174–175; Jacob 1958:145–146; Jeeves 1969:80–81; Lamoureux 2008:106–108; Lucas 2003:137–138; Moltmann 1985:158–160; Preuss 1995:226; Rust 1962:181–182; Simkins 1994:138–139; Stadelmann 1970:126–127, 180–182; Stek 1990:226–229; von Rad 1962:152; Walton 2003:158–159; Walton 2009b:29–30). The Absolute, Creative Power of God A foundational premise of this study is that a transcendent mind or intelligence known as “God exists” (Merrill 1991:9) and that He is “unified, self-consistent, and ordered”. Deuteronomy 6:4 is a key verse concerning the nature of God, for it affirms His uniqueness. Despite the world’s veneration of many deities and suzerains, the Lord alone is God (cf. 1 Cor 8:4–6). Deuteronomy 6:4 also affirms the unity, or singularity, of God’s being (cf. Mark 12:29). This means He is simple and unchanging in His essence. He is not composed of different elements, and nothing can be added to or taken away from Him. Furthermore, the Judeo-Christian Scriptures affirm the existence of three persons in the Godhead. This is called the doctrine of the Trinity (from the Latin word trinitas, which means “threeness”). The notion of the three-in-oneness

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

43

of God is nowhere fully formulated in the Bible; yet Scripture provides ample evidence to support the doctrine. It affirms that the Lord exists in three personal distinctions known respectively as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Moreover, each person is co-equal and co-eternal with the other two (cf. Gen 1:26; 3:22; Pss 45:6–7; 110:1; Isa 7:14; 48:16; 61:1; Matt 3:16–17; 28:19; Mark 1:10–11; Luke 3:21–22; John 15:26; Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 12:4–6; 2 Cor 13:14). While the mystery connected with the Trinity will never be tamed, the metaphor of the root, branch, and fruit is suggestive (though admittedly imperfect). Saint John of Damascus (an Eastern theologian of the eighth century of the common era; cf. O’Connor 2008) imagined a tree in which the root symbolized the Father, the branches represented the Son, and the fruit exemplified the Spirit. In this analogy, the Father is the source of all life (cf. Gen 1:1; Neh 9:6; Pss 33:6; 102:25; 104:2–6; Isa 44:24; 45:18; Jer 10:12; 27:5; Acts 17:24; Heb 11:3); the Son extends the heterogeneity of life to the world (cf. Isa 9:6–7; John 1:3–4; 3:36; 10:10; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1–5; Acts 3:15; Rom 5:17–18; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16–17; 2 Tim 1:10; Heb 1:3; 1 John 1:1–2; 5:11–12); and the Spirit enables life in all its forms to thrive on the planet (cf. Gen 1:2; Ezek 36:27; Joel 2:28; Luke 24:49; John 14:16–17, 26; 15:26; 16:7; Acts 1:8; 2:1–4; Rom 7:4–6; 8:1–17, 23, 26–27; 1 Cor 2:10–13; Gal 5:22–23; 1 Pet 3:18). Be that as it may, the “sustenance” provided by the Triune Godhead remains “one” (Saint John of Damascus 1958). Along with affirming the reality of God, an additional supposition of this study is that His “purposes are noncontradictory and comprehensible at some level of human understanding” (Merrill 1991:9). Furthermore, the backbone of Scripture’s prescientific cosmology is the teaching that the all-powerful Lord brought everything into existence out of nothing (Latin, creatio ex nihilo), namely, “from no prior materials” (McMullin 2010:11). In a prelude that is characterized by “stark simplicity” (Speiser 1990:8) and “shrouded in mystery” (Kass 2003:28), God is portrayed as “absolute, independent existence” (Brun 2002:176). On the one hand, He is “eternal”; on the other hand, “creation is in time”. Moreover, the “creative relation ... is radically asymmetrical” (Tracy 2008:109) and characterized by a total “ontological dependence of the creature upon the creator”. This “metaphysical account” (Cogliati 2010:10) both

44

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

“complements our best scientific understanding of the universe” and is “consonant with ... biblical revelation” (cf. Bube 1971:204; Pearce 1976:18, 84–85; Peters 1988:280, 285; Spanner 1987:107; Wilkinson 2002:24–25). Concerning the Old Testament, Genesis 1:1 summarizes the totality of the process in one declarative statement, namely, that at the categorical beginning of the cosmos, God created the “heavens” as well as the “earth”. Goldingay (2003:876) clarifies that accepting what Scripture has revealed does not necessitate concluding that the opening chapters of Genesis reflect “history in the modern sense”. Instead, astute readers surmise that the creation narratives are like “parables” which offer a “divinely inspired” and “imaginative” retelling of “something that actually happened” (879; cf. Bonhoeffer 1997:14; Bube 1971:120; Dyrness 1977:104–105; Duncan 2007:2302; Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:40–41; Plantinga 1991:11; Waltke and Yu 2007:189). From a theological standpoint, the prose narrative reveals that the “sustaining will of God” (Polkinghorne 2009b:xxii) is the “ground of continuing cosmic history”. It would be incorrect to conclude that “God micro-manages the world” (Walton 2009b:20). Instead, He is “thoroughly involved” in its “operations and functions”, including the usage of “evolutionary processes in the unfolding of creation” (Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:21). With respect to the intertestamental literature, Sirach 18:1 affirms that the one who “lives forever” also “created the whole universe”. In similar fashion, 42:15 declares that “by the word of the Lord his works are made”. The Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 adds that the Lord gave existence to and made use of “formless matter”, while 9:1 clarifies that it was by means of His “word” that He actualized His will. Fourth Ezra 3:4 likewise states that when the “sovereign Lord” spoke “at the beginning”, He “formed the earth”, that is, “without help”. In a corresponding manner, 2 Baruch 21:4 refers to God as the one who alone “created the earth”, “fixed the firmament by the word”, and “fastened the height of heaven by the spirit”. Additionally, He is said to have “called” into being at the dawn of the cosmos what “did not yet exist”, and all of it “obeyed” Him. Second Maccabees 7:28 lends support to the view of creation by divine fiat when it asserts that ultimately it was God who gave substance and shape to unformed matter to bring into existence “every-

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

45

thing” found in the “heavens” and all that is on the “earth”. In terms of the New Testament, Romans 4:17 discloses that the Creator “calls into being” things that did not exist before. Put another way, He brings into reality what was previously nonexistent. As 1 Corinthians 8:6 makes known, this is the consequence of Him being the source and origin of “all things”. Hebrews 2:10 likewise declares that “everything exists” for God and through Him. In 11:3, the writer added that believers perceive with the mind that the temporal ages were set in order by the spoken “command” of God. Biblical faith enables the covenant community to recognize and accept the truth that “what is seen” has its origin in what cannot be seen. In this regard, Revelation 4:11 asserts that the all-powerful Lord “created all things”. Furthermore, it is because of His sovereign will that they were “created” and existed (cf. Barth 1955:446–447; Bishop 2011:3; Collins 2006a:52–53; Eichrodt 1967:101–102; Frame 2002:300; Gordon 2007:231; Hyers 1984:65; Oden 1992:1166; Rust 1962:182; Schaeffer 1972:27–28; Stek 1990:216, 218; von Rad 1962:142; von Rad 1972:47; Zimmerli 1978:34–35). One theological implication is that the “divine activity of creation is voluntary, effortless and rational” (Osborn 2000:429). Another inference is that the “reality” (Childs 1986:31) God “brought forth” was “distinct from himself” and “over which he had complete freedom” (cf. Barth 1968:16; Bonhoeffer 1997:17–18; Collins 2003:67–68; Eichrodt 1967:101– 106; Gilkey 1959:51–52; Lucas 2003:135; Moltmann 1985:74, 207; Russell 2003:339; Schönborn 2007a:38; Stadelmann 1970:28; Van Till 1999:166, 170). It stands to reason that, despite all appearances to the contrary and despite all atheistic, naturalistic explanations about the origin of the universe (cf. Hawking and Mlodinow 2010:8–9, 135, 164–165, 171–172, 180), God alone gave existence to the cosmos. Explicitly, then, He is the “sole operative cause of the works of creation” (Stadelmann 1970:3; cf. Alexander 2008:28; Anderson 1994:8, 29, 100–101; Bonting 1999:326; Brunner 1952:10; Currid 2003:58–59; Fretheim 2005:5, 37; Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:81; Hefner 1989:226–227; Kaufmann 1960:67; Moltmann 1985:15, 54; Peters 1989:74, 81; Schönborn 2007a:46; Stek 1990:213). Other portions of Scripture elaborate on the preceding historical and theological observations. For instance, Psalm 102 declares that in the distant past, the Lord established the “foundations” (v. 25) on which the

46

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

“earth” rested. Moreover, He personally handcrafted the “heavens”. Amos 5:8 goes on to disclose that the royal sovereign of the universe made the constellations “Pleiades and Orion”. As well, He was responsible for turning darkness into sunshine, and daylight into nighttime. He also enjoined water from the planet’s oceans to be poured out on the earth’s surface. Psalm 146 echoes the latter truth by proclaiming God to be the one who made “heaven and earth” (v. 6), along with the “sea” and the creatures who inhabit it. Brueggemann (1997:153) points out that when the Sovereign of the universe issued His royal decree, it gave rise to a “life-world of order, vitality, and fruitfulness”. In like manner, Louis (2011:4) notes that as “God inspired the biblical authors to write within the confines of their own culture”, their assorted statements about the cosmos affirm that it is characterized by such “properties” as “uniformity, rationality, and intelligibility”. Psalm 147 clarifies that the Lord not only counts the “number of stars” (v. 4), but also names each of them. God is the one who fills the “sky with clouds” (v. 8), provides “rain” for the “earth”, and causes “grass” to “grow” on the hillsides. When He dispatches His “command” (v. 15) throughout the “earth”, what He says is “swiftly” accomplished. This includes spreading “snow” (v. 16) like a “wool” blanket and distributing “frost” on the ground like “ashes”. He flings hailstones as effortlessly as someone would toss “pebbles” (v. 17), and no person can endure His “icy blast”. Then, at God’s command, the ice “melts” (v. 18); and when He breathes on it, the “waters” begin to “flow”. Isaiah 45:18 states that it was the Lord, the true God, who set up the “heavens”, constructed the “earth”, and placed the globe on its base. The result is a world ready for habitation, not a lifeless, chaotic wasteland. Brueggemann (1997:146) draws attention to the Lord’s “will and capacity” by His imperial “utterance” to “evoke and sustain life”. The result is a “hospitable, viable place” for creatures to exist. According to Genesis 2:4, when the “seventh day” was reached, the divine artisan sat in majestic repose to affirm the magnificence of His creation activity (cf. Barbour 1989:144–145; Fretheim 2005:2; Hiebert 1996:134; Osborn 2000:31; Oswalt 2009:68; Shead 2000:746). Even after the Fall, the universe continues to showcase the grandeur and power of its Creator-King. In Psalm 19:1, David affirmed this truth when he ob-

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

47

served that the “heavens” silently testify to God’s royal majesty, while the “skies” herald His unparalleled craftsmanship. A comparable outlook is found in the Wisdom of Solomon 13. Verse 1 refers to God as the “artisan” who brought everything into existence. Regardless of whether one is considering “fire” (v. 2), “wind”, the “turbulent water”, or the “luminaries of heaven”, the Lord is said to be their “author of beauty” (v. 3). Furthermore, there is no limit to the power of the “Creator” (v. 5), who is the source of the “greatness and beauty” seen in “created things”. These observations draw attention to the “sovereignty and effectiveness of God’s creative word” (Stek 1990:218), as well as His “directive rule over the creaturely realm”. He alone has made the cosmos the “arena of divine innovation, replete with novelty and renewal” (Brown 2010:210). The biblical writers drew upon ancient Near Eastern mythological imagery to stress the theological truth that the Creator alone subdues the forces of chaos (cf. Anderson 1984:4–5; Anderson 1994:6–7, 35; Brown 2006:29–30; Eichrodt 1961:229; Fretheim 2005:43; Harlow 2008:172; Hyers 1984:62; Kaufmann 1960:11, 62; Levenson 1988:9, 15, 17; Küng 2007:117–118; Mabie 2008:44–45, 51; McGrath 2001:146–147; Oswalt 2009:93; Pass 2003:78–79; Powell 2003:27; Schifferdecker 2008:65; Simkins 1994:46–47, 109; Stadelmann 1970:17–18; von Rad 1962:138, 150–151; von Rad 1972:49; von Rad 1984:59). By way of example, in Psalm 65:6, David stated that God used His “power” to create the “mountains”. Indeed, it was He, not the false deities worshiped by the pagans, who girded Himself with “strength”. Only He could silence the chaotic “seas” (v. 7) and hush the uproar produced by the “nations”. In like manner, Asaph noted that the Lord, by means of His mighty strength, divided the “sea” (Ps 74:13) and smashed the “heads of the monster” lurking about in the planet’s “waters”. Even “Leviathan” (v. 14) was no match for the all-powerful God. After He lopped off the “heads” of this dragon-like creature, He served it up as food for the desert animals to consume (cf. Isa 27:1). Only the Lord had the absolute power to break open the ground so that “springs and streams” (Ps 74:15) could proceed; and He alone could dry up large “rivers” that perpetually flowed. At the dawn of time, it was the Creator who established the “day” (v. 16) and “night” cycle, as well as set in place the “sun and

48

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

moon”. Additionally, He predetermined the limits of the earth’s recurring seasons (v. 17). A comparable mindset is found in Psalm 89, the title of which attributes it to “Ethan the Ezrahite”. He was possibly a temple musician (cf. 1 Chron 15:17, 19), though his identity is disputed. In any case, the writer depicted the Lord as being sovereignly enthroned in heaven and surrounded by His angelic hosts (Ps 89:8). He reigned supreme over the unruly “sea” (v. 9). When its angry “waves” surged, He calmed them. At the dawn of time, when He fashioned the world, He successfully “crushed” (v. 10) and killed “Rahab”. This mythological sea monster represented the forces of chaos and evil that sought to undo the created order (cf. Job 9:13; 26:12; Isa 51:9; Anderson 1984:8; Finlay 2008:103; Hermisson 1984:125–126; Kaufmann 1960:118; Landes 1984:138–139; McGrath 2001:147; von Rad 1962:138; von Rad 1984:58–59). Readers are left with the impression that the world, far from being neat and tidy, is “terrifyingly vast and alien” (Brown 2010:129), as well as abounding in “life characterized by fierce strength, inalienable freedom, and wild beauty”. Psalm 89:10 declares that God used His powerful “arm” to defeat His enemies. All of heaven and earth belonged to the Lord, for He made the “world” (v. 11) and everything from “the north and the south” (v. 12) that it contained. So great and awesome was the Lord’s power that Mount Tabor and Mount Hermon in Palestine joyously sang duets to His name. Psalm 148 enjoins all creation to extol the Lord for His absolute, creative power (cf. Eichrodt 1967:102–103; Fretheim 2005:250, 257; Wilkinson 2002:107). Only His “name” (v. 13) is “exalted”. Moreover, His “splendor” towers over the “earth” and the “heavens”. It is fitting to utter praise “from the heavens” (v. 1) and “in the heights above”. The celestial congregation of worshipers includes all God’s “angels” (v. 2), as well as all the other hosts of heaven. They are joined by the “sun and moon” (v. 3), the “shining stars”, the “highest heavens” (v. 4), and the “waters” located “above” the heavens. All these cosmic participants laud God for commanding them into existence (v. 5). When He “issued” (v. 6) His irrevocable “decree”, the luminaries in the sky were fixed in their places forever. Joining this chorus of praise are the earth’s “sea creatures” (v. 7) and even the ocean’s deep places. Teaming up with

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

49

them are an assortment of other entities found throughout the planet, including the following: the elements of nature, such as fire produced by “lightning” as well as “hail” (v. 8); the topography of the land, including “mountains” (v. 9) and “hills”; the creatures spanning the globe, such as tame and “wild” (v. 10) beasts, reptiles and winged fowl; monarchs, “princes” (v. 11), and all the other “rulers on earth”; and human beings, regardless of their age and gender (v. 12). The early church affirmed that God alone gave existence to the cosmos. For instance, after the Sanhedrin had released Peter and John (Acts 4:21–23), the believers unanimously attested God to be the “sovereign Lord” and maker of the “heaven”, the “earth”, the “sea”, and all creatures within them (v. 24; cf. Ps 115:15). While Paul was in Athens on his second missionary journey, he professed that God made the cosmos and “everything in it” (Acts 17:24). Furthermore, the apostle noted that the Creator is the “Lord of heaven and earth”. Later, Paul wrote that God’s “eternal power and divine nature” (Rom 1:20) are demonstrated through what He has made. Moreover, the apostle noted that before people suppressed God’s truth, they could discern His power in the natural order. In particular, they could see His invisible qualities, including His holiness—and the absence of holiness in themselves. Likewise, every person could sense his or her disconnectedness from the Creator of the universe, and their consequent need for reconciliation. In 4:17, Paul testified to the absolute, creative power of God. He has the ability to bring the “dead” to “life” and command “into being” what did not previously exist. Most likely, the apostle was referring to the birth of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah, both of whom were so old that from a physical standpoint, it was impossible for them to have children (cf. Gen 18:11); but because of God’s miraculous work, they gave birth to Isaac in their old age. Another interpretive option is that Roman 4:17 refers to creation out of nothing, in which case the verse would be rendered “God ... who calls into existence the things that do not exist”. He is the same “architect and builder” (Heb 11:10) who has prepared an eternal, heavenly city for believers to occupy at the end of the age (cf. v. 16). Revelation 4:11 expands on the latter truth by declaring that God not only brought all things into existence, but also sustains them (cf. Bonting 1999:327; Jeeves 1969:26–27; Van Till 1998:348; Wilkinson

50

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

2002:25). The idea is not of some superhuman creature rooted to the spot and holding up an inanimate world. Rather, it is of God maintaining the existence of the universe and bearing it along to its divinely ordained conclusion (cf. 4 Ezra 6:25; 7:113; 11:39–46; 12:34; Eph 1:22; Col 1:17; Heb 1:3; Rev 20:4–6; Bruce 1985:6; Hughes 1977:45; Kistemaker 1995a:30; Morris 1981:14; Morris 1990:302; O’Brien 2010:56–57; Painter 1997:252; Westcott 1980:13–14; Witherington 2009:204–205). The Son as the Underlying Agent of Creation Central to Scripture’s prescientific cosmology is the belief that the Son is the underlying agent and terminus of all creation (cf. Alexander 2008:30; Anderson 1994:38; Collins 2003:102; Gilkey 1959:249–250; Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:81; McGrath 2001:158–159; Murphy 2003:375; Pannenberg 1989:158; Peters 1989:72; Prenter 1967:209; Schönborn 2007a:129, 175; Westermann 1974:38–39). A case in point would be Colossians 1:15–17, a passage that is characterized by “exalted prose” (Marshall 2004:368). Paul may well have been drawing upon an early Christian hymn that was used as a doctrinal affirmation during congregational meetings. If so, the apostle “adapted it to fit into the context of what he was writing” (Beale 2007:851). Moreover, he used the “strophic arrangement” (Bruce 1984:56) to exhort his readers by targeting both their “intellect” (Arnold 2002:379) and their “hearts through the language of worship”. The material commences in verse 15 with a declaration of the Messiah’s personhood. Paul revealed that the Son is not merely a reflection or copy of the Father (whom people cannot see with their physical eyes), nor does the Son simply represent the Father. The Greek noun rendered “image” literally refers to a statue or profile and figuratively denotes a representation or resemblance (cf. Danker 2000:281–282; Flender O 1986:287–288; Kittel 1999b:395–397; Louw and Nida 1989:65, 589–590, 592; Spicq 1994:417–419). The underlying idea is that the “Nazarene who had been ignominiously executed” (Moule 1980:58) is the “functional and ontological” (O’Brien 1982:44) embodiment of the character and nature of the supreme God (cf. Beale 2007:852; Bruce 1984:57–58; Hendriksen 1995a:72; Hooker 1994:502; Lightfoot 1976:145; Lincoln 1994:597; Martin 1973:57). Expressed differently, in Jesus of Nazareth resides the

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

51

“actual presence of God” (Guthrie 1981a:346). By way of implication, the Messiah is the “perfect revelation of God” (355). Furthermore, the Son is the “firstborn over all creation” (cf. Ps 89:27– 29, 36). The Greek adjective translated “firstborn” (Col 1:15) can be understood in two ways. In the strictest sense, “firstborn” refers to the first offspring and can be applied either to a human or an animal. Figuratively, “firstborn” denotes that which is supreme and foremost. For example, in Isaiah 14:30 “firstborn” (NRSV) renders a Hebrew noun that signifies the “poorest of the poor” (TNIV). Both usages of “firstborn” are present in the Old Testament and the New Testament (cf. Bartels 1986:668; Bouma-Prediger 2001:106–107; Dahl 1964:440–441; Fee 2007:300; Keefer 1996:258; Morris 1990:45; O’Brien 1993a:302; Osborn 2000:433; Rosscup 2009:575; Schreiner 2008:327). Hence, when Paul referred to Jesus as “the firstborn over all creation” (Col 1:15), he did not mean that Jesus was the first entity God created, but instead that Jesus reigns supreme over all that exists. Furthermore, since He is the “Father’s representative and heir” (Vaughan 1978:182), the Son exercises absolute control over the “divine household”, namely, the entire universe (cf. Eph 1:19-23). Bock (1994:302) notes that Colossians 1:15–17 has “roots in the wisdom tradition of Judaism”, especially in affirming the “role of God in creation” (cf. Job 28:23–28; Pss 95:6–7; 100:3; Sir 24; Wis 1:6–7; 7:22–27; 8:1, 5; 9:2, 9; 10:1–2). Thielman (2005:378–379) moves the discussion further by observing that the apocalyptic-mystical literature written in the Second Temple and early Christian periods often linked “Wisdom and Torah” and conferred on them a lofty, divine-like status (cf. Deut 4:6; Pss 33:6; 119:105; 147:15, 18; Prov 6:23; Isa 55:11; Bar 3:9–4:4; Gen Rab 1:2; Sir 6:37; 15:1–10; 24:1–29; 43:26; Wis 7:25–29; 9:1–2; 18:15). Davies (1980:169) clarifies that the “Torah” was considered to be both the “expression of Divine Wisdom” and the “instrument of creation” (171). In contrast, Paul revealed in Colossians 1:15–17 that to the Messiah alone belonged all forms of cosmic preeminence. Furthermore, only to Him— who is the quintessential embodiment of sagacity, instruction, and guidance (cf. John 1:17–18; 1 Cor 1:30; Col 2:2–3)—belonged celestial “riches”, “wealth”, and “treasures” (cf. Wis 7:9, 11, 14; 8:18; Beale 2007:855; Bruce 1984:59–60; Dunn 1998:268; Lightfoot 1976:146; Moule

52

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

1980:4; O’Brien 1982:44–45). After all, as Ladd (1997:459) points out, the Son’s “creative activity” encompasses both the “physical cosmos” and “all orders of spiritual beings”, regardless of whether they are “visible” or “invisible” to humans. Especially germane are the references in Proverbs 8:22–31 to wisdom being the firstborn of creation and the artisan at God’s side during His creation activity (cf. Sir 1:1, 4; Wis 1:6–7; 6:22; 7:17, 22, 26; 9:9; 10:1). A superficial reading might suggest this is a description of the Messiah prior to His incarnation. One difficulty, though, with this view is the personification of wisdom as a woman, whereas the Gospels reveal that Jesus of Nazareth was a man. Furthermore, in the fourth century A.C.E., the heretical movement called Arianism attempted to use passages such as Proverbs 8:22–31 to prove that the Savior was a created being. They claimed that if in fact Jesus did not eternally exist, as allegedly described in this portion of Scripture, He could not be coeternal with the Father and the Spirit. It is an erroneous assumption, though, to equate the Messiah with any personification of wisdom (as well as Torah). After all, John 1:1 declares that the Son existed in eternity past with the Father and the Spirit before the creation of the universe and everything in it. Also, in 8:58, Jesus announced to the religious leaders that before Abraham was born, the Son already eternally preexisted. Concerning the fourth Gospel, Keener (2003:281) proposes that it addressed a “community of predominantly Jewish Christians” who, due to their “faith in Jesus”, had been “rejected by most of their nonChristian Jewish communities”. One can imagine the religious elite of the day making the following excessive claims about the Torah (which could also apply to their prevailing view about wisdom; cf. Bar 3:29– 4:1; Gen Rab. 17:5; 31:5; 44:17; Lev Rab. 11:3; 19:1; 4 Macc 1:16–17; Sir 15:1; 19:20; 24:8–12, 23; 39:1; Wis 9:1–2, 9–10; 34:8): (1) Judaism is a “religion of Torah”; and (2) the “prophetic, messianic Jesus movement has departed from proper observance of God’s Word (particularly from orthodox monotheism)” (364). The Evangelist responded in the fourth Gospel with these counterclaims: (1) the Messiah is the “full embodiment of Torah” and completes “what was partial (but actually present) in Torah”; (2) the Son “embodies the hope of Judaism” (417); (3) the decision to become a follower of the Savior “entails true observance of

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

53

Torah”; and (4) because “Jesus himself is God’s Word,” no person is able to “genuinely observe Torah without following Jesus” (364). Similar observations could be made about wisdom. Returning now to Colossians 1, in verses 16 and 17, Paul continued to praise the Son by proclaiming His unique, creative powers. Nothing that has come into being—whether they dwell in heaven or inhabit the earth, whether people can see them or they are imperceptible to human eyes—did so without the Messiah’s involvement. Moreover, Paul stressed the Son’s preeminence over the angelic realm. Among those who promulgated the Colossian heresy were individuals who advocated the worship of angels (cf. 1 En 61:10; 2 En 20–22; 2 Macc 3:24; Test Levi 3). By listing the adherents’ perceived hierarchy of angels (i.e. “thrones or powers or rulers or authorities”; v. 16), the apostle was attacking their systematic division of the angelic realm. Since Paul referred to the visible as well as invisible, this hierarchy might also include human institutions. The apostle exposed as foolish any homage to human or angelic authority because, in fact, the Savior is Lord over them all. In addition, the Father formed the creation not only through His Son but also for His Son. From the vantage point of Scripture, the ultimate purpose of creation is the Messiah Himself. According to the Father’s redemptive plan, He designed the world in such a way that it can have real meaning only in the Son (cf. Rev 19:10). Paul spotlighted two more traits of the Messiah’s divine nature in relationship to creation. First, the Son existed before all things were brought into existence. Several times in this hymn Paul used the phrase “all things” or something to that effect (Col. 1:15, 16, 17, 18, 20). The apostle was repeatedly stressing that the Messiah is supreme over every entity; and in this instance the Son eternally existed—with the Father and the Spirit—prior to the creation event. Second, Paul affirmed the Messiah as the one who sustains all creation (vs. 17). The Greek verb rendered “hold together” implies that which continues, endures, or exists (cf. Heb 1:3; Bietenhard 1986a:166; Danker 2000:972; Kasch 1999:896– 897; Kretzer 1993:308; Louw and Nida 1989:614). Deists believe that God created the world and then abandoned it, allowing it to “run on its own” (Schreiner 2008:328). In direct contradiction to this belief, Paul made it clear that Jesus is constantly sustaining His creation. Indeed, if He were

54

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

to forsake the cosmos, it would cease to “function” (Morris 1990:46) and “disintegrate” (O’Brien 1982:47), resulting in utter ontological chaos. A number of pertinent theological truths are found in the opening verses of Hebrews about the Son being the underlying “agent of creation” (Guthrie 2007:924). The Savior is depicted as the “representative man” (McCartney 1994:6) who has received “dominion” and the one through whom “man’s vice-regency is representatively restored” (cf. Gen 1:26–28; Ps 8:3–8; Dan 7:13–14). The literary backdrop for the author’s remarks included Psalms 2 and 110, along with “contemporary currents of Jewish wisdom theology” (Lane 1991a:9). For instance, a variety of ancient Jewish sacred texts (e.g. Prov 8:2–31; Bar 3:37; 1 En 42:1– 2; Sir 24:1–12; Wis 7:12, 22, 25–26; 8:4; 9:4) portrayed wisdom as a “mediator between God and creation” (DeSilva 2000:88). Furthermore, several “conceptual and linguistic parallels” exist between the Messiah as the “agent of creation and the Jewish figure of wisdom” (O’Brien 2010:53). Accordingly, one finds manifested in the Redeemer the “attributes and privileges of the royal Son, the Wisdom of God, and the royal Priest” (Lane 1991a:9). In the view of Attridge (1989:36), the “rhetorical artistry” found in the writer’s introduction to his epistolary discourse “surpasses that of any other portion of the New Testament”. The author began by commenting on God’s disclosure of Himself to humankind. Since the creation of the world (cf. Gen 1:1), people have been aware of God’s invisible attributes. In particular (and as was stated earlier), they could infer His eternal power and divine nature through what He has made (cf. Ps 19:1–6; Rom 1:20). While this general revelation of God enables people to know that He exists, it does not impart divine truths leading to salvation. The latter is only made possible by God revealing Himself and His will in a special way. Hebrews 1:1 declares that during the era of the Old Testament, God spoke redemptively to His people through His prophets on a number of occasions. The Lord did so in various portions and in a variety of ways (e.g. through visions, dreams, and riddles; cf. Attridge 1989:37; Craddock 1998:22; DeSilva 2000:86; Kent 1972:34; Kistemaker 1995a:26; O’Brien 2010:49). The implication is that His revelation was fragmentary, partial, and incomplete, though fully inspired and authoritative.

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

55

The basis for God choosing to reveal Himself in progressive stages rests on the fact that He works with the redeemed according to the level of their understanding. At first, He revealed Himself only in shadows and symbols; but as people came to know more about Him and the way He works, He became more explicit in His dealings and revelations. It is important to acknowledge these ancient revelations for what they taught people about God, while simultaneously noting that they pointed to a time when God would reveal Himself more fully and finally in “his Son” (v. 2). Moreover, the candid statements appearing in verse 1 were not meant to lessen the value of God’s revelation through the Hebrew prophets. The fact that He considered them the transmitters of divine truth is evidence of just how much respect He held for these faithful servants of the Lord; but the same God who had partially revealed Himself in times past now had disclosed Himself totally and ultimately in His Son. With the advent of the Messiah, everything becomes localized in Him. He in turn gives full and final expression to all that was antecedently revealed (cf. Luke 24:44), and He does so in a way that is focused, clear, and eternally relevant. The “progression is one from promise to fulfillment” (Bruce 1985:2) in which the advent of the Messiah is the “culmination” (Hughes 1977:36) of whatever had been previously foretold. “In these last days” (Heb. 1:2) would carry a special significance for the original readers of the epistle, who probably interpreted the phrase to mean that Jesus, as the Savior, had “inaugurated a new age” (Morris 1981:13), that is, the “Messianic Age” (cf. Isa 2:2; Dan 10:14; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1; Acts 2:16–17; Jas 5:3; 1 Pet 1:20; 2 Pet 3:3; 1 John 2:18; Jude 18). In this regard, He is not merely the final spokesperson in a seemingly endless succession of equally distinguished Old Testament prophets. Instead, He is the one about whom all the rest of them spoke and for whom the chosen people had waited centuries to arrive. He alone is the complete and distinct revelation of God. It is no wonder that the Father appointed His Son as “heir of all things” (Heb 1:2; cf. Pss 2:7–8; 110:1–2). In keeping with comments made earlier, the firstborn son in Hebrew culture was the highest ranked of all children. Therefore, he was also the family heir. Jesus is the heir, owner, and Lord of God’s creation. Indeed, the “dominion” (Westcott 1980:8) the Father “originally

56

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

promised to Adam” was secured by the Son (cf. Gen 1:28; Ps 8:5–8). It is through the Son that the Father “made the universe” (Heb 1:2; cf. Prov 8:22–31; Wis 7:22; 9:2, 9). The Greek noun rendered “universe” (Heb 1:2) refers to the temporal ages and includes the spatial realm, which exists in those time periods (cf. Danker 2000:33; Guhrt 1986b:831– 832; Holtz 1993:46; Koester 2001:178; Louw and Nida 1989:1; Sasse 1999:204). Before time and matter were created, the Messiah eternally preexisted. The Son is the “radiance” (v. 3) of the triune God’s glory. The noun translated “radiance” can refer to the brightness shining forth from an object or reflecting off an object (cf. Danker 2000:99; Hofius 1993:117; Kittel 1999a:508; Louw and Nida 1989:175; Martin 1986a:290). Either nuance is applicable to the Son, who both radiates and reflects the majesty of the Father. This does not mean the Son is just a mirror image of the Father’s majesty. The Messiah is Himself God, for the glory of God is His radiance. In Jesus’ incarnation, He unveiled to humankind the majesty of the divine. The Son is the “exact representation” of the triune God’s being. The Greek noun originally referred to the die used in minting coins. The word later came to denote the impression on coins (cf. Danker 2000:1077–1078; Gess 1986:288–289; Kelber 1999:421; Louw and Nida 1989:592; Witherington 2009:401). The writer of Hebrews was saying that the Messiah bears the impress of God’s nature. Put another way, the person of Son manifests a “perfect, visible expression of the reality” (Lane 1991a:13) belonging to the Godhead. Indeed, He alone is the precise manifestation of the triune God’s essence (cf. Wis 7:25–26). While the Son is one with the Father and the Spirit in terms of their being, there remains a distinction of the divine persons of the Trinity. Not only did the Son create the universe, but also He dynamically upholds it by His powerful word. (This statement parallels what Paul wrote in Colossians 1:17.) Furthermore, the Messiah is “responsible” (Kent 1972:37) for the “governing and guidance” of the cosmos (cf. Wis 7:27; 8:1). Through His sustaining royal decree, He prevents the creation from undergoing complete destruction and ensures it will arrive at its “destined end” (Kistemaker 1995a:30). John 1:1–3 is just as explicit as the preceding passages in declaring the Son to be the underlying agent of creation. Verse 1, which points

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

57

back to Genesis 1:1, reveals that the divine Word was “in the beginning”. The Greek noun rendered “beginning” (John 1:1) refers to the origin of the material universe at a specific point in time (cf. Bietenhard 1986a:166; Danker 2000:138; Delling 1999:482; Louw and Nida 1989:637; Weiss 1993:162). This opening statement conveys the “notion of absolute, supra-temporal existence” (Westcott 1981:2). One reason the Son enjoys primacy over the cosmos is that He eternally existed before the formation of the world. The Greek noun lógos (translated “Word”) warrants some attention. Generally speaking, Greek philosophy understood the term to refer to “wisdom”, “logic”, or “reason” as abstract, impersonal forces that brought harmony and order to the universe. The term also denoted the self-existent mind of God. A number of invalid conjectures about the Messiah arose from a syncretism of Christian theology and Greek philosophy. Be this as it may, it is legitimate to maintain that the Word, in His incarnation, gave expression to the mind and thought of God. Such an emphasis would have resonated with the Gentile readers of the fourth Gospel (cf. Carson 1991:114–115; Lindars 1986:83; Morris 1995:102–103; O’Day 1995:519; Ridderbos 1997b:27–31). The Greek viewpoint notwithstanding, a case can be made for the predominance of the Hebraic perspective in the Evangelist’s use of lógos with respect to the Savior. Worthy of consideration are three reasons put forward by Köstenberger (2004:27). First, the apostle intentionally echoed the initial words of the Old Testament with the phrase “in the beginning”. Second, such key terms as “light”, “darkness”, and “life” are conceptual links between Genesis 1 and John 1. Third, the Johannine Prologue contains several unmistakable allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures, including the Israelites’ sojourn in the wilderness (cf. 1:14, “pitched his tent”) and the divine provision of the law (cf. vss. 17–18). According to Dunn (1992:987), the apostle regarded the term lógos as a “serviceable concept to provide a bridge of communication between Jewish monotheism and Greek religious philosophy”. Against this conceptual backdrop, the fourth Gospel portrays the Word as the “independent personified expression of God” (Danker 2000:601), as well as the divine Creator, Sustainer, Ruler, and Judge of the cosmos. Based on his research, Borgen (1987:84) proposed that Genesis 1:3—especially be-

58

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

cause of its “and God said” declaration—presented the most likely “foundation for the term Logos in the Prologue of John”. As the epitome and embodiment of “Wisdom, Word, and Torah” (Keener 2003:350), the Messiah is the source of all that is right and true. Even life itself, both temporal and eternal, finds its origin and consummation in Him. John 1:1 furthermore reveals that the “Word was with God”. The implication is that the Son and the Father (along with the Spirit) enjoyed an intimate, personal relationship. In a manner of speaking, it was faceto-face. Moreover, when the apostle said “the Word was God”, John meant the fullness of the Godhead resided in the Son and the Father (as well as the Spirit). Expressed differently, John conveyed in the strongest possible terms that the Word was divine (cf. John 5:18; Rom 9:5; Phil 2:6; Col 2:9; Heb 1:3; 2 Pet 1:1). As was noted previously, the abiding truth of the Christian faith is that the three members of the Godhead, though distinct personalities, share the same essential nature (cf. John 8:58; 10:30; 17:11). The foregoing truths are reiterated in 1:2. Before the creation of the time-space-material cosmos, the Word already existed. Because He is uncreated, He is not dependent on anyone or anything; instead, “everything and everyone” (Markus 2004:73) depends on Him “for their existence”. Furthermore, though the Son is distinct from the Father and the Spirit, He eternally remains in loving fellowship with the other members of the Godhead. Thus, Jesus alone is the everlasting, divine Word. As such, He exceeds all attempts to compare Him to the ancient Jewish concepts of “Wisdom” and “Torah”. Since the Word is fully divine, both of these analogies, while having limited utility, in due course prove to be inadequate (cf. Carson 1991:115–116; Keener 2003:370; Lindars 1986:83–84; Morris 1995:104–109; O’Day 1995:519; Ridderbos 1997b:33– 36). Like verse 1, verse 3 points back to the creation account of Genesis 1. The apostle portrayed the divine Word as the master builder who commanded everything into existence. Due to the fact that the Son is uncreated, He is not dependent on anyone or anything. Instead, everyone and everything depends on Him for their existence. In truth, He is the intermediate agent through whom the triune God made all things (cf. Col 1:16; Heb 1:2). Such a statement, however, “does not lower the

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

59

Logos to the rank of a mere instrument” (Godet 1955:248). In fact, not one thing that has come into being did so apart from the Son. In brief, physical and spiritual reality as people know it would not exist apart from the Messiah. According to Reinhartz (1992:4–5, 16–18), the Prologue (i.e. John 1:1–18) sets the foundation for a cosmological meta-tale that appears throughout the rest of the fourth Gospel. Despite her claim that the Johannine narrative is a work of fiction, her theory still has utility. In particular, it emphasizes that the writer’s focus goes beyond “temporal and geographical boundaries”. The focus is on “the preexistent Word who becomes flesh”. He was “sent by God his Father into the world to bring salvation”. The “Passion narrative” is the climax of this drama in which the “death of Jesus on the cross marks not his failure but his success”. Furthermore, Reinhartz thinks this cosmological orientation embodies “an implicit commentary” on the historical events in the narrative. In general, the Prologue offers “the reader with a précis” that “summarizes the main divisions of the gospel and introduces some of the major themes and characters”. More specifically, the first phase is Jesus’ preexistence (1:1; cf. 8:58; 17:5, 24); the second phase is His entry into and activity in the world (1:14; cf. 3:19; 6:33; 8:12; 9:39; 10:36; 12:46); and the third phase is His departure from the world (1:18; cf. 7:33–34; 13:1; 16:10, 28; 17:11; 20:17). The goal is to describe “the movement of its central character, Jesus, through time and space” and thereby delineate “the relationship between the Word and the world”. Revealing the Father and enabling people to become His spiritual children are other key emphases in the fourth Gospel. The Three-Tiered Concept of Reality Niehaus (2008) has investigated numerous parallels between the Old Testament and the neighboring cultures of the ancient Near East. In doing so, he concludes there is a “shared theological structure of ideas” (30), including a three-tiered concept of reality. The latter is also central to the prescientific cosmology found in the Genesis creation account. The covenant community thought of the “spatial complex of the universe” (Stadelmann 1970:2) as a “structure of strata separated from but related to each other”. Genesis 7:11–12 is worthy of consideration in this

60

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

regard. These verses are set against the backdrop of a catastrophic deluge (in all probability, a localized flood rather than a global one) that God used to wipe out all land-based life, excluding Noah, his family, and the animals they would gather into their floating vessel known as the “ark” (v. 13; cf. Alexander 2008:242; Ault 2009:602; Davidson and Wolgemuth 2010:3; Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:89; Hyers 1984:102; Lewis 1992:798; Marks 1962:283). Verse 11 refers to “all the springs of the great deep” bursting open and the “floodgates of the heavens” likewise being thrown open; and according to verse 12, “rain” inundated the “earth” for 40 days and nights. Similarly, 8:2 mentions the closing of the “springs of the deep”, along with the “floodgates of the heavens”. In turn, this permitted the waters on the “earth” (v. 3) to go down gradually. A comparable mindset is found in Job 11, in which Zophar rhetorically asked his interlocutor (i.e. Job) whether he could grasp divine “mysteries” (v. 7) and apprehend the perfection of God’s might. No human was able do so, for God’s greatness was “higher than the heavens above” (v. 8), and “deeper than the depths below”. Psalm 33 is a hymn of praise to God as creator, sustainer, sovereign, and judge. Verse 6 proclaims that it was by His decree that He made the “heavens”, and it was through a mere word uttered from His “mouth” that the “starry host” came into being. Verse 7 pictures the Lord scooping up the “waters of the sea” into a bottle and putting the ocean depths into “storehouses”. In like manner, Proverbs 8 depicts Lady Wisdom as being with God when He established the “heavens” (v. 27) and drew a circle across the “face of the deep”. Wisdom claims to have accompanied the Lord when He set the “clouds above” (v. 28) and caused the “fountains of the deep” to grow strong. Lady Wisdom said she was at the beginning when God laid the “foundations” (v. 29) of the planet and ordered the “sea” and its “waters” not to “overstep” the “boundary” He had decreed. Lady Wisdom saw herself as being more than an idle spectator. She affirmed herself to be an active participant in God’s formation of the cosmos. A three-decker concept of reality occurs in the Decalogue’s strong prohibition against idolatry. God forbid the Israelites from making for themselves carved images of anything, whether in “heaven above or on

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

61

the earth beneath or in the waters below” (Exod 20:4; Deut 5:8). In Deuteronomy 10:14, Moses told a new generation of Israelites, who were poised to enter Canaan, about the absolute sovereignty of God. The lawgiver declared that to Him belonged not only the “heavens”, but also the “highest heavens”. Moreover, He was the Lord of the “earth and everything in it”. Toward the end of Moses’ life, he prayed for God’s blessing on the 12 tribes, including Ephraim and Manasseh. Specifically, the lawgiver asked that the Lord would “bless” (33:13) their territory with good crops resulting from the “precious dew” that fell from “heaven above”, as well as from “waters” drawn from depths of earth’s subterranean chambers. Moses petitioned the Lord to give His people the best fruits and vegetables produced by the light of the “sun” (v. 14) and “moon”. The lawgiver asked that the Ephraimites and Manassites would receive the “choicest” (v. 15) timber growing in the dense forests of the timeworn “mountains” and age-old “hills” of the promised land. Finally, Moses prayed that their tribal allotment would overflow with the choice “gifts of the earth and its fullness” (v. 16). Toward the latter part of David’s reign, he poetically described the “earth” (2 Sam 22:8) as trembling and quaking and the “foundations of the heavens” as shaking. He attributed the upheaval to the Lord’s anger. In Solomon’s prayer of dedication for the Jerusalem temple, he rhetorically asked whether God actually lived on “earth” (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chron 6:18). Then the Hebrew monarch noted that the “heavens”, as well as the “highest heavens”, were not expansive enough to be His restingplace. Earlier, Solomon made the same observation to Hiram, the king of Tyre (2 Chron 2:6). When Hezekiah was threatened by an Assyrian invasion force, the king went into the temple and prayed (2 Kings 19:14). He referred to Israel’s God as being “enthroned between the cherubim” (v. 15), the sovereign Lord over all the world’s kingdoms, and the Creator of “heaven and earth”. Nehemiah 9 documents the post-exilic community’s prayer, in which they acknowledged their national sin before God. Verse 6 records the Israelites’ affirmation that He alone is the Lord. Furthermore, they declared that He is the maker of the “heavens”, the “highest heavens”, and the multitude of stars they contained. Additionally, the faith community asserted that God created the “earth” and everything it held, along with the “seas” and all that is within them.

62

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

The ancient notion that the earth is fixed or immovable appears throughout the Old Testament (cf. Alexander 2008:41; Anderson 1994:9– 10; Day 2005:7–8; Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:72–73; Hulsbosch 1965:53; Lamoureux 2008:112). Hannah, in her prayer, recognized that the Lord owned the very “foundations of the earth” (1 Sam 2:8), and on them He placed the “world”. During David’s reign, he entrusted Asaph and his colleagues with the responsibility of singing praises to the Lord (2 Chron 16:7). Verse 30 records the command for the entire planet to “tremble” before God. The worshipers also declared that the “world” was set firmly in place and could not be “moved”. David expressed a parallel thought in his song of praise (2 Sam 22). He portrayed the Lord as a cosmic warrior whose anger caused the “earth” (v. 8) to heave and reel, and the “foundations of the heavens” to violently quake (cf. the extended discussion below concerning Ps 18:1–19, which parallels 2 Sam 22:1–20). Job 9:5 poetically describes God moving “mountains” without warning and toppling them suddenly as a manifestation of His “anger”. According to verse 6, He uses earthquakes to shake the ground out of its place and causes its underlying “pillars” to shudder violently. Similarly, Job 26:11 depicts the “pillars of the heavens” as trembling with fear when God thunders His rebuke. A comparable mindset is evident in 38:4–6, which is part of God’s extensive response to Job. The Lord asked where Job was at the dawn of time, when God “laid the earth’s foundation” (v. 4) and set its measurements in place (v. 5). Verse 6 envisions the world having a massive base on which rested huge pillars and even the planet’s “cornerstone”. The latter would be akin to a foundation stone, which in turn served as the reference point for the construction of the entire globe. A “three-leveled ... architectonic structure of the world” (Stadelmann 1970:9) is found in Psalm 8. The beginning and ending of this song suggests that it was a “creation hymn” (Glenn 1982:40) filled with praise. The interior of the psalm, however, focuses on the Lord’s sovereign ordering of the cosmos. It is for this reason that this hymn could be classified as a nature psalm (or song of creation). In it, David extolled both God’s glory and the God-given dignity of human beings, whom He created in His image. As Israel’s king gazed up into the nighttime

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

63

sky and saw countless stars extending from one end of the horizon to the other, he must have felt inconsequential against the immense expanse of the “heavens” (v. 1) above, in which God had set His “glory”. David recognized that what he could see in the sky was the work of God’s “fingers” (v. 3; metaphorically speaking). The Lord’s craftsmanship included setting all the solar bodies—including “the moon and the stars”—in exactly their right places. Israel’s king was utterly amazed that God, in all His glory, would even be “mindful” (vs. 4) and considerate of the human aspect of His creation—so much so that He would crown “mere mortals” with distinction and eminence and bestow on them lord-like stewardship over the rest of the cosmos. In David’s thinking, if the entire universe appears microscopic in the sight of the Creator, how much less must be the significance of humanity? Israel’s king noted that God made Homo sapiens “a little lower than the heavenly beings” (v. 5; cf. Exod 18:11; Ps 96:5). The phrase can be translated “a little lower than God” (cf. Exod 4:16; 7:1; Ps 82:1, 6). The latter rendering would ascribe even more dignity to humans than just being compared with angels. Also, the phrase translated “a little” (Ps. 8:5) could read “for a little while”. This might mean that believers, when glorified in heaven, are somehow “higher” than the angels. David knew that, despite humanity’s apparent unimportance in the universe, they were highly valued by God. Humankind’s dignity stemmed from their being made in the image of God and designated as His stewards over the entire creation (cf. Gen 1:26–27). Hebrews 2 applies David’s words to the Savior. The writer explained that when Adam introduced sin into the human race, he impaired humanity’s ability to be the rulers God intended. Believers, though, “see Jesus” (v. 9), who fulfilled the ideal David described. All things are subject to the Messiah, including the age to come. To fulfill the ideal, Jesus had to become a true human being; and like other people, He was made “lower than the angels”. Hence, though Jesus is fully God, He also became fully human. As a man, the incarnate Son was without sin, and He obeyed the Father even to the point of dying for the sins of humanity. For the Son’s obedience, the Father crowned Him “with glory and honor”. The resurrected and exalted Son now sits “at the right hand” (1:3) of the Father in “heaven”. (Chapter 5 of this study

64

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

explores Hebrews 2:5–18 in more detail.) Psalm 8:6–8 states that humans have dominion over the world God handcrafted. The Hebrew verb translated “ruler” in verse 6 conveys the idea of oversight, administration, and government, with the extent of the authority dependent on the context in which the term is used (cf. Brown 1985:605; Gross 1998:68; Koehler and Baumgartner 2001:648; Nel 1997:1137; Soggin 1997:689). As elsewhere in the Old Testament, a threetiered notion of reality forms the backdrop of David’s thinking. Verse 7 refers to sheep, cattle, and wild animals spread across the continents; and verse 8 adds the “birds” that fly in the “sky”, along with the “fish” that “swim the paths of the seas”. While the sin of the first humans has somewhat marred their dominion over creation, the role of humanity is still one of great dignity, and it far exceeds the other created entities existing on earth. Admittedly, because of the Fall, no human has perfectly achieved the dignity God wanted people to have. That is why the Father sent the Son to put things right and to restore His creation to glory and honor. As Hebrews 2:6–8 explains, Psalm 8:4–6 finds ultimate fulfillment in the Messiah. It is because of Him that redeemed humanity will be able to fully realize its appointed destiny over the creation. An ancient phenomenological perspective appears in Psalm 18:1–19 (cf. 2 Sam 22:1–20; Eichrodt 1967:96; Simkins 1994:145–146). The passage records David’s song of praise to the Lord for delivering him from the power of all his adversaries, including Saul. David declared God to be his source of “strength” (Ps 18:1). The king also compared the Lord to a rocky mountain peak that the ruler’s enemies could not access (v. 2). Other terms in this verse liken God to a stronghold and a craggy summit that provided a place of safety. Furthermore, He was akin to a protective “shield” and a powerful, horn-like weapon that one could use to win a battle. When Israel’s king cried out to the Lord for help, He delivered His servant from his “enemies” (v. 3). Figuratively speaking, “death” (v. 4) had wrapped its “cords” around David, and the floodwaters of wickedness almost submerged him. Likewise, in the king’s distress, he felt as if the “grave” (v. 5; or sheol) had ropes that it used to entwine him and “snares” to trap him. When David called to God for help, He responded from His heavenly “temple” (v. 6). As noted earlier in connection with 2 Samuel 22:8, the presence of

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

65

the Lord’s anger caused the “earth” (Ps 18:7) to heave and the roots of the “mountains” to tremble. Verse 8 poetically depicts God as having “nostrils” out of which “smoke” poured, as well as a “mouth” from which a “consuming fire” and “burning coals” spewed. He manifests Himself as the divine warrior who tears open the “heavens” (v. 9). As He descends from the sky, thick, “dark” storm “clouds” appear beneath His “feet”. He is seen riding on the backs of the “cherubim” (v. 10) and swooping down with the “wind”, which is here personified as having “wings”. Another option is that wind currents propelled the winged angels upon which God was “mounted”. As the Lord made His descent, He shrouded His presence in “darkness” (v. 11), and He used thunderclouds full of water to veil His approach. The “brightness” (v. 12) radiating from Him broke through the “dark rain clouds” (v. 11) and sprayed “hailstones” (v. 12) and lightning bolts (the latter resembling fiery coals). The shout of the sovereign ruler could be heard thundering across the “heavens” (v. 13). From the heights He fired His “arrows” (v. 14) and broke up the ranks of the foe. He then sent the adversary running with many lightning bolts. When the cosmic warrior issued His battle cry, He uncovered the deepest ocean “valleys” (v. 15). Moreover, at the powerful snort blasting from His “nostrils”, He “laid bare” the planet’s “foundations”. It was then that His hand “reached down” (v. 16) from heaven and pulled David from the ocean’s “deep waters”. The oppressed knew he was no match for his enemies; in spite of that, the Almighty easily “rescued” (v. 17) His servant from those who despised him. When the king was in trouble, his opponents attacked him. The Lord responded by upholding Israel’s monarch (v. 18). Whereas before, David felt fenced in and trapped, now he experienced relief, for God had led him to a wide open “place” (v. 19) of safety. The Lord did so because He looked with favor on His servant, whose life was characterized by rectitude and integrity (cf. vv. 20–24). Psalm 24 reflects a prescientific cosmology (cf. Anderson 1994:9; Pass 2003:41; Young 1990:1). In this hymn, David celebrated God’s rule as the Creator-King. Verse 1 declares that the Lord owns the “earth” and all it contains, both what is animate and inanimate. Israel’s monarch observed that God set the foundation of the planet “on the seas” and built

66

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

it on the deep “waters”. David poetically described the Lord subduing the chaotic forces of evil, which are symbolized by the churning depths of the world’s oceans. In Psalm 75, Asaph speaks for the congregation of Israel in proclaiming God as the sovereign Judge and Protector of His people. Verse 3 portrays the “earth” and all its inhabitants as quaking in fear at the prospect of being upended by chaos; but this does not happen, for the Lord makes its “pillars” secure. Ancient Near Eastern mythological imagery forms the backdrop of Psalm 29 (cf. Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:26–27; McCarthy 1984:81–82; Oswalt 2009:104). In David’s hymn of praise, the grandeur of the Creator-King is comparable to a fierce storm. Verses 1 and 2 summon the heavenly assembly of celestial beings to affirm the Lord’s majesty, power, and glorious name. They are also directed to worship the holy one in appropriate attire. Verse 3 portrays the battle cry of the divine warrior as thundering across the seas and His shout as booming over the surging oceans. Similarly, verse 10, in a literary allusion to the Noahic flood (cf. Gen 6–8), declares that the potentate of the universe “sits enthroned ... forever” (Ps 29:10) in victorious splendor over the primeval waters of the earth. God’s utterance is so “powerful” (v. 4) and “majestic” that it splits the mighty “cedars of Lebanon” (v. 5). Furthermore, the Lord’s deafening cry shakes the Lebanon mountain range. It jumps like a “calf” (v. 6), and even towering Mount Hermon leaps like a frisky, youthful “ox”. The sudden advance of God’s shout is comparable to a lightning bolt that flashes across the sky and destroys whatever it attacks (v. 7). At the sound of His “voice” (v. 8), the wilderness of Kadesh shivers, the large “oaks” (v. 9) are bent, and the “forests” are denuded of their leaves. At the sight of such awesome power, everyone in God’s heavenly “temple” acclaims His majesty. Psalm 78, which is attributed to Asaph, portrays the dark picture of the nation’s sin being relieved by the light of God’s grace and power. Verse 23 draws attention to one episode during the Israelites’ wandering in the desert in which the Lord gave an order to the “skies above” and commanded the “doors of heaven” to be “opened”. It was then that He “rained down manna” (v. 24), that is, “grain from heaven”, for the people to eat. Psalm 93 focuses on the rule of God over the earth. Verse 1 declares the Lord to be “robed in majesty” and wearing “strength”

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

67

around His waist as a person would put on a belt. He is the one who has firmly “established” the “world” so that it cannot be dislodged (cf. Clifford 2001:510, 515; Levenson 1988:87; Polkinghorne 2009b:3; Simkins 1994:165). A comparable view is found in Psalm 96, which summons people of all nations to declare God’s glory throughout the world. Because the Lord is the supreme monarch, He sets the “world” (v. 10) firmly in its place and ensures that it “cannot be moved”. The ancient Israelites’ threefold layering of reality is especially prominent in Psalm 104 (cf. Anderson 1984:11–12; Anderson 1994:14, 86; Barr 1993a:81, 84; Brown 2010:145–146; Eichrodt 1951:33; Hermisson 1984:127–128; Levenson 1988:55; McCarthy 1984:84; Moltmann 1985:9, 148; Niehaus 2008:111; Oden 1992:1168; Oswalt 2009:106; Stadelmann 1970:31; Stek 1990:216; von Rad 1984:60–61). It is a hymn of praise that regards nature as an expression of God’s wisdom and power. Verse 1 extols the Lord for His magnificence, as seen in Him being clothed with “splendor and majesty”. The exalted King is so powerful that, metaphorically speaking, He dresses Himself in a robe made out of “light” (v. 2) and “stretches out the heavens” as if it were a tent curtain. The “waters” (v. 3) are depicted as existing above the celestial dome; and it is on the rain clouds that God laid the “beams” of the “chambers” of His palace. In an analogous way, Amos 9:6 pictures the Lord building the upper rooms of His “lofty” sanctuary in the “heavens”. As well, the “earth” is the foundational structure that supports His celestial “palace”. The Almighty uses the “clouds” (Ps 104:3) as His war “chariot” and travels along the current generated by the “wind” (cf. a parallel thought in 68:4). At the dawn of time, the Lord of all creation placed the “earth” (104:5) firmly on its “foundations”, ensuring that it would never be overturned. In addition, God draped the oceans over the planet like a robe. Initially, it was a scene of chaos in which the “waters” (v. 6) reached “above the mountains”. This tumultuous situation, though, did not last indefinitely, for the “waters fled” (v. 7) in retreat when the Lord shouted; and as His voice thundered across the heavens, the stampeding torrent rushed away. At first, they coursed “over the mountains” (v. 8); then the waters descended “into the valleys” and ended up at their divinely-appointed spot. God established a “boundary” (v. 9) that the

68

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

world’s oceans could never breach, and this prevented them from being able to inundate the earth. Finally, it was from the “upper chambers” (v. 13) of God’s palace that He sent rain on the “mountains”. When the Creator glanced down on the “earth” (v. 32), it shuddered, and at His touch, the “mountains” smoldered (cf. 144:5). The imagery here points to a “dynamic rather than a static creative process” (Fretheim 2010:21); in other words, it is an “open process rather than one that is tightly controlled”. Psalm 115 is a communal hymn of praise that declares the Lord’s glory and His blessings to the faithful. The songwriter contrasted the true and living God with the lifeless and powerless idols worshiped by pagans. Verse 3 announces that He dwells in “heaven” and does as He wishes. According to verse 16, while the “highest heavens” are His exclusive domain, He has placed “humankind”, as His image-bearers, in charge over the “earth”. Psalm 135 is a call to praise that depicts the Lord as the God of creation and the sovereign head of the nations. Verse 5 asserts that He is superior to “all gods”. This is the reason why, as verse 16 proclaims, nothing prevents the Lord from doing as He wishes across the “heavens”, throughout the “earth”, and in the ocean “depths”. Psalm 136 is a litany of thanksgiving to the Creator and Redeemer. Verse 4 announces that He distinguishes Himself by performing “great wonders”. For instance, only He has infinite “understanding” (v. 5) to make the “heavens”, and He alone by His unlimited power hammered out the planet (figuratively speaking) over the “waters”. As the Creator of the “great lights” (v. 7), He decreed that the “sun” (v. 8) would rule over the “day”, while the “moon and stars” (v. 9) would be the guardians of the “night”. Agur conveyed a comparable truth in Proverbs 30:4. He rhetorically asked whether any mortal was sufficiently wise and powerful to have ever climbed up to and come down from “heaven”. In contrast to the sovereign Lord, no human was able to catch the “wind” in his or her fists or bind up the rain clouds “in a cloak”. Only the absolutely powerful Creator could establish the remotest boundaries of the “earth”. The prophetic books of the Old Testament reflect an analogous three-decker concept of reality. Isaiah 11:10 reveals that the benefits of

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

69

the Messiah’s coming go beyond Israel to include all the nations of the world. The Savior Himself will stand as a banner to which the nations will rally. In Him they will find glorious rest from strife. Moreover, God will regather the faithful remnant of His people from every geographical direction, which verse 12 phenomenologically refers to as the “four quarters of the earth”. In a prophecy against Babylon, the Lord announced that He will shake the “heavens” (13:13) and dislodge the “earth” from its foundation. Isaiah 44:24 declares that the Lord made everything. Only He “stretched out the heavens”, and He alone “spread out the earth”. Furthermore, Israel’s Maker and Redeemer is the one who not only “lays the foundations of the earth” (Zech 12:1), but also “forms the spirit in human beings” (cf. Isa 51:13) and declares Israel to be His “people” (v. 16). The “salvation” (v. 6) He gives them endures “forever” and the “righteousness” He provides them will never wane. In contrast, one day the “heavens” will dissipate like “smoke”, the “earth” will become old like a “garment”, and the planet’s residents will die like gnats. Isaiah 40:12–31 discloses that the Lord is without equal among the world’s idols. Verse 22 depicts God’s throne as being positioned on top of the “circle of the earth”, that is, its horizon. According to 66:1, all of “heaven” is the seat of God’s royal power, whereas the “earth” functions as His “footstool” (cf. Fretheim 2005:26). Jeremiah 4 contains a warning of judgment in which the Lord uses seismic disturbances to upend the entire cosmos. The calamity leaves the “earth” (v. 23) a barren wasteland (that is, “formless and empty”) and the “heavens” without any “light”. God causes the “mountains” (v. 24) to quake and the “hills” to sway back and forth. The land is left devoid of “people” (v. 25) and the “sky” is empty of birds. Because of the Lord’s blazing “anger” (v. 26), the once “fruitful land” is turned into a “desert”, while all its cities smolder in “ruins”. Only God’s grace prevents Him from devastating the entire “land” (v. 27). Nonetheless, the Lord is unrelenting in His decision to execute His judgment. In turn, this prospect causes the “earth” (v. 28) to mourn and the “heavens” to be darkened as a result of wearing sackcloth (figuratively speaking). Jeremiah 10 describes the Lord’s appeal for Judah to recognize that idols were nothing but the creation of artisans, while the whole universe

70

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

is the work of God’s hands. Verse 12 declares that the Lord used His “power” to construct the “earth” and drew upon His “wisdom” to establish the “world”. Moreover, He relied upon His “understanding” to spread out the “heavens”. Verse 13 goes on to say that at the thunder of His voice, the celestial ocean “roars” (cf. 51:16). Similarly, Proverbs 3:19 discloses that God fashioned the cosmos by means of His “wisdom” and “understanding”. Verse 20 adds that He used His “knowledge” to break open the waters of the primordial depths and enable the “clouds” above to pour down rain on the earth. The Lord’s new covenant with His people is the focus of Jeremiah 31:31–36; and His inseparable bond with the righteous remnant is highlighted in verses 35–40. In verse 37, He announced that it was impossible for Him to spurn the people of Israel. It was as unlikely as someone being able to measure the vast “heavens above” or exhaustively explore the deep “foundations of the earth below”. Joel 2 compares the day of the Lord’s judgment to an invasion of locusts. Verse 10 asserts that the onslaught of the divine warrior’s army causes the “earth” to quake, the “heavens” to shudder, the “sun and moon” to grow dark, and the “stars” to cease shining. As God leads His horde of militia, His voice “thunders” (v. 11) and instills dread across the globe. Joel 3 describes the occasion of unparalleled judgment in a similar way. Both the “sun and moon” (v. 15) are blackened, while the “stars” hold back their brightness. In that ominous moment, the divine warrior is heard roaring from “Zion” (v. 16) and thundering from “Jerusalem”. At the sound of the Lord’s voice, the “earth” and the “heavens” are shaken. At the same time, He is a “refuge” and “stronghold” for the righteous remnant. From God’s eternal perspective, the prophesied judgment is imminent, as seen in Haggai 2. In verse 6, the Lord of heaven’s armies declared that before long He will “shake” the foundations of the cosmos, including the “heavens” above and the “earth” below, along with the oceans and “dry land”. Not even the “nations” (v. 7) of the world will be exempt from the day of reckoning. An examination of the New Testament discloses the presence of a three-tiered notion of reality (cf. Carter 2009:1036, 1040; Gaster 1962a:551; Guthrie 1981a:137, 874–875; Harrison 1982:4; Harrison 2001:1297; Janzen 1992:247; Johnston 2000a:541; Irons and Kline

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

71

2001:237; McRay 2003:285; North 1962:876; Painter 1992:887; Painter 1993:979). By way of example, in 2 Corinthians 12:1, Paul began to describe his “own translation into heaven” (Sampley 2000:162), where he received a vision of the “resurrected/exalted Christ” (Hurtado 2003:72). Though the experience Paul recounted was beyond anything the selfstyled “super-apostles” (Martin 1986b:394; cf. 11:5; 12:11) of his day (or anyone else) could imagine, he noted that it was counterbalanced by a painful ailment to prevent him from becoming conceited (12:7). Thus, Paul’s weaknesses kept him humble and reliant on God despite any revelations he was privileged to undergo. Paul’s reluctance to talk about his vision is evident by his reference to himself in the third person, as though he were speaking about someone else (v. 2). This vision occurred 14 years earlier (about A.C.E. 41), after his conversion but before his first missionary journey. It is possible that he had this experience around the time he spent ministering in Antioch (cf. Acts 11:25–26; Harris 1976:395; Hughes 1962:430; Kistemaker 1997:407–408; Martin 1986b:399; Plummer 1978:341; Sampley 2000:163). In the vision, Paul was caught up to “the third heaven” (2 Cor 12:2) or “paradise” (v. 4). Jewish writings of the day subdivided the heavens into three or more layers (cf. Deut 10:14; 1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chron 2:6; 6:18; Neh 9:6; Ps 68:33; Apoc Abraham 19:5–6; Apoc Moses 35:2; 37:5; 40:2; Ascen Isa 3:13, 18; 4:14, 16; 6:13; 7:8, 13, 17–28, 32–37; 8:1, 7–9, 12, 15–16, 19, 21, 25; 9:1, 4, 6, 18–19, 23; 10:1, 5, 8–9, 11–12, 14, 17, 19–27; 11:24–32, 40; 3 Bar 11:1–2; 2 En 8:1; 20:1; 31:1–2; 3 En 17:1; 48:1; Test Levi 2:7; 3:1; 18:5–6; Luke 21:26; Eph 4:10; Col 1:16, 20; 2 Pet 3:5, 7, 10, 12–13; Bietenhard 1986b:192; Davids 1990:147; Dean-Otting 1984:275; Hubbard 2002:254; Lincoln 1981:77–78; Maile 1993:382; Schoenborn 1993:543–544; Smith 2009:74–75; Traub 1999:513–514). It is unclear how much of this thinking Paul accepted, though his wording in 2 Corinthians 12:2 and 4 suggests he embraced the prevailing Jewish cosmology of a plurality of the heavens. If it is assumed that the first heaven is the sky and the second heaven the more distant stars and planets, the third heaven refers to the place where God dwells. Paradise is the abode of blessedness for the righteous dead. For believers, it also signifies dwelling in fellowship with the exalted Redeemer in unending glory (cf. Harris 1976:395; Hughes 1962:433–434; Kistemaker 1997:408; Martin 1986b:402–403;

72

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Plummer 1978:343–344). Though Paul was clear about what he saw (i.e. supernal revelations from and about the Lord; v. 1), he was unclear about whether he remained in his body or drifted out of it during this experience. The apostle wrote that only God knew for sure what really happened to him (v. 3). The fact that Paul was suddenly caught up into paradise may account for his uncertainty regarding his state during this time. He apparently entered the throne room of God. In turn, the apostle saw things so sacred and mysterious that he could not express them and heard words that he was not permitted to repeat (v. 4). Most likely, this experience was given to Paul to strengthen him for all the persecution he was to endure in the coming years. Surely, this vision served as a constant reminder to him of the glory awaiting him after all his days of affliction on earth (cf. Acts 9:15–16; Rom 8:17–18). A prescientific cosmology is found in Ephesians 4:7–10, which comments on Jesus’ authority to bestow spiritual gifts to believers. Paul noted that while there is one church and there is to be unity in the church, that does not mean all Christians are clones of one another or think and act alike. Accordingly, the apostle followed up his strong message about church unity (cf. vv. 1–6) with an equally strong message about gift diversity. The apostle noted that Jesus supplies His followers with grace, making some Christians leaders who prepare the rest for ministry so that the whole church may achieve unity and maturity. When Paul said that the Savior gives “grace” (v. 7), the apostle was referring to spiritual endowments by which believers are equipped and empowered to perform ministries in the church (cf. Abbott 1979:110; Foulkes 1979:114; Hendriksen 1995b:188–189; Hoehner 2002:522; Lincoln 1990:241; Perkins 2000:420; Wood 1978:57). Jesus’ followers do not earn grace; they are given it. Neither can they pick the kind of grace they will receive. The Lord assigns it as He sees fit. They are to receive this grace thankfully and use it for God’s glory (cf. Rom 12:3–8; 1 Cor 1:4, 7; 12:4– 11, 28–30; 1 Pet 4:10–11). In Ephesians 4:8, to support what was said about Jesus’ giving grace, Paul quoted from Psalm 68:18. The general picture is one of a triumphal procession in which a victorious warrior-king, while climbing upward to his lofty citadel, both received and distributed gifts. More specifically,

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

73

the verse portrays the Lord of Israel as “moving from Sinai into the sanctuary on Mount Zion” (Thielman 2007:820). When Paul applied this verse in modified form to the Savior (i.e. as the accredited emissary of the Lord), the apostle emphasized Jesus’ “victory over Satan, sin, and death” (Hoehner 2002:530). Paul also focused attention on the Son bestowing gifts to His followers ever since His ascension to His eternal throne in heaven at the right hand of the Father (cf. Ps 110:1; John 3:13; Acts 2:32–35; Heb 1:3). Lest anyone doubt that the person who “ascended on high” was the Messiah, Paul added the explanation recorded in Ephesians 4:9–10. The apostle noted that this cosmic sovereign who ascended had previously descended “to the lower, earthly regions” (vs. 9). The main emphasis is that Jesus completely conquered the forces of darkness through His resurrection and ascension. Despite the clarity of emphasis, there is no scholarly consensus regarding what Paul actually meant. One option is that the apostle was referring to Jesus’ entrance into Hades (i.e. the underworld or realm of the dead) after His crucifixion to take saints to heaven when He rose from the dead. A second option is that Jesus’ descent refers to His burial in the grave. A third option is that Paul was talking about Jesus’ incarnation, in which He came to earth as a human being. This person “who descended is the very one who ascended” (v. 10). Expressed differently, Jesus is not only a man who lived on earth, but also the glorified Lord whose eternal dwelling is in heaven. In this case, the Messiah ascended “higher than all the heavens”, and now He fills “the whole universe”. This means Jesus’ lordship over the entire cosmos is absolute and complete because of His resurrection and ascension. Thus, He has the power and authority to be generous in bestowing gifts of grace to His followers (cf. Abbott 1979:114–116; Foulkes 1979:116–117; Hendriksen 1995b:192; Hoehner 2002:531–536; Lincoln 1981:158–160; Lincoln 1990:244–247; Perkins 2000:421; Robinson 1979:180; Wood 1978:57–58). An ancient phenomenological perspective is evident in Philippians 2:6–11, a passage that Gorman (2004:419) considers to be the “centerpiece” of Paul’s epistle. Silva (2007:837) points out the “undeniable network of associations” these verses have with the account of Adam’s creation and fall recorded in Genesis 1–3. According to the synopsis offered by Hawthorne (1983:82), the “first Adam” was created in the

74

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

“image and likeness of God” (cf. Gen 1:26–27), whereas the “second Adam” eternally preexisted as the consummate “image of God” (cf. 2 Cor 4:4, 6; Phil 2:6; Col 1:15). Moreover, while the “first Adam wrongly tried to become like God” (cf. Gen 3:5), the “second Adam” refused to capitalize on the unparalleled benefit of being “equal with God”. Hooker (1994:504) goes even further in elucidating the nature of the theological “relationship between Adam and Christ”. The incorrect supposition is that these are “two successive competitors in a task”, in which the first individual “fails while the second succeeds”. Instead, the Father commissions the Son to overturn the “failure of Adam”. The Son does so by nullifying the negative consequences of Adam’s transgression and bringing “life where Adam brought death”. Because of what the Son accomplished through His incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation, He is “greater than Adam”. (Chapter 5 of this study explores in more detail the doctrinal significance of the AdamChrist analogy.) Tobin (2004:167) explains that any conceptual links between Adam and Jesus (whether explicit or allusive) that Paul made in his writings, occurred within the context of speculation about Adam appearing in religious texts produced by “early Judaism” (e.g. Apoc Moses; 2 Bar; 4 Ezra; Sib Or). Levison (1988:145) clarifies that “early Jewish authors creatively developed portraits of Adam by adapting the Genesis narratives”. More specifically, Wenham (1995:119) draws attention to the concept of Adam in “Jewish thought” as the “archetypal man and original human being”. Davies (1980:46) advances the discussion when he states that in Rabbinic Judaism, the “First Man” was considered to be “altogether glorious”. Purportedly, his luminescence even transcended the brightness of the sun. For this reason, his “fall was correspondingly disastrous”. Scroggs (1966:2) elaborates that Adam’s “primeval act” of disobedience in the Eden orchard “resulted in man’s present precarious and critical condition”, namely, the spiritual and moral corruption of all his physical descendants. Tobin (2004:167) draws attention to the fallacy of presuming there was only one “Adam myth” to be found during the intertestamental period in which extracanonical Jewish documents were written. Instead, the “figure of Adam appears in several different contexts”. Furthermore,

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

75

the symbol of Adam was “used for several different purposes in these writings” and conveyed a “variety of interpretations”. Such a diversity of perspectives was “conditioned by the purposes and viewpoints of the different authors”. Hurtado (1993:745) cautions against letting any tacit “contrast of Christ and Adam” (along with any conjecture that Paul reworked mythological speculations about Adam) either to obscure or “control the overall exegesis” of Philippians 2:6–11. Of greater theological importance is the light these verses shed on Jesus’ self-effacing attitude. (For a systematic and detailed analysis of Adamic motifs in ancient Jewish literature, cf. Barrett 1962:1–21, 68–76, 83–119; Davies 1980:31–35, 38–57; Levison 1988:33–161; Scroggs 1966:16–58; Steenburg 1990). If Philippians 2:6–11 was originally a “Christ-hymn” (Müller 1984:78) sung in the early church, Paul quoted the song to provide an example of “humility and selflessness” (Kent 1978:122). Noteworthy are the solemn tone of Paul’s words, the way they fit together, and the manner in which they were carefully chosen. Read aloud in the Greek, the poetic quality of the terms and phrases supply further evidence that this passage easily could have been sung. The liturgical aim would have been the “celebrating and lauding” (Hurtado 2003:73) of the Messiah. The words definitely reflect Paul’s thought and support his doctrinal point, which would make their inclusion natural. On the other hand, the apostle had the ability to pen “careful, rhetorically sophisticated prose to advance his arguments” (Thielman 1995:112; cf. Rom 8:35–39; 1 Cor 13; Col 1:15–20; 1 Tim 3:16). Hence, he should not be dismissed as the original author just because of the exemplary rhythmical style of Philippians 2:6–11. Either way, this passage provides a wonderfully concise theology of the person of Christ and accurately reflects other statements of Scripture regarding the Savior. In particular, one learns about the humility and exaltation of the Redeemer, which Paul wanted to convey to his readers. Verse 6 reveals that prior to the Son’s incarnation, He eternally preexisted as God with the Father and the Spirit. The Greek noun rendered “very nature” (or “form”) denotes “that which truly characterizes a given reality” (Fee 2007:378; cf. Barumann 1986:706; Behm 1999a:751– 752; Danker 2000:659; Louw and Nida 1989:586; Pöhlmann 1993:443;

76

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Spicq 1994:525–526). In this case, Paul declared the Son to be the “pattern of what humanity was meant to be” (Hooker 1994:505), namely, the “perfect image of God and reflection of God’s glory”. The theological implication is that the Son had “always been and always continues to be God” (Hendriksen 1995d:105). In fact, Paul declared in Colossians 2:9 that in the Messiah all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in bodily form (cf. John 1:1; 5:18; 8:58; 17:24; 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15). Philippians 2:6 further reveals that Jesus not only is God, but also refused to take personal advantage of His status and privilege as God. Expressed differently, the Son renounced any intent to exploit His divine glory and honor. Instead, He chose the path of lowly obedience. Moreover, Jesus acted upon His decision to be obedient to the Father by emptying Himself, which is the literal meaning of the Greek phrase and which the TNIV translates as “made himself nothing” (v. 7). In this profoundly selfless act, Jesus did not give up His divinity, but laid aside His kingly privileges as God to become a human being (cf. Lightfoot 1981:112; Martin 1982:97; Müller 1984:81; Thielman 1995:119; Witherington 2009:194–195). Figuratively speaking, it is as if the preexistent Son temporarily removed a “garment with which [He] was wrapped or clothed” (Hawthorne 1983:81). Neither did He choose to be an earthly monarch, a wealthy merchant, a powerful military leader, an idolized athlete or entertainer, or even a renowned philosopher. Instead, Jesus became a humble, self-giving, and self-sacrificing bondservant. The latter denotes a “slave with no rights or privileges in contemporary society” (Martin 1982:98). Once Jesus became fully human through His incarnation, people who knew Him could see that He possessed the full nature of a human being—except that He was without sin. For instance, He hungered as any human would; He felt the discomfort of hot and cold weather as any person would; and He became tired after a long walk in the same way His fellow travelers became exhausted (cf. Luke 2:52; John 1:14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; Col 1:22; Heb 2:17; 4:15; 5:7–8; 1 John 4:2–3; 2 John 7). In Philippians 2:7, Paul described three steps in Jesus’ mission. He “made himself nothing”; He took the “very nature [or form] of a servant”; and He was “made in human likeness.” From birth to death, Jesus lived in humility. He was born in a stable. His parents were refugees in

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

77

Egypt. Jesus grew up in obedience to His parents. He worked at a humble trade, that is, as a carpenter. Jesus cried with those who grieved. He washed the feet of His disciples. In 2 Corinthians 8:9, Paul summarized the Messiah’s self-emptying by noting that even though He was “rich”, He made Himself “poor” on account of sinful humanity. The goal was that people might become spiritually “rich” by means of His “poverty”. Because of His sinlessness, Jesus could choose whether to die (cf. John 10:17–18). All people are subject to physical death (unless the Father decrees differently), but the Son conceivably could have rejected this final conclusion to His earthly life. Instead, He chose to die—not to just leave this life peacefully like Enoch (cf. Gen 5:24; Heb 11:5), but to die on the cross in anguish and humiliation so that believers might live in renewed and eternal communion with the Father (Phil 2:8). Paul could not end his extended illustration with Jesus on the cross. The place of honor that Jesus willingly relinquished was given back to Him with the added glory of His victory over sin and death. In response to Jesus’ humility and obedience, the Father exalted the Son to a place of supreme dignity and honor where His triumph will eventually be recognized by every living creature (v. 9; cf. Matt 28:18; Mark 16:19; Acts 2:33, 36; 5:31; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20–22; Heb 1:3; 12:2). The apostle emphatically stated that every person who has ever lived will someday recognize Jesus for who He is. Paul drew upon the “phraseology of his day” (Hawthorne 1983:93) when he referred to celestial beings “in heaven”, people living “on earth”, and the dead residing “under the earth” (v. 10). At the consummation of the age, every entity will worship before the risen Savior and in this way bring glory to the Father. Most likely, the original should be rendered “at the name that belongs to Jesus” (Kent 1978:125) and be understood as a reference to the majestic “office, rank, [or] dignity” (Lightfoot 1981:113) the Father bestowed on the Son (cf. Lev 24:11, 16; 2 Sam 7:13; Acts 5:41; Eph 1:21; Heb 1:4; 3 John 7). By bowing their knees, every entity (whether humans, angels, or demons) will acknowledge Jesus’ deity and supremacy. In particular, everyone will confess that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord (i.e. Yahweh, the Creator of the cosmos and the God of Israel; cf. Exod 3:13–15; Deut 6:4; 12:5, 11; Isa 41:4; 43:10; 45:18; 46:4; Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 8:6; 12:3; Col 2:6). Some will do

78

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

so willingly, while others as a result of coercion (Phil. 2:11). Centuries earlier, the prophet Isaiah had announced the words of the Messiah: “Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear” (Isa 45:23). Philippians 2:6–11 makes reference to this “stridently monotheistic passage” (Hurtado 2003:73) to affirm that the all-encompassing admission of Jesus’ lordship will come to pass. A prescientific cosmology occurs in 1 Peter 3:18–22, a passage that is filled with several interpretive challenges. The apostle previously stressed that it is better to suffer for doing good than for doing wrong. He then reminded his readers that the Messiah’s life offers the supreme example of the type of suffering Peter described in verse 17. The Father allowed His Son to be crucified, and Jesus patiently endured this ordeal. The apostle noted that Jesus suffered and died “once” (v. 18) on the cross for sins (cf. Rom 6:10; Heb 7:27; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:2, 10–14). During the Old Testament era, the high priests of Israel had to offer yearly sacrifices to atone for the sins of the people (cf. Lev 5:7; 6:23; Isa 53:5; 10; Ezek 43:21–25). Unlike the high priests, Jesus does not have to offer sacrifices for His own sins, because He is sinless. Moreover, He does not have to offer ritualistic sacrifices for the sins of others, because He Himself is their propitiatory sacrifice. Since Jesus’ atonement for the sins of the world was final, no other sacrifices need follow it (cf. the discussion in chapter 5 of this study concerning Heb 7:26–28). In an allusion to Isaiah 53:11–12, Peter explained that Jesus, the righteous one, died to redeem those who are unrighteous. The apostle meant that Jesus was innocent of all wrongdoing; yet He died a criminal’s death to make salvation available to those who had rebelled against the Lord (cf. Heb 5:7–9). Even though Jesus physically died, He was “made alive in the Spirit” (1 Pet. 3:18). According to the TNIV rendering of what might be a hymnic or liturgical fragment, the Holy Spirit physically resurrected the Son from the grave. Several New Testament passages likewise teach that the other two persons of the Godhead played an active role in the Son’s resurrection (cf. John 10:17-18; Acts 2:32; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20). It is also possible to render 1 Peter 3:18 as “made alive in the spirit”, which would be a reference to Jesus’ human spirit (cf. Matt 26:41; Mark 14:38; John 3:6; 6:63; Rom 1:3–4; 8:4–6; 1 Cor 5:5; Gal 5:16–25; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 4:6). This translation implies that Peter

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

79

was drawing a contrast between Jesus’ temporal earthly sojourn and His eternal heavenly existence. The idea is that while He was put to death, Jesus’ spirit was made alive by God, His body was raised to new life, and He entered into the fullness of a glorified resurrection state. A similar glorious future awaits all who are Christians (cf. Bartlett 1998:292–293; Blum 1981:242; Davids 1990:136–137; Grudem 1988:156; Kistemaker 1995b:139–140; Marshall 1991:121–122; Selwyn 1983:197; Stibbs and Walls 1983:141–142). If 1 Peter 3:18 refers to the Holy Spirit, then verse 19 says that He enabled the Son to go and herald His victory over the forces of darkness, to the “imprisoned spirits” who await certain and final judgment at the end of the age (cf. 2 Cor 2:14; Col 2:15; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6; Rev 12:7–11; 20:7–10). If 1 Peter 3:18 refers to Jesus’ human spirit, then verse 19 says that He, in His glorified state of existence, went and preached to these incarcerated entities. According to verse 20, the spirits in prison had refused to obey God long ago in the time of Noah. The Lord waited patiently for them while Noah built the ark. Peter noted that only a few people—eight in all—were saved by water (cf. Gen 6:10; 7:7). This means God brought them safely through the Flood, even though it was a cataclysmic natural event. It would be incorrect to conclude from these verses that there is a second chance after death for salvation for those who refuse the truth in this life. Scripture plainly teaches that after death, the unsaved must face judgment and render an account of their lives to God (cf. Heb 9:27; Rev 20:11–15). There are five primary ways of understanding what 1 Peter 3:19 means when it says that Jesus’ proclaimed His triumph to incarcerated spirits: (1). During the short interval between the Messiah’s death and resurrection, He announced His victory over sin and death to the spirits of Noah’s wicked generation who were confined to Hades. (2). Between Jesus’ death and resurrection, He proclaimed His victory to fallen angels—the “sons of God” (cf. Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 2 Bar 56:12–13; 1 En 10:4–13; 16:3; 21:6, 10; 2 En 7:1–3; Jub 5:6; Test Neph 3:5; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6)—in their state of confinement as they awaited judgment. (3). The Son proclaimed His victory to fallen angels at the time of His ascension into heaven. (4). Between Jesus’ death and resurrection, He announced salvation to God’s faithful followers who had been waiting for their deliv-

80

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

erance during the Old Testament era in the Paradise section of Hades (i.e. Abraham’s bosom; cf. Matt 27:52–53). (5). The preincarnate Messiah proclaimed a message of righteousness through Noah to the people living at the time of the Flood (cf. 2 Pet 2:5). Specifically, Noah urged them to repent, but they refused and since then await judgment (cf. Bartlett 1998:293–294; Blum 1981:241; Carson 2007:1038–1039; Davids 1990:138– 141; Davids 2002:139–140; Fanning 1994b:448–450; Grudem 1988:203– 239; Kistemaker 1995b:141–145; Ladd 1997:647–648; Marshall 1991:122–127; Selwyn 1983:198–201; Stibbs and Walls 1983:142–143; Thielman 2005:582–583). In any case, Peter revealed that the water of the Flood symbolized baptism and that baptism prefigured salvation (1 Pet 3:21). Put another way, the Flood is a reminder of all who died at the time of Noah. Similarly, baptism is a reminder of Jesus’ death on the cross and the believer’s identification with His death. New Testament writers closely associated water baptism with salvation (cf. Rom 6:3–4; Col 2:12). In fact, the early church taught that the baptismal ceremony depicted Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. In some instances, believers would use the drama of baptism to refer to the reality of salvation in the Son. It is possible, though, that 1 Peter 3:21 is not referring specifically to water baptism. Otherwise, the verse might seem to teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation—something that is denied in other passages of Scripture (cf. Acts 10:44–48; 16:29–33). From a theological perspective, salvation hinges solely on the lost believing in the Son. In this case, water baptism dramatizes the work of salvation in a person’s heart (the latter being the fountain of one’s thoughts, emotions, aspirations, and endeavors). By way of implication, Spirit baptism would be in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The emphasis, then, is on the Spirit incorporating believers into the body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:13). As a consequence of their union with the Messiah, they have spiritually died to sin and have been raised to newness of life (cf. Bartlett 1998:295; Blum 1981:243; Davids 1990:144–145; Grudem 1988:162–163; Kistemaker 1995b:147–148; Marshall 1991:130–132; Selwyn 1983:204–206; Stibbs and Walls 1983:144). Regardless of which view is preferred, the fundamental point Peter was making about salvation remains the same. Deliverance from sin is

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

81

not based on the washing off of physical dirt, but the response of a cleansed conscience toward God. In a general sense, the conscience refers to one’s inner faculty that evaluates actions and thoughts. Moreover, the conscience bears witness to the presence of the law written on the hearts of all people (cf. Job 27:6; Eccles 10:20; Wis 17:11; Sir 42:18; Rom 2:14–15; Heb 9:14; 10:22; Craddock 1998:105; Danker 2000:967–968; Hahn 1986:350–351; Ladd 1997:444; Lüdemann 1993:304; Louw and Nida 1989:324; Lowrey 1994:265). In 1 Peter, the conscience additionally denotes the “orientation of a person toward God” (Bartlett 1998:296; cf. 2:19; 3:16). On one level, the ceremony of water baptism represents the new convert’s “prayer for forgiveness and cleansing” (Marshall 1991:131) as a result of making a genuine commitment to the Father through faith in the Son. On another level, the ritual serves as a pledge that the believing sinner will live as a follower of the Savior. Thus, while outward obedience to Jesus’ commands is important, what happens inside the repentant and regenerated human heart is of the utmost significance. The reason the lost can look to the Messiah for salvation is that He was sacrificed on the cross to atone for their sins. The Father vindicated the Son’s death when the Father raised the Son from the dead (cf. Rom 1:4; 1 Tim 3:16). For 40 days, Jesus ministered on earth to His followers (cf. Acts 1:3). Then the Son ascended to heaven and assumed His place at God’s right hand (1 Pet. 3:22; cf. Ps 110:1; Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9; 2:34–35; 5:31; Rom 8:3–4; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). When a person of power and importance, such as a monarch, wanted to honor someone, the dignitary would let the subordinate who was to be honored take up a position at the ruler’s right hand. This does not mean that the Father and Son literally have side-by-side thrones in heaven. Peter simply meant that the Son received from the Father the highest honor and authority (cf. a similar point being made in Phil 2:9–11). Peter emphasized the truth of the Son’s exaltation when the apostle noted that angels, authorities, and powers are under Jesus’ control (cf. John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Rom 8:38–39; 1 Cor 15:24–27; Eph. 1:20–22; Col 2:15). A three-decker notion of reality appears in Revelation 5. Aune (1997:336) maintains that the chapter concerns the “investiture” of the

82

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Messiah, in which the emphasis is on “establishing someone in the office or the ratification of the office” this person “already holds formally”. In the unfolding drama of the Apocalypse, John saw that God held a scroll in His right hand. In imagery that is reminiscent of Ezekiel 2:9–3:3, the roll of papyrus or leather had writing on the inside and outside, and it was sealed in seven places (Rev 5:1). This circumstance made the document absolutely inaccessible and virtually impossible for an unauthorized person to open. Scrolls usually had writing on only one side and were sealed in one place. The writing on the front and back indicates that the decrees of God recorded on the scroll were extensive. The number seven, representing completion or perfection, indicates how thoroughly the contents of the scroll were sealed for secrecy (cf. Beckwith 1967:504; Boring 1989:104; Brighton 1999:134; Johnson 1981:465; Mounce 1998:130; Roloff 1993:76–77; Osborne 2002:247, 249; Stefanovic 2002:996– 197; Thomas 1992:380). There are varying views about the contents of this sealed scroll, including God’s covenant, His law, His promises, and a legal will (cf. Ps 139:16; Isa 29:11; Jer 36:1–25; Dan 8:26; 10:21; Zech 5:1–3; 1 En 47:3; 81:1–3; 93:1–3; 103:2; 106:19; 107:1; 108:7; 2 En 33:8; 4 Ez 6:20; Jub 5:13; 23:32; Ode Sol 23:5–22; Rev 10:1–4; 22:10; Aune 1997:344–345; Beckwith 1967:505; Boring 1989:504; Brighton 1999:134–135; Caird 1999:70–72; Johnson 1981:466; Mounce 1998:129; Osborne 2002:248–249; Roloff 1993:76; Stefanovic 2002:203–204; Thomas 1992:376–379). These options notwithstanding, Beale (1999:339, 342, 345) has noted that the close parallel with Daniel 12:4 suggests that the scroll of Revelation 5:1 contained God’s plan for the future. Probably the document told how things ultimately would end for all people—judgment for those who reject God and eternal life for those who trust in Him. The idea is that unless the seals of the scroll were broken, God’s purposes would not be accomplished, including the Messiah’s judgment of the wicked and vindication of the upright. John saw a mighty celestial emissary (possibly an archangel) issue a call for someone to come forward and break the seals, revealing the scroll’s contents (Rev. 5:2; cf. 10:1; 18:21). This heavenly emissary did not ask who was able, influential, or powerful enough. He asked who was sufficiently worthy to perform the task. The Greek adjective ren-

The Prescientific Cosmology Found in the Old and New Testaments

83

dered “worthy” refers to that which is “fit”, “deserving”, or “qualified” (cf. Danker 2000:94; Foerster 1999:379; Louw and Nida 1989:622; Tiedtke 1986:348–349; Trummer 1993:113). In this context, it denotes both the ability and the authorization to execute the divine plan for the consummation of the ages. Only someone who was morally perfect could do so; yet no one in all of God’s creation responded to the angel’s summons. Revelation 5:3 refers to the threefold aspect of the created realm as including “heaven”, “earth”, and the dark world under the ground. A similar demarcation is found in verse 13. John reported hearing all living entities in “heaven”, on “earth”, in the world below the earth, and in the “sea”, sing hymns in adoration to the Father and the Son (cf. Exod 20:4, 11; Deut 30:12–13; Ps 146:6). The idea is that every creature in the universe united their voices to give unending praise to God and Christ, the Savior. The four living creatures affirmed their praise by declaring “Amen” (Rev 5:14), and the 24 elders responded appropriately by prostrating themselves in worship before the throne. (Chapter 5 of this study considers Rev 20:1–22:21 in more detail.) Conclusion This chapter has explored the prescientific cosmology found in the Old and New Testaments. The underlying premise is that the covenant community, along with the other inhabitants of the Fertile Crescent, living in the third millennium B.C.E. through the first century A.C.E., shared the three-tiered concept of reality found in the Genesis creation account. Furthermore, this mindset influenced the way in which biblical writers thought about the spatio-physical world, both orally and in writing. The absolute, creative power of God is the backbone for this understanding of the origin and development of the universe. A corresponding affirmation is that the Savior operates as the underlying agent of creation. More specifically, the consistent testimony of Scripture is that despite all appearances to the contrary and despite all of the atheistic, naturalistic explanations about the origin of the universe, God alone gave existence to the cosmos. Even after the Fall, the universe continues to showcase the grandeur and power of its Creator-King. As Kaufman (2011:14) notes, the cosmos Homo sapiens are “privileged to inhabit is more complex, more fertile, and more mysteriously grand” than anyone

84

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

could ever envision. In the prescientific cosmology found in Scripture, the Redeemer is the master builder at whose command the temporal ages (including the spatial realm) became actualized. He reigns supreme over all entities and gives them real meaning. Also, He alone is the one through whom the triune God maintains the existence of the universe and bears it along to its divinely ordained conclusion. Without question, the three-tiered concept of reality is the cosmogenic scaffolding for the preceding theological truths. Furthermore, this view of physical and spiritual existence dominates the Old Testament. For instance, it shapes how a major event such as the catastrophic deluge recorded in Genesis 7:11–12 is described. The way in which the ancient Israelites made sense of their world is also reflected in their affirmation of God’s absolute sovereignty. They declared Him to be the Lord of the heavens, the highest heavens, as well as the earth, its subterranean chambers, and all its creatures. On the one hand, despite the chaotic forces of evil that threaten to upend the planet, the Creator is affirmed as the one who set the world firmly in place so that it cannot be dislodged. On the other hand, the very foundations of existence are depicted as trembling with fear at the sound of God’s thunderous rebuke. A similar prescientific cosmology permeates the New Testament. In this regard, Paul (among other canonical writers) is noteworthy. For example, the apostle described his vision of paradise as involving himself being caught up to the third heaven. Also, the apostle noted that the Messiah, perhaps after His death on the cross, descended to the lower regions of the earth. Then, once He rose from the dead, He ascended to a place of supreme triumph, namely, above all the heavens, where He now reigns supreme over the universe. Moreover, one day all created beings, regardless of whether they exist in heaven, on earth, or in the underworld, will acknowledge Jesus’ deity and sovereignty. Appropriately, all creation is enjoined to praise the triune God for establishing the cosmos and preserving everything that exists throughout it.

Chapter 4

A Biblical and Theological Analysis of Life and Death in the Old Testament

T

he preceding chapter explored the prescientific cosmology found in the Old and New Testaments. Doing so helped to clarify important cultural and theological aspects of the Judeo-Christian canon that are crucial to properly understanding God’s Word. For the members of the covenant community living in the third millennium B.C.E. through the first century A.C.E., the reality of death was a key part of the way in which they conceptualized the spatio-physical world in which they lived. Furthermore, in Scripture, death is presented as a complex, multi-layered concept. That being so, making an effort to examine the topics of life and death further helps to shed light on ways in which Christian belief is compatible with creation themes pertinent to origins science. Accordingly, the intent of the present chapter is to biblically and theologically analyze a representative collection of Old Testament passages dealing with life and death (namely, Gen 2:4–17; 3:1–24; 5:1–29; Eccl 1:1–18; 3:1–22), while the next chapter focuses on a selective set of New Testament passages. Information from chapter 2 of this study is relevant to the abovementioned objective. As was previously noted, it would be incorrect to assume that the primal creation was an “idyllic paradise” (Spanner 1987:53) characterized by static perfection and quintessential “bliss” (cf. Batto 1992:27). Rather, what the Lord brought into existence was superbly suited for its God-ordained function and purpose, as seen in “creation’s beauty” (Southgate 2008:15) and “appropriateness”. Moreover, it was observed that physical death (including the mass extinction of countless, previously-thriving species) predated God’s special creation of Adam and Eve. Additionally, this evolutionary mechanism of creative destruction (along with nonhuman natural disasters, such as earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and so on) has existed

86

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

since God brought about the first forms of life on earth (cf. Job 38:39, 41; 39:3, 16–17, 20, 25, 30; 41:14; Pss 104:19–21; 147:9; Isa 31:3; 45:6–7; Lam 3:38; Berry 2007b:23–24; Gregersen 2001:192–193, 198, 205; O’Brien 2009:408–409; Sponheim 2007:258–259). Because the termination of life is an inherent component of the biological evolutionary process, it is “not intrinsically immoral” (Munday 2003:459). Death’s Permanency for Humans Commencing in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:4–17; 3:1–24) Eden with its acclaimed garden is the starting point for a biblical and theological analysis of life and death in the Old Testament (cf. Gen. 2:8). Moreover, the backdrop for the Eden narrative is 1:1–2:3. This grand prologue to Genesis provides a broad summary of God’s creation of the cosmos (cf. Anderson 1994:25; Mills 2010:6; Moltmann 1985:188; Stek 1990:222). Through each successive stage in the process, the divine artisan declared His satisfaction with what resulted. The account ends with Him bringing humankind into existence at one moment in time, and this detail points to them being His final and climactic act. Because they are made in God’s image (cf. 1:26–27), they are the apex of His creation. According to Plantinga (2000:172), the imago Dei in every Homo sapien is a “cognitive mechanism” known as the “sensus divinitatis or sense of divinity”. The latter refers to an inborn consciousness of God that leads people to think about His existence and recognize His presence in the midst of their diverse life experiences. As was noted in chapter 2 of this study, humans bear the divine image both ontologically and functionally. Expressed differently, the divine image is reflected mutually in the material and immaterial aspects of their existence. The imago Dei is the basis for humans having innate worth and significance (cf. Gen 5:1–3; 9:6; Ps 8:5; Wis 2:23; Sirach 17:3; 1 Cor 11:7; Jas 3:9). Furthermore, the divine likeness encompasses the moral character of individuals and the role/tasks they undertake during their earthly sojourn (cf. Barr 1993a:157–159; Bergrant and Stuhlmueller 1985:161; Branch 2003:240; Collins 2010:155–156; Day 2005:9, 11; Green 2008:62–63; Lucas 2003:131, 136; Oswalt 2003:856; Wilkinson 2002:36). For believers, the image of God not only includes temporal (physical) life, but also eternal life (cf. Collins 2003:127; Hefner 1989:29; Lioy 2010:8;

Life and Death in the Old Testament

87

McGrath 2001:157–158; Moltmann 1985:218, 225; O’Brien 2007:71–72; Peters 2007:55, 58, 60; Powell 2003:2; Westermann 1974:111–112). Starting with Genesis 2:4, a second complementary narration of Creation is found. Carlson and Longman (2010:121) observe that when “taken together”, these “two accounts” result in a “more complete portrait of creation than either alone” (cf. Bube 1971:204; Collins 2006a:134; Harlow 2008:183, 188; Hyers 2003:23; Jeeves 1969:108; Schaeffer 1972:40– 41). Brodie (2001:127) considers the first exposition to be “poetic and serene” and focused on the activity of God, while the second exposition is characterized by “earthly prose” that “places greater emphasis on humankind”. Moberly (2009b:36) elucidates the inherent necessity of taking “seriously the biblical text as a crafted literary phenomenon” in which the underlying narrative “conventions” are “understood and respected on their own terms”, rather than being “prejudged in terms of their conformity (or otherwise) to a modern reader’s possible initial expectations”. Oswalt (2009:104) takes the literary analysis further when he explains that the material in the second rendition, instead of being written in “ordinary prose”, is presented in the form of “poetic history”. Even though the writer used “figurative and imaginative terms”, he did so to communicate “genuine historic events”. The Hebrew noun rendered “account” is one of 10 literary markers indicating the major sections of Genesis (cf. Alexander 2008:152; Anderson 1994:54; Collins 2006a:36, 40–41; Hyers 1984:45; Irons and Kline 2001:223; Titus 2011:135–136; Walton 2009b:45). The first three narratives pertain to the pre-Flood world and the last seven deal with the postFlood period. In contrast to 1:1–2:3, the material in 2:4ff. focuses narrowly on the first humans and the special place God prepared for them. While the first creation account spotlights the transcendence of the Creator-King, the second one draws attention to His immanence (cf. Alexander 2002:116; Birch 2005:40, 45; Dyrness 1977:66; Eichrodt 1951:29–30; Zimmerli 1978:36, 38). “LORD God” is significant in that 2:4 is the first place in Scripture where these two terms appear together. The Hebrew noun Elohim, which is rendered “God”, is the same term used in 1:1. The noun is an “honorific or intensive plural” (Goldingay 2003:76) and indicates that the Creator alone is “very deity itself”. Beginning in 2:4, Elohim is com-

88

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

bined with Yahweh, which is rendered “LORD”. This is the personal name for God used by His covenant people, the Israelites, to emphasize that He is the “holy one, the majestic one, ... who speaks and then acts” (Goldingay 2006:22; cf. Exod 3:1–15; Lev 19:2; Isa 6:1–5; Amos 4:2; Baker 2003:362; Block 2005:338–339; Collins 2003:61; Eichrodt 1961:178, 187, 206; Gow 2003:286; Küng 2007:115–116; Landes 1984:136; Lioy 2004:52; Pass 2003:142–143; Rose 1992:1002, 1006; Samuelson 1992:10; von Rad 1962:10–11). Against the backdrop of Genesis 1:1–2:3, Homo sapiens are understood to be the apotheosis of all living organisms on earth. Be that as it may, 2:4ff. “provides a necessary counterbalance” (Brown 2010:112) by emphasizing that people also remain creatures who are utterly dependent on God for their existence and accountable to Him for their actions. As Hamilton (1990:153) puts it, the Homo sapien exists as a “vassel in a covenant relationship” with the Creator (cf. Alexander 2008:165; Bonhoeffer 1997:47–48; Corner 1983:21; Eichrodt 1967:120–121; Fretheim 2005:32–33; Lioy 2010:7; Stek 1990:222; von Rad 1962:141, 150). In a manner of speaking, humanity’s collective “heads at times may be in the clouds” (Hyers 2003:23); nonetheless, their “feet walk on the Earth and are made of clay”. Verse 5 states that initially after the Lord created the entire universe, He did not send any “rain on the earth”. Also, there were no people to tend the soil. Furthermore, such vegetation as wild grass and cultivated crops were not growing anywhere. Verse 6 reveals that subterranean “streams” or channels, which welled up from the ground, watered the land in the surrounding area. It was at that time that the God formed the body of a man from the elements of the soil and breathed life into him. As was noted in chapter 2 of this study, God brought the first humans into existence by special, instantaneous, and separate creation. Assuredly, “humanity’s vitality was a direct gift from God” (Kaiser 2008:40). Furthermore, “all modern humans are descended from this pair” (Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:222; cf. Sir 40:1; Tob 8:6; Wis 7:1; 10:1–2; Acts 17:26). Genesis 2:7 contains a number of details worth considering. First, adam is the Hebrew word for “man” used here, while adamah is the term used for “ground”. The significance of this information is that man’s physical elements came from the soil of the earth (cf. Brown 2010:95;

Life and Death in the Old Testament

89

Fretheim 2010:22; Hess 2003:18–19; Moltmann 1985:187; Simkins 1994:118; Speiser 1990:16). In a manner of speaking, the “human” originated from the “humus” (Samuelson 1992:116). Second, the Hebrew verb rendered “formed” was commonly used for a potter’s work. The idea is that God was like a potter, and the first man, being fashioned from the dust of the ground, was like a pot made from clay (cf. 2 Sam 17:28; Isa 29:16; 41:25; 45:9; 49:5; 64:8; Jer 1:5; 18:1–6; Rom 9:20–21; Anderson 1984:6; Anderson 1994:28; Bergrant and Stuhlmueller 1985:157; Fretheim 2005:39; Lucas 2003:137; Preuss 1996:109; Stek 1990:210; von Rad 1962:149). Third, the man was formed out of the ground like the rest of the animals (cf. Gen. 2:7 and 19). He became “a living being” (vs. 7) just as all the animals became “living creatures” (1:24)—the same words are used in Hebrew (cf. Collins 2003:112; Collins 2006b:151; Dyrness 1977:85; Moltmann 1985:77; Smith 1993:184, 238; Titus 2011:176). All this goes to show that, in regard to his earthly body, Adam was much like the animals; yet, as noted earlier, he was also different from the animals because he was made in the image of God. Pokrifka (2008:431) observes that the Lord “mysteriously creates distinctive forms of life”, whether “human or animal”. Furthermore, the “particular genetic makeup” of Homo sapiens is due to “the supernatural and the natural world” being “seamlessly woven together”. Previously, in chapter 2 of this study, the origin of human life on earth was discussed at length, including one possible way of understanding the etiology of Adam and Eve. Clarifying in this regard are the “five different scenarios” put forward by Haarsma and Haarsma (2007:197, 217–228) for correlating the biblical and scientific data as it relates to the first human pair. The following is a brief summary of their list of five views, starting with the most allegorical and moving to the most literal of interpretive constructs: (1) “Adam and Eve” are “merely symbolic”. Advocates of this option hold that “God created humans about 150,000 years ago using evolutionary creation”. This scenario denies there was a “particular single event” in which “all humans fell into sin at the same time”. Instead, there were “many events” involving “various individuals and groups” who “rebelled against God”.

90

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

(2) “Adam and Eve” signify a “group of ancient representatives”. As with the preceding approach, this formulation agrees that “God created humans about 150,000 years ago using evolutionary creation”. Moreover, proponents espouse that “God specially selected a particular group and revealed himself to them”. When they deliberately “chose to sin”, God “applied” their “sinful status” to “all humans”. (3) “Adam and Eve” denote “recent representatives”. Adherents of this conceptualization think that “God created humans about 150,000 years ago using progressive or evolutionary creation”. Then, approximately “10,000 years ago”, He “specially selected a pair of humans” to function as the “representatives” for the rest of humankind. This couple deliberately transgressed His will and their “sinful status was applied to all humans”. (4) “Adam and Eve” were a “pair of ancient ancestors”. This approach postulates that “God used natural mechanisms to create prehuman hominids”. Later on, “about 150,000 years ago”, the Lord “miraculously modified a pair of them into the first humans”, whom Scripture refers to as “Adam and Eve”. It is from this newly formed, “separate species” that “all humans today have descended”. A variant of this scenario proposes that “God miraculously created Adam and Eve from dust”. In doing so, He fashioned their “bodies and genes” to be “consistent with hominids alive at the time”. (5) “Adam and Eve” were “recent ancestors”. It is maintained that God “specially created” the first human pair “about 10,000 years ago”. Furthermore, “all humans today have descended from them”. Haarsma and Haarsma (2007:215) note that, in general, each of the foregoing premises uphold God’s creation of “humanity in his image”. Also, “all five scenarios” affirm that the Lord made Himself known to humankind, “began a relationship with them”, and communicated to them “moral and spiritual obligations”. Additionally, the aforementioned options maintain that in response to their Creator, human beings decided to “sin”. As a consequence, “sin was transmitted to the rest of humanity”. Such points of agreement notwithstanding, of central concern to this study is how closely each of these views aligns itself with “God’s revelation in nature” (Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:216) and His “revelation in Scripture”. In keeping with the considerations and axioms

Life and Death in the Old Testament

91

delineated in the Prologue of this study, the optimal outcome involves coming as close as possible in supporting both the “scientific and theological” data. Even then, “when an apparent conflict arises between science and a biblical text” (118), the hermeneutical process “must be driven by theological considerations” and put forward an explanation that is “consistent with the rest of Scripture”. Hence, on the scientific side, points of concern include the “fossil evidence” (Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:216) of “hominids” and “modern-looking humans”, the “similarities between human and animal genetic sequences”, and the “genetic diversity in the human population”. On the theological side, one central topic is what Scripture teaches concerning Adam and Eve. The latter takes into consideration each of them being created in the “image of God”, having a “human soul”, and committing “original sin” (217), as well as the nature of “human morality before the Fall”. The view espoused in chapter 2 of this study corresponds most closely with the variant of the interpretive construct summarized in the fourth scenario above. Concededly, on the one hand, this conceptualization is “difficult to reconcile with the genetic diversity seen in humans today” (223). Yet, on the other hand, this approach permits a “reading of Genesis 2 and 3 with Adam and Eve as the first pair of humans” (222). It is also the option most consistent with the text-centered, inner-canonical, and integrative hermeneutic adopted in this treatise to engage pertinent Judeo-Christian Scriptures in their literary, historical, and theological settings. Haarsma and Haarsma (2007:230) observe that “all the Adam and Eve scenarios” give rise to “significant scientific or theological challenges”. Be that as it may, this study most favors what was previously stated in chapter 2. To reiterate, at one precise moment, the original human pair were the direct product of divine activity from a distinct Homo species of ancient, pre-Adamite creatures. Put another way, it was from an initially small population (possibly numbering no more than several thousand) that God brought the first anatomically modern humans into existence by special, instantaneous, and separate creation. The implication is that God interrupted the normal course of biological development (including its apparent ontological indeterminacy). It involved God freshly creating Adam and Eve with apparent age (that is,

92

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

as adults rather than as children) and giving them a genetic history that reflected their common ancestry with all other life forms. The episode also included God supernaturally forming the material (i.e. physical) and immaterial (i.e. spiritual) aspects of their being. The latter refers to God’s infusion of a soul in the primeval pair, as well as in the embryos of all subsequent humans. Returning now to Genesis 2, verse 8 indicates that after God created Adam and Eve, He prepared a home for them. This was a garden— namely, an orchard full of trees (v. 9)—occupying a place called “Eden” (v. 8). Sailhamer (1990:41) clarifies that the portrayal of this lush, bucolic spot prefigures the “description of the tabernacle found later in the Pentateuch”. Each setting was a sacred space where the Lord’s spiritual children could “enjoy the fellowship and presence of God”. The specific details found in verses 9–14 indicate that this locale was not just a religious symbol, but also a real geographical place. More generally, Goldingay (2003:119) considers the cosmological narrative to be “not a myth about how things are, but a story about something that happened” (cf. Bartholomew 2007:186; Collins 2006a:120, 254; Currid 2003:102–103; Kidner 1967:62; Lioy 2010:5; McGrath 1997; Oswalt 2009:13; Pearce 1976:52; Spanner 1987:62). Verse 15 indicates that Adam’s stay in Eden was no vacation, for God expected him to perform various sacerdotal responsibilities, including the cultivation and upkeep of the shrine-garden (cf. Lioy 2010:11). The fact that Adam was given this assignment prior to the Fall implies that work is part of God’s original design for humanity and was not one of the consequences of sin (cf. Apoc of Moses 15:1–3; 2 Enoch 31:1; Jub 3:15–16; Bergrant and Stuhlmueller 1985:157; Collins 2003:133; Dempster 1996:831; Eichrodt 1951:33; Fretheim 2005:53–54; Fretheim 2010:31; Preuss 1996:105; Schaeffer 1972:50, 96; Westermann 1974:18, 81; Westermann 1982:98). Ross (1988:124), based on his analysis of the pertinent lexical data (cf. Gen 2:15; Num 3:7–8; 8:25–26; 18:5–6; 1 Chron 23:32; Ezek 44:14), states that regardless of the nature of the “physical activity” the first human couple performed in the sacred space, it was “described in terms of spiritual service to the Lord”. Fretheim (1994:341) goes even further when he observes that “worship interests ... clearly appear in the links among creation, tabernacle, and temple as well as in

Life and Death in the Old Testament

93

sabbath and religious festivals”. On one level, the primeval narrative can be “identified as a didactic account”. On another level, the biblical record has been “shaped by liturgical use and worship interests”. Two trees in the Eden orchard were extraordinary. Kidner (1967:62) elucidates that this arboreal pair had a distinctive “sacramental” (rather than “magical”) quality about them, for each tree provided the “physical means of a spiritual transaction”. According to Keil and Delitzsch (1981:85), the underlying metaphysical process made it possible for “earthly elements” to become the “receptacles and vehicles of celestial powers”. More specifically, fruit from the “tree of life” (Gen 2:9) enabled the first humans to enjoy unending existence in all its beauty and fullness with God (cf. Gen 3:22, 24; Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; 15:4; 1 En 24:4; 2 En 8:3; 5, 8; 9:1; 4 Ezra 8:52; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The other tree produced fruit that, when people consumed it, gave the man and woman a more sophisticated and discerning awareness of moral right and wrong. The latter included exercising the ability to “act autonomously” (Hamilton 1990:166) and to perceive the “meaning of what furthers or hampers life” (von Rad 1962:155; cf. Barr 1993b:62; Di Vito 1992:46; Dunn 1998:83; Emmrich 2001:6; Gow 2003:286–287; Kaufmann 1960:293; Lioy 2010:9; Smick 1988:901–902; Wallace 1992b:658; Wiley 2009:21). God permitted the first human pair to eat freely from the fruit growing on any of the trees in the primeval locale (Gen. 2:16). The only exception was consuming fruit from the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (v. 17). The divine prohibition connected with this tree was God’s tool for testing the Adam and Eve. In particular, the Lord warned that if they ate the fruit produced by this tree, their “ultimate punishment” (Speiser 1990:17) was spiritual and physical death (cf. Alexander 2008:250–251; Demarest 2001:435; Dyrness 1977:100; Fretheim 1994:352; Westermann 1974:89–90; Wilkinson 2002:75). The wording of the Hebrew original indicates that this outcome was absolutely certain (cf. Jub 4:29–30; Collins 2003:137; Collins 2006a:118; Currid 2003:107; Moberly 2009b:83; Ross 1988:125; von Rad 1972:78; Walton 2009b:100–101). The narrative of Genesis 3 confirms the factuality of God’s pronouncement. Admittedly, on one level, the biblical portrait found in this chapter (as well as Genesis 1 and 2) reflects an “ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing ultimate origins and meaning” (Enns

94

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

2005:40, 50). Yet, on another level, the figurative nature of the chapter’s content does not negate the underlying historical and theological truths being conveyed (contra Collins 2006b:206–209, 251–252; Collins 2010:149, 151; Harlow 2010:185–186; Lamoureux 2008:205–206; Murphy 2010:3–4). Put another way, metaphors and symbols are the literary conventions Moses used to communicate eternal verities having spiritual and ethical import for Adam and Eve as genuinely historic persons (cf. Alexander 2008:159, 240; Colling 2004:112–113; Duncan 2007:2302, 2380; Eichrodt 1967:402; Emmrich 2001:4; Gilkey 1959:343–344; Hyers 1984:100–101, 125; Spanner 1987:28, 59, 69; Stek 1990:243–244). From the beginning, the Creator had a special covenantal arrangement with Adam and Eve (cf. Apoc of Moses 7:1; Test of Moses 1:12–14; Collins 2003:136; Eichrodt 1951:36; Eichrodt 1961:425; Frame 2002:94, 294; Gage 1984:29; Hiebert 1996:135; Irons and Kline 2001:253; Schaeffer 1972:105; VanDrunen 2006:7; Van Groningen 1996b:241). For that reason, God tested the first human pair to see whether they would repay His goodness with obedience. If the two passed the test involving the forbidden fruit, they and their offspring would have completed their earthly history without sin and experiencing death; but as Scripture reveals, Adam and Eve failed the divine test by eating what God had banned. Their intentional decision to yield to temptation led to sin and a broken fellowship with their Maker (among other devastating consequences). The fact that the couple had other alternatives to choose makes their transgression all the more condemnable. The chapter begins by drawing the readers’ attention to the “serpent” (Gen 3:1). Throughout the Fertile Crescent, this creature was a “pervasive” (Charlesworth 2010:271) and “multivalent symbol” that people identified with the “knowledge of fertility” (Hyers 1984:122) and the “powers of rejuvenation”. Like other animals, the serpent was created good, that is, to fulfill a God-ordained function and purpose (cf. Anderson 1984:15; Anderson 1994:13, 31; Fretheim 2010:13; Gilkey 1959:120–121; Kass 2003:81; Oswalt 2009:130). Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 identify the “ancient serpent” with “Satan” (cf. Isa 27:1; 2 Cor 11:3, 14; 1 John 3:8; Alexander 2008:260; Arnold 1997:1078; Daane 1982:278; Day and Jordan 1988:417; Gage 1984:27–28; Hiebert 2009:336; Lioy 2003:68; Murray 2009b:530; Schaeffer 1972:77–78). The underlying theological

Life and Death in the Old Testament

95

truth is that the devil either came in the guise of a snake or somehow supernaturally spoke through the creature (cf. Wis 2:24; 1 Enoch 69:6; Apoc of Moses 16:4; 17:4). Put another way, the evil one used for conniving purposes a creature the Lord had created for good. The satanic presence behind the serpent enabled it to be more shrewd than all the animals inhabiting the Eden orchard (cf. Alexander 2008:104; Collins 2006a:156–157, 163, 171; Currid 2003:117; Demarest 2001:435; Gage 1984:92; Gow 2003:287; Pendergast 2009:836; Thielicke 1961:126). That being the case, in a display of “malevolent brilliance” (Kidner 1967:67), the tempter asked Eve whether it was really true that God forbid her and Adam from eating fruit growing on “any tree in the garden” (Gen 3:1). The snake’s tactic was to plant doubt in the woman’s mind by making God’s original statements in 2:16–17 seem more restrictive than He intended (cf. Collins 2003:139–140, 170; Dyrness 1977:101; Simkins 1994:186; Titus 2011:325; Van Groningen 1996b:240). Amazingly, instead of either rebuking the tempter or fleeing from it, Eve indulged herself in extended conversation with the serpent (cf. Bonhoeffer 1997:74–74; Branch 2003:241–242; Daane 1982:278; Keil and Delitzsch 1981:94; Ortlund 2000:651). The woman countered that God permitted her and her husband to partake of the “fruit from the trees” (3:2) in the orchard. Having said that, Eve noted there was one exception. She explained that God prohibited the couple from picking and eating the “fruit” (v. 3) growing on the “tree” located in the “middle” of the grove. The woman added that she and the man were not allowed to “touch” the tree’s fruit, for even this slight infraction would cause them to “die”. Eve’s response to the serpent’s deceit indicates she did not have a clear understanding of God’s command. Specifically, the woman downplayed the abundance of the Creator’s allotment, overstated His restriction, and softened the intensity of the consequence. Already, the words of the evil one were having their intended effect (cf. Currid 2003:118; Emmrich 2001:13–14; Kass 2003:84–85; Moberly 1992:6; Scullion 1992:945; Speiser 1990:23; Vos 2000:35; Wilkinson 2002:68). In an exchange that von Rad (1972:88) describes as a “masterpiece of psychological shading”, the serpent put forward a blatant lie, namely, that there would be no death penalty for disobeying God’s command

96

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

(v. 4). The tempter claimed that the couple would become like God Himself (or like the divine beings in His heavenly court; cf. Cassuto 1961:146; Harlow 2008:180; Levenson 1988:5, 126; Moberly 1992:7; Preuss 1995:256; Titus 2011:426; von Rad 1972:86; Waltke and Yu 2007:213–214). Allegedly, when the woman and man ate the forbidden fruit, they would exponentially increase their awareness, including knowing the difference between “good and evil” (v. 5). In effect, the snake attributed a selfish motive to the Lord, namely, that He did not want the first human pair to become divine like Him (cf. Currid 2003:119; Gow 2003:287; Thielicke 1961:140; Van Groningen 1996b:240; Westermann 1974:27, 93). Put another way, God supposedly feared that if Homo sapiens ate the forbidden fruit, they would become His equals (cf. Brunner 1952:92, 108; Dunn 1998:92; Kass 2003:85–86; O’Brien 2009:410). In John 8:44, Jesus noted that from the dawn of time, the “devil” was a “murderer”, rejected the “truth”, and was devoid of the latter. In keeping with his deceitful character, Satan not only lied but was also the “father” of all “lies” (cf. Demarest 2001:435; Lioy 2007a:157; Murray 2009b:530– 531; Ross 1988:135; Schaeffer 1972:78). How temptation can lead to sin is vividly depicted in Eve’s thoughts and actions. She realized that the fruit was beneficial as “food” (Gen 3:6), that it was attractive to look at, and that eating it could bring something desirable to her: godlike “wisdom”. The underlying Hebrew verb denotes the presence of insight, discernment, and prudence (cf. Brown 2010:85; Bullock 1996:823; Drumwright 2009b:1088; Goldingay 2006:576; Murphy 1992:920; Schnabel 2000:843; Sheppard 1988:1076; Wilson 1997:1277–1278). According to Proverbs 1:7, the reverent “fear of the LORD” is the starting point of all God-given “knowledge”. Also, this respect for the Lord is what sets biblical “wisdom and instruction” apart from all its pagan counterparts (cf. Job 28:28; Ps 111:10; Prov 9:10; 15:33; Eccl 12:13; cf. Bartholomew 2009:123; Birch 2005:49, 420; Kaiser 1979:67– 68; Longman 1998:39, 382; Shank 1994:78–79). It did not take long for the woman to reach for some of the forbidden fruit and eat it. Next, she gave a portion to her “husband” (Gen 3:6), who not only was with her at the time, but also remained irresponsibly silent (cf. Currid 2003:120; Fretheim 2005:74; Marshall 2004:315; Wilkinson 2002:69). Evidently, it was not hard for Eve to talk Adam into eating

Life and Death in the Old Testament

97

the fruit. Ironically, this simple act did give the couple moral awareness, but it was not what they had anticipated. Instead of obtaining godly wisdom, the man and woman suddenly became conscious of their physical and spiritual nakedness; and they felt so ashamed that they made a pathetic attempt to cover themselves around their hips by stitching together “fig leaves” (v. 7). As a result of this specific historical couple’s actions, they forfeited for themselves and all their offspring the life of blessing they had once enjoyed. Moreover, the sin of Adam and Eve became the starting point for humankind’s alienation from God and the spiritual corruption of human nature (cf. Alexander 2008:27; Demarest 2001:435; Bonhoeffer 1997:88–89; Eichrodt 1967:404; Waltke and Yu 2007:263; Westermann 1974:94–95). Merrill (1997:638) points out that in the Old Testament, there is “no technical term” that details either the “act” or the “resulting condition” connected with the “fall of humankind”. Be that as it may, he affirms that the incident recorded in the Genesis narrative is a “logical and theological necessity”, for it is “presupposed by the Bible’s persistent witness to the problem of sin and its resolution” (cf. Gen 6:5; 8:21; 1 Kings 8:46; 2 Chron 6:36; Job 4:17–21; 25:4; 31:33; Pss 51:5; 78:38; 103:10; 130:3; 143:2; Prov 20:9; Eccl 7:20; Jer 17:9; Ezek 28:12–15; Hos 6:7; Apoc of Moses 7:1ff.; 2 Bar 4:3; 17:3; 18:2; 19:8; 23:4; 48:42–43, 47; 51:1, 3; 54:14, 15, 19, 21; 56:5–6; 2 Enoch 30:17; 4 Ezra 3:7–10, 21–26; 4:30; 7:118, 122–131; Jub 3; Sir 17:25–18:14; 25:24; 33:10–13; 40:1–11; Tob 8:6; Wis of Sol 2:23–24; 10:1; 15:8, 11; Rom 1:8–3:23; 5:12–21; 1 Cor 15:21–22; 2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:14). In 1 John 2:15–17, the apostle urged his readers not to “love the world” or anything in it. The Greek noun rendered “world” (v. 15) refers to the secular, ungodly, humanistic system under Satan’s control. At every turn, this system opposes God and actively seeks to subvert His plan of salvation for humankind. For this reason, John wanted it understood that one cannot love that world and all that it has to offer and love God at the same time (cf. Jas 4:4). A clear choice had to be made—love God and hate the world or love the world and hate God. The two options are mutually exclusive. John explained that everything in the world has its origin in the pagan, godless system of fallen humanity, not from the Father.

98

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

In describing what the world has to offer, John specifically named three vices. First is “the cravings of sinful people” (1 John 2:16). The Greek noun translated “cravings” most often signifies the sinful desires that come from within the human heart. The second vice the apostle identified as having its origin in the world is “the lust of [the] eyes”. This speaks of the temptations that assault believers from the outside. The third vice involved boasting about what one has and does. The meaning here, while difficult to be precise, seems to refer to the arrogance that can come with success. John declared that the empty values and hollow promises of the world are even now in the process of “passing away” (v. 17). In contrast, obedience to God and His will leads to everlasting life. Prior to their moral and spiritual fall, Adam and Eve most likely looked forward to their meetings with God, with whom they existed in a filial, covenant relationship; but the advent of sin changed all that (cf. Alexander 2002:132; Bartholomew 2007:189; Collins 2003:140–141; Collins 2006a:173; Cundall 2009:61; Cunningham 2010:390; Goldingay 2003:136; Vos 2000:41). The Creator, of course, is aware of everything (cf. Job 24:23; Pss 33:13–15; 139:1–16; 147:5; Prov 15:3; Jer 16:17; Heb 4:13). In this case, He knew immediately when the couple had eaten the forbidden fruit. It was the “breezy time of day” (Speiser 1990:24) when the pair heard the Lord moving about among the trees in the orchard. At the sound of the Lord’s approach, the guilty pair became afraid, perhaps even terrified, and frantically searched for a place to hide (Gen 3:8). Their reaction foreshadows that of the Israelites to God’s appearance on Mount Sinai. His chosen people “trembled with fear” (Exod 20:18) and kept their distance from Him. When Adam and Eve sensed the Creator’s proximity, their response was the opposite of what He wants His spiritual children to do, namely, to hear and heed Him (cf. Deut 6:3; Beker 1987:64; Brodie 2001:151; Schaeffer 1972:92–93; Van Groningen 1996b:240; Waltke and Yu 2007:250, 264; Westermann 1974:20). While the first human pair might try to hide from the theophanic presence, they could not escape the accountability the holy one required for their disobedience. Due to the Lord’s covenantal love for and commitment to them, He had to find and discipline the first sinners. Even though God already knew where the husband and his wife

Life and Death in the Old Testament

99

were, it was for their benefit that He summoned them. Specifically, He gave them an opportunity to voluntarily confess their sin (cf. Bonhoeffer 1997:91; Cassuto 1961:155–156; Currid 2003:123; Dyrness 1977:102; Gage 1984:97; Gow 2003:288; Hamilton 1990:194). The process began with the Creator rhetorically asking where Adam might be (Gen 3:9). Implied in God’s question is why the man was hiding. After all, instead of pointing out his location, Adam offered his fear of being “naked” (v. 10) as the reason for trying to keep out of sight. The Lord, with full knowledge of what had happened, asked the man how he had become conscious of his nakedness and whether he had eaten the forbidden fruit (v. 11). In this exchange, God was extending to Adam a chance to own up to his transgression, as well as to ask for divine mercy and forgiveness. Regrettably, the man chose to make excuses and blame his wife for his own willful act of defiance. Moreover, in an indirect way, Adam even blamed his Creator when the man asserted that the temptation to sin came from Eve, whom God had graciously given to Adam (v. 12). The man’s lame attempt to make his wife responsible for his wrongdoing was a measure of how far Adam had morally fallen (cf. Hess 2003:20; Kass 2003:93; Titus 2011:361; von Rad 1972:89). Next, the Lord gave Eve a chance to acknowledge her sin by asking why she had given her husband the forbidden fruit to eat. The woman responded by trying to point the finger of guilt at the serpent, whom Eve claimed had tricked her (v. 13). As was noted in chapter 2 of this study, when the first human pair sinned, they were alienated not just from God, but also from each other, especially as the two refused to take responsibility for their actions. They had been blinded by the serpent’s insidious promise, and in return they received shame and alienation. Such was the wretched end of the blessed relationship Adam and Eve had once enjoyed with their Creator. The trees mentioned in Genesis 1–3 mirror the changes that occurred in God’s relationship with the people He created. At first, the trees symbolized the Lord’s provision for Adam and Eve (cf. 1:29; 2:9). Additionally, two special trees—one offering life and another offering an awareness of moral right and wrong—represented the choice of life or death God offered the couple. Adam and Eve could choose to obey their Creator and live in a

100

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

covenantal relationship with Him, or they could seek forbidden knowledge (cf. 2:16–17). After the man and the woman decided to eat the banned fruit—along with experiencing the spiritual and physical death that resulted from doing so—they hid among the trees in the orchard (cf. 3:8). As a consequence, the Lord blocked their way to the tree of life to prevent them from existing endlessly in a fallen human state (cf. vv. 22, 24). Later, in biblical literature, trees became a symbol of death (cf. Deut 21:22–23), that is, until Jesus’ death on a tree (namely, the cross) opened the way again to eternal life (cf. Gal 3:13; 1 Pet 2:24). Thus, believers can look forward to seeing the tree of life again in the new Jerusalem (cf. Ezek 47:12; Rev 22:2). All it took was a series of straightforward questions (appearing in Gen 3:9–13) for God to uncover what had happened to bring about the state of sin and guilt in which Adam and Eve now existed (cf. Kass 2003:95; Oswalt 2009:67; Scullion 1992:945; Wilkinson 2002:71). The Lord’s plan for dealing with the appalling circumstance was to pronounce a curse on the serpent, the woman, and the man—in that order (vv. 14–19). The Creator also expelled the human couple from the Eden orchard. These observations draw attention to the dual emphasis of the Hebrew verb rendered “cursed” (vv. 14, 17), namely, that of being punished by God and alienated from Him. The solemn utterances recorded in these verses do not describe all the effects of sin. In fact, everything in life continues to be twisted, corrupted, or diminished in some way by the effects of iniquity. Moreover, despite the efforts of humankind, the imperfections of life cannot be remedied. Likewise, the deficiencies encountered in this world are impossible to quantify and overcome (cf. Eccl 1:15; 3:11, 14–15, 7:13; 8:16–17). Regarding the serpent, Genesis 3:1 states that before the Fall, this creature was the most cunning and devious living being in the entire animal kingdom. After the Fall, the Lord decreed that as a consequence of the snake’s act of deception, it would be the most cursed creature among all the tamed and untamed animals on earth. The serpent would experience the humiliation of slithering on the ground and being forced to ingest dirt as it moved along (v. 14). Cassuto (1961:159) observes that the snake, “having sinned in the matter of eating”, was “punished in the same respect”. Jewish teachers have traditionally interpreted this

Life and Death in the Old Testament

101

verse to mean that previously snakes had legs (cf. Ant 1.42, 50; b Yoma 75a; Gen Rab 20:5; Eccl Rab 10.11; Jub 3:23; Tar Ps-Jon 3:14; Sib Or 1:59–64; Charlesworth 2010:311–312, 321; Hyers 1984:123; McGrath 1997; Simkins 1994:189); but the curse may simply mean that the serpent’s mode of travel, along with its closeness to “dust”, would now symbolize Satan’s moral lowness and metaphysical ignominy (cf. Pss 44:25; 72:9; Isa 49:23; 65:25; Mic 7:17; Alexander 2008:261; Collins 2003:149; Currid 2003:127–128; Gage 1984:98; Goldingay 2003:140; Keil and Delitzsch 1981:99; McFall 2000:773; Sailhamer 1990:55). Because the snake tricked the woman, God would allow a perpetual state of hostility to exist between the serpent and the woman, as well as between deadly poisonous snakes and human beings. One of the woman’s offspring would “crush” (Gen 3:15) the “head” of the serpent’s offspring, while the latter would attack the “heel” of this person. Traditionally, in a view that is called the protoevangelium (Latin for “first good news”), Christian interpreters have taken the woman’s offspring to refer, in particular, to the Messiah. After considering the relevant data, Sailhamer (1990:56) concludes that “such a reading of this passage does not lie outside the narrative implications of the verse” (cf. Alexander 2008:105–106; Branch 2003:242; Collins 2006a:157–159, 176; Cunningham 2010:389; Currid 2003:18, 55, 130; Gow 2003:288; Schaeffer 1972:103–104; Paul 1997a:360–361; Vos 2000:34). Accordingly, while Satan struck Jesus’ heel (figuratively speaking), He crushed the devil’s head when Jesus rose from the dead. Colossians 2:15 reveals that the Son triumphed in His death over every power and authority that sets itself up against the triune God. The verse pictures ancient post-battle victory processions, when a conqueror returned home with his defeated enemies trailing behind, weakened and in chains. Moreover, Romans 16:20 discloses that Jesus’ victory over Satan will be finalized at the Second Advent. Concerning the woman, the divine curse had two parts. First, she would endure intensified physical pain and emotional distress in childbearing (cf. Demarest 2001:436; Fretheim 2010:5, 13–14; Hurd 2003:228; Van Groningen 1996b:241). Presumably, if Adam had not eaten the forbidden fruit, he and his wife would have raised a family in the garden. In that case, births would have caused the mother little discomfort; but now Adam’s wife, along with all mothers after her, would suffer greatly

102

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

increased labor pains. The second part of God’s judgment oracle is that the woman would seek to control her “husband” (Gen 3:16), while he would try to dominate her. Thus, instead of the couple being united and harmonious in their marriage relationship (cf. 2:24), the two would be locked in an ongoing, futile struggle for power. Some take 3:16 to mean that marriage would be distorted by sexual and power politics. Others think the verse means that while a woman would continue to desire her husband, she would now have to submit to his leadership in the family (cf. Branch 2003:242; Collins 2003:142; Collins 2006a:159–160; Currid 2003:133; Fretheim 1994:363; Gow 2003:289; Hess 2003:20; Merrill 1991:21; Ross 1988:146–147; Simkins 1994:190; Westermann 1974:101; Wilkinson 2002:73–74). With respect to Adam, because he sinned by eating the forbidden fruit, now the divine curse would negatively impact his ability to obtain food from the ground to eat. As noted earlier, life in the Eden orchard involved some form of work (cf. 2:15), but it was much easier and more fruitful than labor would be in a fallen world. Because the man followed the lead of his wife, the ground ceased to be as bounteous in its yield (cf. Alexander 2008:27; Chia 2005:179; Dyrness 1977:103; Hamilton 1990:203; Kass 2003:95; Titus 2011:390). For the rest of Adam’s life, “painful toil” (3:17) would accompany him as he tried to get the earth’s soil to produce enough food for him to feed his family. Furthermore, despite the man’s efforts at planting, tilling, and harvesting, the ground would sprout “thorns and thistles” (v. 18). Even as Adam toiled in the field, he would “sweat” (v. 19) profusely, and this would be his fate until he died (cf. Fretheim 2005:19; Hess 2003:20; Preuss 1996:110; Waltke and Yu 2007:267). More generally, as noted in chapter 2 of this study, it was due to the Fall that the Lord held back nature’s full potential to flourish and achieve its divinely intended goal. This constriction of earth’s fecundity is seen in the curse that God placed on the ground (cf. Gen 3:17–18; 2 Bar 48:42; 54:15; 56:6; 4 Ezra 7:11–12, 116–126). Earlier on, the serpent asserted that by eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve could seize what the Lord denied them, namely, knowledge and immortality (cf. Gen 3:4–5). Now, as part of God’s judgment oracle, they would experience the same fate as the rest of earth’s creatures—death (v. 19; cf. 2 Bar 17:2–3; 4 Ezra 3:4–7). Indeed, both humans

Life and Death in the Old Testament

103

and animals share the same lifebreath and end up in the grave (cf. Gen 2:7; 6:17; Job 34:14–15; Ps 104:29–30; Eccl 3:19). Moreover, every creature is made from the same minerals and chemicals of the ground, and in death that is where all of them return (cf. Eccl 3:20; Pss 49:12, 20; 103:14; Anderson 1994:32; Hyers 1984:126; Simkins 1994:180, 190; Walton 2003:160). No living entity could escape this destiny. As noted in chapter 2, prior to the Fall, the first human pair were “naturally mortal”, but as a result of their sin, they lost their “potential for immortality” (Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:217). Put another way, physical and spiritual death became a permanent part of the human experience (cf. Alexander 2010:7; Berry 2007b:27; Brown 2010:89; Gow 2003:290; Johnston 2003:534; Moberly 1992:16–17; Stek 1990:254). The preceding truths notwithstanding, human life would go on. Concededly, it would be marred by intensified affliction, but it would continue. So, in a hope-filled response to what the Creator had decreed, the man gave his wife the name of “Eve” (Gen 3:20), which in Hebrew probably means “living one” or “life-giver” (cf. Collins 2003:132, 143, 154, 174; Currid 2003:138; Hamilton 1990:206; Titus 2011:406–407; Westermann 1974:104). Despite God’s judgment oracles, Adam maintained faith in the Lord’s abiding goodness and grace (cf. Bonhoeffer 1997:98– 99; Fretheim 2005:76; Goldingay 2003:143; Ortlund 2000:651; von Rad 1972:96). The man recognized that even though Eve would experience acute pain and suffering in giving birth (cf. v. 16), she would become the ancestral “mother” (v. 20) of all human beings. To ensure this outcome, the Lord provided the couple with clothing made from animal skins (v. 21). They would need these garments as they entered a far less hospitable environment. Moreover, the shame of sin would not go away, so the first human pair needed more durable clothing than that provided by fig leaves (cf. v. 7). Some interpreters consider the killing of the animals for the clothing to be the first sacrifice (cf. Gage 1984:102– 103; Keil and Delitzsch 1981:106; Preuss 1996:119–120; Ross 1988:150; Sailhamer 1990:568; Waltke and Yu 2007:267–268). Previously, Adam and Eve obtained their experiential awareness of moral right and wrong by disobeying their Creator. Before then, only He and the angelic members of His heavenly court knew about “good and evil” (v. 22). Since the couple now existed in a fallen human state,

104

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

it would be unacceptable for them to eat from the tree that would enable them to “live forever”. In order to prevent this disastrous outcome, God “banished” (v. 23) Adam and Eve from the Eden orchard (cf. Alexander 2008:261; Alexander 2002:117, 132; Anderson 1994:7–8; Barr 1993b:4, 21, 58; Collins 2006a:175, 185; Cunningham 2010:406; Harlow 2008:189; Lane 1994b:170; Moberly 1992:18; O’Brien 2009:409–410). From then on, they would spend their days cultivating the soil from which the man had been formed. The Lord also stationed “cherubim” (v. 24) to police the entrance to the garden, which faced “east”. These imposing creatures wielded a “flaming sword” as they stood guard over the path leading to the “tree of life”. Evidently, these angelic sentinels moved the foil of their blade back and forth, as well as in a whirling motion, to slice and impale anyone who might try to breach the entrance to the garden (cf. Cassuto 1961:176; Currid 2003:140–141; Eichrodt 1967:203; Hulsbosch 1965:123; Hyers 1984:127; Lioy 2010:11–12). Death’s Subversion of the Human Drive for Life (Gen 5:1–29) Scripture reveals that as a consequence of the Fall, death subverts the human drive for life.* Expressed differently, despite the efforts of people both individually and collectively to extend the realms of human existence, their efforts are ultimately ambushed (in a manner of speaking) by the end of life. Furthermore, while each generation appears to be making incremental strides—sometimes even laudable gains—the reality of death neutralizes these advances and in some cases entirely wipes them out. In this regard, Fishbane (1998:37) noted that the “overall teaching of the primeval cycle in Genesis” is that the “unchecked expression of the drive for life is ultimately counterproductive and results in death, destruction, and isolation”. A case in point would be Genesis 5:1–29, which records the genealogy from Adam to Noah. More specifically, this section discusses how the presence of sin and death within the human race shunted the efforts of each successive generation to fulfill the creation mandate (cf. Cassuto 1961:262–263; Cole 1991:288; * What follows in this section is a revision of material in my journal article titled, “Checkmating the human drive for life”, which appears in the September 2006 edition of Conspectus (cf. Lioy 2006a).

Life and Death in the Old Testament

105

Fretheim 1994:337; Hamilton 1990:256; Keil and Delitzsch 1981:124; Kidner 1967:79–80; Roop 1987:64; Sailhamer 1990:73–74). Genesis 1:28 is the theological basis for the latter. This verse states that after God created human beings, He “blessed” them. This means He endowed men and women with the ability to flourish and be successful in serving as His vice-regents across the entire planet. Humanity’s populating the world and bringing it under their control in a responsible fashion would be a testimony to God’s abiding presence in and blessing on their lives (cf. Brueggemann 1997:163; Kidner 1967:52; Niehaus 2008:31; Paul 1997a:360; Preuss 1995:233; Stek 1990:215, 251– 252, 257; Van Leeuwen 1997a:645; Walton 2009b:98; Westermann 1974:46, 49, 54–55). In the time period of Moses, the focus would have been primarily agricultural. Such endeavors as domesticating animals, using trees to build homes, cultivating fields, and extracting mineral resources from the land would all be involved. Even today, as people use the resources of the environment in a sensible and responsible manner (e.g. in such vocations as agriculture, art, business, science, government, journalism, entertainment, scholarship, etc.), they are fulfilling God’s original command to subdue the earth (cf. Birch 2005:37; Brunner 1952:68; Dyrness 1977:83; Fretheim 2010:14; Lioy 2010:14; Waltke and Yu 2007:220; Wilkinson 2002:42–43). An examination of Genesis 5 indicates that despite the herculean efforts of countless generations of people to fulfill the creation mandate, death has undercut their efforts (cf. Merrill 2003:121). Verses 1–2 have clear thematic and linguistic links with the creation account recorded in 1:26–27. For instance, each set of verses reveals that God created both male and female genders of the human race in His image. The remainder of Genesis 5 records the efforts of humanity to “flourish and be successful in serving as [God’s] vice-regents” (Lioy 2005:52). Despite the continued and vigorous attempts on the part of people, there is the sad refrain “and then he died”, which appears throughout the chapter (vv. 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31). Ross (1988:171) observes that the “reign of death” contrasts sharply with the “desire of God” for human beings to flourish. Von Rad (1972:69) views the chronicle of humanity’s “slowly diminishing life span” as a “gradual deterioration” of their “original, wonderful vitality”, which parallels their “increasing distance” from their “starting

106

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

point at creation”. The somber pattern found throughout Genesis 5 is only broken with the account of Enoch, in which the biblical text twice says he “walked faithfully with God” (vv. 22, 24). The idea is that throughout Enoch’s 365 years on earth, he stood out as someone who lived in close fellowship with the Creator. In short, because Enoch’s life was one of superlative devotion and piety, he escaped the clutches of death. Put another way, when God removed Enoch from the face of the planet, death was overruled (cf. Heb 11:5). This oasis of grace is surrounded by a wasteland of death. There are 10 literary panels in Genesis 5, one for each generation of Adam’s descendants through Seth. A new biological group of fallen human beings appears for a span of time and procreates sons and daughters in their own imperfect image. Moreover, the duration of life is remarkable—at least by today’s standards. Among these antediluvian centenarians, Methuselah lived the longest—969 years; and yet, even he eventually succumbed to death. Along with Enoch, Noah is a ray of hope for the future against the dark backdrop of sin and death in Genesis 5. Verses 28 and 29 state that when Lamech was 182, he had a son, whom he named “Noah”. Though the etymology of this name remains a matter of debate, one possibility is that it is related the Hebrew verb nuakh, which means “to rest”. “Noah” is similar in sound to the Hebrew verb for “to comfort” and reflects Lamech’s belief that his son would bring humankind relief from the struggle of having to eek out an existence from the ground, which the Lord placed under a curse (cf. Brueggemann 1982:19, 69–70; Cassuto 1961:288–289; Fretheim 1994:380–381; Keil and Delitzsch 1981:126–127; Kidner 1967:81; Roop 1987:60; Ross 1988:176; Speiser 1990:41; Walton 2009a:43). Sailhamer (1990:2:74) notes that when Genesis 8:21 is considered, the comfort Noah provided included the deliverance of humankind by means of the ark, along with “the reinstitution of the sacrifice after the Flood”. In this way, Noah “averted any future destruction” of the human race. Death’s Stark Reality (Eccl 1:1–18) Like Genesis 5, Ecclesiastes 1 deals with the stark reality of death and makes it a “dominant motif” (Clemens 1994:5) throughout the book.

Life and Death in the Old Testament

107

The author (sometimes referred to below as Qoheleth) is taken to be King Solomon of Israel.* Based on the analysis of his findings, he reported that no matter what people strive to attain in life, they all meet the same fate; in other words, all people die and are forgotten by others. In this way, the author did not try to hide the futility that people face. Indeed, he taught that all goals of human beings have limitations—even wisdom. Thus, it is useless for them to pretend they are the masters of their own destinies (cf. Brown 2010:180–181; Crenshaw 1987:23–24; Delitzsch 1982:220; Garrett 2009:506). The Teacher’s candid view of existence sets the stage for the underlying hope in Ecclesiastes. Although every human striving will eventually fail, God’s purposes will never be thwarted. Based on the author’s varied experiences and observations, he concluded that God has ordered life according to His purposes. Thus, the best approach to existence on earth as human beings is for people of faith to accept and enjoy the life God has given them. With respect to Ecclesiastes 1, the chapter can be divided into two main sections. In verses 1–2, the Teacher introduced himself and stated his main theme in the form of a preamble. Then, in verses 3–18, he described the limitations of work and wisdom. This second section can be further divided as follows: verses 3 through 11 deal with the repetitive cycles of creation, while verses 12 through 18 discuss the futility of human labor and understanding. This introductory chapter of the book discloses that there is some value to human endeavors, including enjoyment, satisfaction, and security. In the end, however, the gains represented by such achievements are shunted by death. This view is a theological affirmation of the mournful refrain “and then he died” that appears throughout Genesis 5. Ecclesiastes 1:2 serves as the gateway to the rest of the book and conveys the central premise of the author’s discourse. He lamented that existence “remains cloaked in darkness” (Lohfink 2003:36). Moreover, life for the godless “lacked profit and therefore was totally absurd” (Crenshaw 1992:2:273). The Hebrew noun hebel, which the TNIV renders as * What follows in this section is a revision of material in my journal article titled, “Checkmating the human drive for life”, which appears in the September 2006 edition of Conspectus (cf. Lioy 2006a).

108

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

“meaningless”, is pivotal to the author’s thesis. In more literal contexts, hebel is used to refer to the wind, a person’s breath, and vapor, all of which are ephemeral in nature (cf. Ps 144:4; Prov 21:6; Isa 57:13; Zech 10:2). Metaphorically, hebel can refer to whatever is temporary, incongruous, inscrutable, without substance, or utterly fruitless (cf. Albertz 1997:351–352; Bartholomew 2009:93–94, 104–105; Fredericks 1997:1005– 1006; Fox 2004:xix, 3; Gordis 1968:204–205; Krüger 2004:3, 42–43; Seow 1997:101, 112; Seybold 1997:318–319). Qoheleth argued that the human drive for life apart from God is filled with anxiety and frustration and “amounts to a huge zero” (Crenshaw 1992:2:272). The unsaved have no hope beyond this earthly existence because they have divorced themselves from their Creator. All they have is what they work for now, and soon every aspect of it will pass away. It would be incorrect to conclude from the preceding observations that absolutely everything in life is futile. As the “haunting and melancholy poem” (Towner 1997:5:292) recorded in Ecclesiastes 1:3–11 indicates, the focus is on profane human endeavor. This situation contrasts with the eternal value of revering God and appreciating the temporal blessings of life He gives (cf. 2:24–26; 11:9–10; 12:13–14). Godawa (2011:6) observes that the “grandeur of creation” impels Homo sapiens to search for the sole entity that can give them genuine “meaning”, namely, a “transcendent loving God”. Apart from Him, people are “left with a meaningless imminent universe” that is comparable to a “deadend circular argument” or a “closed system that spirals in on itself”. Moreover, in a world bereft of a “transcendent value-giver”, all forms of life (including people) are nothing more than “molecules in motion”. Likewise, all codes of behavior are “arbitrary social constructs”. Qoheleth illustrated his point about the fleeting, enigmatic trajectory of life by observing how the cosmos works. According Fox (1987:137), the Teacher adopted an “empirical methodology” in which he sought “both to derive knowledge from experience and to validate ideas experientially”. The author framed his remarks in terms of the “gain” (1:3) people obtain from all their “hard physical labor” (Garrett 1993:284). This is the language of profit and loss, which ironically is how many people typically see life. They strive for earthly attainments, often inconsiderate of whom they have to push aside to get it; but in the end,

Life and Death in the Old Testament

109

their decisions result in complete frustration and failure, all because they have not taken into consideration obedience to God. “Toil” sums up an approach to life that is self-centered and shortsighted. Though the impious labor tirelessly “under the sun” (that is, on earth), such efforts prove exhausting. From the perspective of eternity, nothing of lasting value or ultimate good results from this endless labor. The curse of sin is the reason that the endeavors of life can feel so wearisome (cf. Gen 3:17–19). Ecclesiastes 1:4 begins the somber look at human existence and the natural world. By highlighting the basic elements of the created order, Qoheleth sought to depict in lyrical fashion the seemingly endless cycle of humanity’s futile pursuits. First, he noted the continual, uninterrupted succession of generations that parade across the stage of history. Like the created realm itself, each new wave of humanity is a beehive of activity; yet despite their ceaseless striving and accomplishments, nothing of real or lasting change results. Moreover, just as the cycle of human life continues unabated on its seemingly meaningless course, so does the earth. This truth points out the relative brevity of a person’s life, especially when compared to the apparent permanence of the earth. Second, the Teacher addressed the cycle of the sun. This celestial object seems to follow an endless pattern of rising, setting, and hastening back to where it first arose (v. 5). Here the author may have implied that the sun (as a personified entity) appeared to grow weary of its incessant journey across the sky. If so, the sun is a fitting reminder of how the dayto-day aspects of life soon become tiresome. People grind through an ever-repeating, monotonous cycle of life. Sadly, despite all their efforts, nothing really changes and nothing of lasting value results. Third, the sage observed that the wind blows to the south, circles around to the north, and then repeats this vicious cycle of swirling motion (vs. 6). Like the individual lives of people, the wind seems to churn ceaselessly in every direction without ever veering from its determined course; and yet nothing radical, new, or different is accomplished. The implication for humanity is that people live and die without any power to break the endless cycle. Fourth, Qoheleth described the constant flow of water from rivers into the sea, and yet the sea is never full (vs. 7). Consider the Dead Sea,

110

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

which receives waters from the Jordan River to the north; and even though no river exits from the Dead Sea, the depth of the water it contains never seems to increase (cf. Bartholomew 2009:111; Longman 1998:70; Ogden 2007:31; Seow 1997:115). While this verse is not specifically talking about the evaporation cycle or the return of water to underground streams, these two recurring phenomena in nature parallel what the author described. Like the earth, the sun, and the wind, the constant movement of water seems to produce nothing new or lasting. It is worth noting that the sage adopted a counterintuitive view of nature, one that would have felt jarring to the faith community of his day. His peers affirmed that everything in the world is a testimony to the Creator. The Teacher, however, intentionally described how nature appeared to those who think there is no God. For the impious, there is no loving Creator behind nature, and thus life becomes one long humdrum repetition. Indeed, as verse 8 states, all this monotony is so wearisome that it exceeds human ability to describe, fathom, and bear. While the human mind keeps searching for meaning and striving for understanding, it will never find it solely in the phenomena of the physical world (whether at the macroscopic or microscopic levels). Furthermore, as long as people determinedly reject or deny God, they cannot break through the cycle of time and repetition to discover the one who is permanent and absolute—God Himself. Hebrews 11:6 reveals that those who come to God must believe that He exists. People of faith also understand that the universe was “formed at God’s command” (vs. 3). In contrast, the irreligious foolishly assert “there is no God” (Ps. 14:1) and end their lives in frustration and futility. As long as the profane hold to an agnostic or atheistic mindset, the only conclusion they can draw is that history repeats itself. Indeed, for them what has been done before on earth will be done again. This implies there is nothing truly new under the sun (Eccles. 1:9). From this perspective, nothing people do really matters, for it has been done before. Moreover, it has no more meaning now than it did in the past or when it will be repeated in the future. Clearly, when God is left out of the equation, the human drive for life is stymied. In verses 10 and 11, Qoheleth asked whether people can genuinely claim that something is

Life and Death in the Old Testament

111

distinctive or novel. The answer is no, for it existed in some form or fashion in the distant past. The author’s statement does not deny that people can be creative and innovative, just that what they attain finds parallels with what others have achieved in previous generations. For instance, while the Apollo 11 landing on the moon was an historic accomplishment, it did not necessarily surpass similar events, such as the discovery of the Americas. In both cases, while the circumstances were vastly different, the results of their exploits were comparable. Furthermore, the Teacher noted that as generations of people come and go, neither they nor their achievements are remembered. He stated that people of old have already been forgotten. Even more sobering is the realization that in future generations, those living then will not remember what people are doing now (v. 11). Indeed, what each generation regards as being radical or revolutionary has its counterpart in the actions and accomplishments of those from the past. Regrettably, many today become so preoccupied with themselves or with the pursuit of wealth, fame, and pleasure that they fail to stop and consider what their life is all about. Though some people deceive themselves into living as if their earthly existence will never end, they cannot escape the inevitability of death (cf. Heb. 9:27). The somber repetition in Genesis 5 of the phrase “and then he died” serves as a reminder that the efforts of mortals to extend the realms of existence are undercut by their physical demise. After his opening statements about the futility of life without God, Qoheleth told about his own personal experiences in Ecclesiastes 1:12–18. Lohfink (2003:43) describes this passage as being characterized by “wide-ranging prose”. Bartholomew (2009:125–126) notes that Qoheleth’s “quest for meaning” is characterized by a “hermeneutic of suspicion” in which “not everything that calls itself wise is wise” (italics are the author’s). The Teacher explained how he searched for understanding in various ways—through the pursuit of wisdom, pleasure, work, success, and wealth (to name a few examples). As the king of Israel (v. 12), he had the ability and resources to use wisdom to examine in a careful and thorough manner all that people have accomplished on earth (v. 13). While his investigation could never be exhaustive, this did not undermine the legitimacy of his empirical observations, analysis,

112

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

and conclusions. What mattered most was for him to be comprehensive and objective. As a result of the author’s inquiry, he reached two conclusions. First, he learned that God had given people a burdensome task, one that kept them preoccupied. The Hebrew of verse 13 literally reads “the sons of the man” and may be an allusion to “Adam and the effects of the Fall” (Kaiser 1979:53). In fact, Clemens (1994:5) thinks that Ecclesiastes is “best understood as an arresting but thoroughly orthodox exposition of Genesis 1–3”. He notes that “in both texts, the painful consequences of the fall are central”. Likewise, Garrett (1993:279) surmises that Qoheleth’s portrayal of the Creator as being “absent and hidden” originates from Genesis 3, “where humanity loses access to God”. In short, the writer’s extended treatise represents a “lament on the ignorance of man” (Gordis 1968:229) concerning the “ways of God”. (For a fuller discussion on the creation motif in Ecclesiastes, cf. Anderson 1998; Chia 1995; Clemens 1994; Forman 1960; Hayman 1991; Krüger 1997; Verheij 1991; Zuck 1994.) In Ecclesiastes 1:13, the nature of fallen humanity’s onerous, heavy burden is unclear. Some suggest the “task is evil because no solution can be found after much hard work” (Longman 1998:78). Another possibility is that Qoheleth was referring to the higher awareness God gave human beings, namely, intelligence that distinguishes people from animals. The idea is that, because Homo sapiens are created in the image of God, they sense there is more to life than simple physical existence and survival. They realize there must be meaning for their lives and an ideal for which to strive. Put another way, God has given people the unpleasant business of living with their conscience. This, then, is what drives humans to find significance and purpose in life. The second conclusion the Teacher reached as a result of his study is that all the toil and activity to which people devoted themselves proved futile. In fact, their accomplishments were as senseless as chasing after the wind (v. 14). More specifically, the attainments of the unrighteous, no matter how commendable they might seem, were pointless because they had no lasting impact on the world. Furthermore, all earthbound goals, regardless of the effort expended to attain them, ended up being as transient as the momentary presence of a swirling

Life and Death in the Old Testament

113

gust of air. Even Qoheleth’s exhaustive efforts to fathom the mysteries of life were ultimately crushed by the sheer enormity of the task. It is reasonable to suppose that he worked long and hard to master knowledge and wisdom on his own. In the end, though, he was unable to explain the enigmas of life, right its wrongs, and remedy its deficiencies. Moreover, just when the sage thought he had pondered every contingency, something else came along to make him realize people lack ultimate meaning (v. 15). As Garrett (1993:290) notes, the “implication behind this is that God’s ways are inscrutable” (cf. Isa 40:12–14; Rom 11:33–36). The Teacher claimed that none of his predecessors who ruled over Jerusalem excelled him in wisdom. He was in a unique position as Israel’s monarch, for unlike those who came before him, he had access to people and records that were previously unavailable (Eccl 1:16). Moreover, the king spared no effort to discern the value of wisdom and knowledge over foolhardy ideas and actions; yet despite his efforts, Qoheleth concluded that even this endeavor eluded his grasp. Indeed, regardless of how hard he tried to achieve his lofty objective, it proved to be as futile as chasing the wind (v. 17). The more discerning and aware the sage became, the more grief and frustration he experienced. Generally speaking, those who grew in their comprehension of life were vexed by increased heartache (v. 18). Ultimately, all human efforts to place the attainment of understanding as the supreme end of life—without the love of a caring God—simply results in more sorrow. In turn, the enormity of this grief stymies ongoing attempts to advance the frontiers of human understanding. Anderson (1998:109) sees a conceptual link between the “restless, searching spirit” exemplified throughout Ecclesiastes and humankind being “overpowered by the hunger for knowledge in Genesis”. With respect to the latter, “there is no comfort derived from the fruits of knowledge”. Indeed, “what knowledge does come” to people only serves to disclose their “creaturely limitations and the insignificance” of their “place in the universe”. Furthermore, throughout history, while people have sought to obtain the “fruits of knowledge in the Garden”, they have “ended up with the frustrated knowledge” that the world is a “jungle”.

114

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective Death’s Finality (Eccl 3:1–22)

Ecclesiastes 2 considers whether life’s self-indulgent pleasures (vv. 1–3) and pursuits (vv. 4–11) yielded anything of real significance.* Qoheleth concluded that it was all as senseless and useless as “chasing after the wind” (v. 11). Then, the sage turned his attention to the long-term value of wisdom, especially in contrast to a life preoccupied with mirth and merriment (vv. 12–16). He discerned that death nullified the lasting impact of wisdom. Next, the Teacher assessed that because people die, human secular achievement did not produce any ultimate advantage (vv. 17–23). It is only against the preceding bleak and cheerless backdrop that the benefits of wisdom and work could be genuinely appreciated. God did not intend any of these (or other aspects in life) to be an end in themselves. While prudence and labor had some value, they were neither ultimate nor final. In light of the brevity of life and the certainty of death, the astute recognized that their best option was to enjoy their food and drink and “find satisfaction” (v. 24) in their work. The finality of death is brought into sharp relief in Ecclesiastes 3. Garrett (1993:297) considers verses 1–7 to be a “masterpiece of wisdom poetry”, while Seow (1997:171) referred to this passage as the “Catalog of Occasions”. In it, Qoheleth considered the full spectrum of life’s activities and events, and affirmed that all of them were under God’s sovereign ordering and control (cf. Ps 31:15; Prov 16:1–9). The parallel sentence structure of Ecclesiastes 3:1 indicates that the Hebrew terms rendered “time” and “season” denote a range of human endeavors and situations on earth, all of which are appointed by the Lord to occur at the divinely appropriate moment. While He has ordained a time for everything, the responsibility of the upright is to seek God’s wisdom so that they might discern what activities go with what seasons. Verses 2–8 list many of the activities that take place “under the heavens” (v. 1). The reader finds here 14 pairs of opposites or antitheses, which “gives the poem a ring pattern” (Crenshaw 1987:93) or a “closed structure”. In Hebrew speech, the mentioning of opposites together expressed totality * What follows in this section is a revision of material in my journal article titled, “The divine sabotage: an exegetical and theological study of Ecclesiastes 3”, which appears in the March 2008 edition of Conspectus (cf. Lioy 2008).

Life and Death in the Old Testament

115

(for example, “heaven and earth” stands for all of physical and spiritual reality). Thus, these 14 pairs, which move ahead in a “stately march” (Fox 2004:20), are meant to be representative of all the activities of life. Verse 2 opens the sonnet with the observation that the Lord establishes the time for birth and the time for death. In Qoheleth’s view, God has a plan for one’s arrival on earth, for the living out of one’s temporal existence, and for one’s departure from life. Gillman (1997:18) explains that in Jewish thought, “birth and death represent the twin terminals of life”. In the previous two chapters of his treatise, the sage commented on the brevity of life. Ecclesiastes 3:2–8 rounds out Qoheleth’s presentation by addressing what comes between birth and death. In the divine ordering of earthly existence, people take time to plant crops as well as to uproot the same (v. 2). They engage in killing and healing activities, as well as tearing down and building up initiatives (v. 3). These three lines of the poem address creative and destructive endeavors used for either establishing or undermining. For instance, planting seeds and pulling weeds must be done to reap a harvest. The same is true of life in general. Some aspects must be planted and others uprooted, especially if one’s life is to be complete and meaningful. When Qoheleth noted that there is a time to kill, he was not condoning premeditated murder. His point was more complex than that. Perhaps he was suggesting that the righteous must wrestle for God’s wisdom during times when they are confronted with aggression. For instance, when is the proper time to resist evil with forcefulness? On the other hand, when is it time to negotiate and seek reconciliation? Of course, there are also times when those who seek to revere and obey God need to tear down negative aspects of their personal lives and times when they need to build up the positive aspects. Verse 4 moves the reader farther along the path of life’s sovereignly ordered events by mentioning such activities as expressing sorrow and joy, as well as mourning and dancing. The Teacher covered the range of human emotions—both private and public—in these two lines of the poem. The Hebrew words translated “weep” and “laugh” indicate expressions of an individual’s emotions, while the Hebrew verbs translated “mourn” and “dance” indicate expressions of a group’s emotions. Put differently, there is a time for an individual to be sad, and a time for that person to

116

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

be happy. Likewise, there is a time for an individual to join with others in lamenting a loss, and a time for that person to join with others in celebration. In verse 5, the sage drew attention to throwing away and gathering stones, along with embracing and refraining from doing so. Various options exist of understanding these two lines of the poem, which focus on friendship and enmity. For instance, in ancient times, fields taken by enemies were made unproductive by scattering stones across them (cf. 2 Kings 3:19, 25). Oppositely, stones were gathered from fields as a sign of a community’s desire for peace (cf. Isa 5:2). A different explanation points to the gathering of stones for use in building a wall to keep out invaders. In contrast, tearing down those stonewalls indicated the residents’ desire to make peace with their enemies. According to one view, “a time to embrace” is a call for people of faith to comfort someone who is experiencing pain, grief, or reconciliation; and yet at other times, it is best for the upright to respect a person’s privacy, and not to interfere. A second more literal view places the king’s advice in the context of love and its physical expression between a man and a woman. Thus, there is a time to show affection and a time to refrain from doing so. Ecclesiastes 3:6 reveals that God establishes the time for individuals to search for people and possessions as well as the moment when the latter should be given up as lost. At least a portion of life on earth consists of humanity’s concern for accumulating or getting rid of what they own. According to the sage, God bestowed on people special times when they must look long and hard for things, friendships, and goals, and hold on to them when they were acquired; but there are other times when He summons people to give these up. In verse 7, the Teacher spotlighted times of ripping things up and sewing them together, as well as keeping silent and deciding to speak. The tearing and mending most likely refer to the ancient custom of rending one’s clothes in grief (cf. Gen 37:29; 2 Sam 13:31). If so, this line of Qoheleth’s poem restates Ecclesiastes 3:4, in that it shows there is a season to express grief and a season to recover from grief. The second half of verse 7 reminds the reader that communication—a key part of human existence—is like a two-way street. Thus, there is a time to remain quiet and a time to voice one’s opinion, an interval to listen and an interval to remark (cf. Prov 10:19;

Life and Death in the Old Testament

117

13:3; 15:23; 16:24; 21:23; 25:11). Ecclesiastes 3:8 notes that in the divine ordering of earthly matters, there are times for love and hate, along with seasons for war and peace. The Teacher recognized that life on earth could hardly resemble what God intended for it when human affections are missing. Indeed, throughout history, the existence of people has been marked by both love and hatred. The sage encouraged his readers to be careful about the times both are exercised. As a king, Qoheleth understood the necessity of taking account of the political endeavors of his audience. For instance, the same emotions that can give rise to love or hatred in two individuals can also give rise to war or peace in two communities. Furthermore, as history has shown, conflicts will always arise. Sometimes wrong is resisted with force; at other times, peace is the goal. The poem recorded in verses 1–8 leaves the reader with the impression that there is an unmistakable rhythm and order to existence on earth; however, it would be incorrect to conclude from this that everything that occurs in the world is straightforward and predictable. An examination of the first two chapters of Qoheleth’s treatise indicates that existence is filled with paradoxes and that God sovereignly oversees the ebb and flow of Creation, even though it remains opaque and cryptic to human beings. It is understandable why people, in their effort to make sense of life’s enigmas, would ask what advantage or benefit they obtained from their hard work (v. 9). The sage acknowledged the “burden” (v. 10) God has placed on the human race. “Burden” renders a Hebrew noun that also can be translated as “occupation”, “task”, or “job” (cf. Brown 1985:775; Diamond 1997:452–453; Longman 1998:80; Seow 1997:121; Stendebach 2001:225, 228; Towner 1997:280). In the present context, this referred to the efforts of people—through theology, philosophy, and science (to name a few disciplines)—to determine on a daily basis where they fit into the divine ordering of life; however, this search for meaning only ends in frustration, for people constantly discover anew that the whole picture of life on earth eludes them. Even the sharpest minds remain ignorant of God’s providence. Rather than become endlessly preoccupied with trying to discern the latter, Qoheleth affirmed that God has beautifully orchestrated everything to occur at precisely the appropriate moment. The king also ac-

118

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

knowledged that God has “set eternity in the human heart” (v. 11). Expressed differently, the Creator has made Homo sapiens, who bear the divine image (cf. Gen 1:26–27), with a deep-seated, inborn awareness of “God’s ways in the world” (LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush 1996:816) that transcends the present and impels them to comprehend how the past, present, and future all fit together. According to Krüger (2004:87), the Hebrew noun rendered “eternity” (Eccles 3:11) denotes a “concept or idea of ‘distant time’ that extends far beyond the life of an individual human being in the direction of either the past or the future or both”. The implication is that, despite each generation’s stellar intellectual abilities and attainments, people remain largely ignorant of what God has foreordained. They are even unable to fathom the nature and timing of events during their individual lives. Moreover, since God’s ways are inscrutable, human beings are powerless to make anything different—at least permanently. Towner (1997:284) explains that this state of affairs is “deterministic, but not fatalistic”, for people are “still perfectly free and responsible to act”. The author takes issue with the notion that Qoheleth depicts God as being “arbitrary and capricious or even just plain absent”. Instead, the sage characterizes God as being both transcendent and imminent in the world, which He created and oversees. Lee (2005:47) points out that in the “drama of life”, God is the undisputed “primary Actor”, the “one who gives and authorizes”. Moreover, the “human agent is given a responsibility for the proper use of that right of disposal”. Accordingly, rather than become frustrated and disillusioned, people of faith choose to revere and obey God, trusting that His wisdom is infinite and His eternal purposes are wise. In verse 12, the Teacher advised his readers to enjoy life in the present. This emphasis is part of his broader theme of “seizing the day”, an idea captured in the Latin phrase carpe diem. It literally means “harvest the day”, as in “pick the fruit now”, for the present course of life is indeterminate and death is inevitable. Based on Qoheleth’s observations and personal experience, he concluded that the most worthwhile approach is for people to find joy in their God-given existence (cf. 2:24–26; 3:22; 5:18–20; 8:15; 9:7–10). The latter included doing “good” (3:12) as long as they lived. Lee (2005:52) suggests that “enjoyment is

Life and Death in the Old Testament

119

not only a matter of right conduct”. As well, it is a “matter of character and disposition” (italics are the author’s). While deriving enjoyment in life could include the satisfaction the comes from being charitable and philanthropic in one’s undertakings, this does not rule out the idea of obtaining pleasure from daily, ordinary experiences. Indeed, the sage noted that a great source of contentment could be found in eating, drinking, and performing satisfying work (v. 13). How can one find real delight in the common outlets of life? The upright does so by believing that such daily activity—indeed, all of life itself—is a “gift of God”. This is only possible when people humbly revere the Lord and place their confidence in Him. Furthermore, the Teacher advised the prudent to adopt a measure of humility regarding the short-term import of their lives. Unlike the achievements of the human race (whether individually or collectively), everything God undertakes has finality to it. As a matter of fact, what He does “endures forever”, with people being unable to change His sovereign plans. God has designed the world to operate in this way “so that people will fear him” (v. 14). The latter is not an irrational feeling of dread and impending doom. As well, it is more than courteous reverence. Fearing the Lord is a multivalent concept. It includes an affirmation of His sovereignty and power; it involves revering Him in worship and obeying Him unconditionally (cf. 12:13); and it encompasses a “reverent recognition of the perfection of God’s work” (Krüger 2004:89). In Ecclesiastes 3:15, Qoheleth used a brief poem to take a broader view of history, especially as it affects people. Throughout the course of human affairs, people strive to discern God’s will. As they endeavor to make sense of His providential undertakings, they begin to discover that history is more than just facts and events repeating themselves without meaning. Admittedly, incidents tend to occur in certain patterns over and over again. Nonetheless, whatever is happening now or will take place in the future has already occurred in a comparable way before. The upshot is that all the attempts people make to bring about meaningful and lasting change “fail to achieve anything” (Fox 2004:6; cf. 1:9–11). Such observations notwithstanding, the upright, with faith in God’s wisdom, can learn from the course of human events in ways that will benefit them in the present.

120

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

The precise meaning of the latter part of 3:15 is debated. The TNIV margin states that “God calls back the past”. The idea is that He seeks to do again what occurred in prior generations. The TNIV main rendering of 3:15 says that one day “God will call the past into account”. This statement can be both unsettling and reassuring. For instance, it is sobering to realize that people must answer to God for whatever they have done throughout their time on earth. All the same, it is comforting to remember that God will vindicate the righteous. In particular, He will not overlook those who have suffered evil at the hands of others, especially believers and innocent people who have been persecuted or slaughtered. Verses 16–22 explore further the theme of divine justice in the midst of human oppression. “Judgment” (v. 16) translates a Hebrew noun that refers to the rendering of a verdict (whether favorable or unfavorable) in a court of law (cf. Brown 1985:1048; Enns 1997:1142–1144; Johnson 1998:87–88; Liedke 1997:1395–1396). “Justice” translates another noun that denotes what is upright or fair in a moral or legal sense (cf. Brown 1985:841; Koch 1997:1049–1050; Reimer 1997:744, 766–747; Ringgren and Johnson 2003:250–253). Qoheleth observed that often in a society’s judicial system, people grasped for power rather than pursued justice, and then they used that power to maltreat others. As a result, “wickedness” reigned over the place of judgment instead of equity and compassion. “Wickedness” translates a Hebrew noun that points to a variety of iniquities committed by people in society (cf. Brown 1985:957; Carpenter and Grisanti 1997:1201–1202; Ringgren 2004:7–8; Van Leeuwen 1997b:1261–1262). Rather than give himself over to pessimism and despair, the Teacher voiced some hope. He pointed his readers to a higher court—the justice of God—when he stated his belief that the Lord would judge both the “righteous” (v. 17) and “wicked.” “Righteous” translates a Hebrew adjective that refers to those who are lawful and upright in their conduct (Brown 1985:843; Koch 1997:1049–1050; Reimer 1997:758–759; Ringgren and Johnson 2003:257–259). “Wicked” renders another adjective that denotes those guilty of criminal activity (cf. Brown 1985:957; Carpenter and Grisanti 1997:1201–1202; Ringgren 2004:7–8; Van Leeuwen 1997b:1261–1262). Fox (2004:25) explains that God establishes justice by

Life and Death in the Old Testament

121

“giving persons their due”. This specifically includes “rewarding” the abused and “punishing” the tormentor (cf. Deut 10:18; Ps 82:3–4; Isa 1:17). The sage observed that in the divine ordering of life’s events, there is an appropriate time for every human undertaking (cf. Eccles 3:1). Likewise, God has reserved a time of judgment for all that people do. Perhaps for the moment the wicked might seem to get away with their evil deeds, but in the end, God’s justice will triumph (cf. Eccles 9:1; 11:9; 12:14; Mal 3:16–4:3; Rev 22:11–12). Next, Qoheleth directed his attention to another related aspect of the fallen human condition. From one moment to the next, people fail the divine test to live uprightly. The presence of injustice in the world clearly establishes this fact. Additionally, despite the efforts of individuals to exceed the parameters of their existence, they remain as mortal as any other creature on earth (Eccles 3:18). Like animals, people both breathe and are destined to die. Moreover, the prevalence of wickedness and the inevitability of death indicate that humans have no temporal superiority or “advantage over animals” (v. 19). Also, like every other earthly creature, once people die, their bodies return to the earth (v. 20; cf. Gen 3:19; Job 10:9; 34:15; Pss 49:12–13; 90:3; 104:29; Sir 40:11). In a way, the issue of death is just as difficult to deal with as is the issue of injustice—particularly for those who have no trust in God. For the atheist, if there is no ultimate justice (as is typically alleged), and if people simply die off like snakes and sparrows (as is often maintained), then life would indeed seem to be a farce. To an extent, Qoheleth indulged this mindset in Ecclesiastes 3:21 by adopting a noncommittal stance on the question of whether there is life after death. When the horizon of human knowledge and understanding rise no higher than temporal earthly existence, it is impossible to prove conclusively that in death a human’s lifebreath ascends upward to heaven and an animal’s lifebreath sinks down to what Gillman (1997:65) calls the “netherworld, the bowels of the earth, the pit”. A determination cannot be made on the basis of empirical evidence obtained through scientific investigation. Wright (1991:5:1164) notes that Qoheleth was “speaking phenomenologically”, that is, “as things appear to the senses”. In like manner, Glenn (1985:985–987) remarks, “no living person can observe or

122

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

demonstrate a difference between people and animals by watching them as they die” (italics are the author’s). Even so, it is clarifying to note that the Teacher did not categorically rule out the likelihood of immortality for people. Also, Qoheleth did not affirm the pagan notion that death is either a state of nothingness or total annihilation. Indeed, as Waltke and Yu (2007:965) indicate, the “doctrine of the afterlife in Ecclesiastes is consistent with the Old Testament in general”. Furthermore, other passages of Scripture reveal a distinction between the respective fates of humans and animals. While people have an afterlife that is dealt with by God, all other earthly creatures cease to exist when they physically expire. In the Old Testament, one finds an emerging awareness of the truth that there is life after death for people (cf. Pss 16:9–11; 49:15; 73:23–26; Isa 26:19; Dan 12:2). With the advent of the Messiah, the veracity of the resurrection has been fully and clearly revealed in the gospel (cf. John 5:24–29; 2 Tim 1:10). In Ecclesiastes 3:21, Qoheleth may have meant to galvanize his readers into action by being so opaque about the issue of life after death. Instead of them giving up in the face of certain death, the sage urged them to make the most of their opportunity to live for God. The Teacher perceived that because life was so fleeting and full of injustice, it was best for people to find satisfaction in their work. Ultimately, whatever joy they obtained from their labor was their God-given reward. Assuredly, after people died, God would not bring them back from the grave to reenter temporal existence and discover what the future held for succeeding generations on earth. In short, God’s perfect plan for human beings in this fallen world was for them to serve Him fully and joyfully right now before their lives ended (cf. 9:7–10). Conclusion This chapter has undertaken a biblical and theological analysis of life and death in the Old Testament. The motivation for doing so is that the reality of death was a key part of the way in which the Israelites conceptualized the spatio-physical world in which they lived. Furthermore, an awareness of this perspective helps to shed light on ways in which Christian belief is compatible with creation themes pertinent to origins science. Specifically, the members of the covenant community living

Life and Death in the Old Testament

123

during the Old Testament era maintained the following: that the permanency of death could be traced back to pivotal events occurring within the garden of Eden (cf. Gen 2:4–17; 3:1–24); that since then, death has subverted the human drive for life (cf. 5:1–29); that death is a stark reality which cannot be avoided (cf. Eccl 1:1–18); and that death’s finality is a truth which cannot be denied (cf. 3:1–22). The garden of Eden is the starting point for the chapter’s biblical and theological analysis of life and death in the Old Testament. Whereas Genesis 1:1–2:3 portrays humankind as the apotheosis of all living organisms on earth, 2:4ff. emphasizes that people also remain creatures who are utterly dependent on the Lord for their existence and accountable to Him for their actions. After God created the first human pair, He placed them in the primordial garden to tend and care for it. While He permitted the first human pair to eat freely from the fruit they found on virtually every tree, He barred them from consuming fruit from the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (2:17). Genesis 3 confirms the theological truth that as a result of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit, they suffered spiritual and physical death. The woman’s conversation with the Satan-inspired serpent was the catalyst for Eve and her husband transgressing the Lord’s command. The snake alleged that the first humans had an opportunity to become like God Himself. For instance, they would exponentially increase their knowledge of divine mysteries and enjoy the same sort of immortality God experienced. The aftermath of the couple’s disobedience, however, was far different from what the serpent claimed. Instead of obtaining godly wisdom, the man and woman suddenly became conscious of their physical and spiritual nakedness. Moreover, their forfeited for themselves and all their offspring the life of blessing they had once enjoyed. The Creator responded to this tragic turn of events by pronouncing a curse on the serpent, the woman, and the man. God also expelled the human couple from the Eden orchard. A biblical and theological analysis of Genesis 5:1–29 indicates that as a consequence of the Fall, death subverts the human drive for life. In point of fact, the reality of death hangs like a funeral pall over the coffin of life. The chapter records 10 literary panels, one for each generation of Adam’s descendants through Seth. On the upside, a new biological

124

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

group of fallen human beings appears for a span of time and procreates sons and daughters in their own imperfect image. On the downside, the end of life checkmates all that people have sought to attain. Enoch is the only exception to this somber pattern. Specifically, when God removed Enoch from the face of the planet, death was overruled. Moreover, Ecclesiastes 1:1–18 reveals that despite the blessings of life enjoyed by people, they are surrounded by a wasteland of death. A biblical and theological analysis of these verses indicates that no matter what humans strive to attain in life, they all meet the same fate. Even the most noteworthy achievements of individuals are neutralized by death and washed away by the ocean waves of time. Regrettably, generations in the distant future will not even remember the individual and collective efforts of their predecessors to extend the realms of human existence. Hence, it is useless for people to act as if they are the masters of their own destinies. Moreover, the unsaved have no hope beyond this earthly existence because they have divorced themselves from their Creator. A biblical and theological analysis of Ecclesiastes 3:1–22 clarifies that death’s finality is a truth which cannot be denied. Qoheleth argued that God has a plan for one’s arrival on earth, for the living out of one’s temporal existence, and for one’s departure from life. Moreover, the Teacher maintained that existence is filled with paradoxes and that God overseas the ebb and flow of Creation, even though it remains opaque and cryptic to people. Indeed, the sage noted that humanity’s efforts to look beyond the present—especially to understand the past and probe into the future—are thwarted by the reality of death. Expressed differently, because people are creatures of time, their heavenly-imposed finitude subverts their ability to fathom the eternal plan of God. The preceding candid view of existence sets the stage for the underlying hope in Ecclesiastes (as well as the rest of Scripture). Although every human striving in life will eventually fail, God’s purposes will never be thwarted. Based on Qoheleth’s wide-ranging experiences and observations, he concluded that God has ordered life according to His purposes. Thus, the best approach to existence on earth as human beings is for people of faith to accept and enjoy the life God has given them. Furthermore, one learns from a biblical and theological analysis

Life and Death in the Old Testament

125

of Ecclesiastes 3 that the fundamental quality of life is defined by revering God and heeding His commandments (cf. 12:13). If human existence is likened to a cord made of three strands (cf. 4:12), it remains coherent and interconnected when God is at the center of one’s inner world, the core of one’s understanding of the external world, and the basis for the significance one derives from life.

Chapter 5

A Biblical and Theological Analysis of Life and Death in the New Testament

T

he preceding chapter undertook a biblical and theological analysis of life and death in the Old Testament. The present chapter continues this endeavor by focusing on a selective set of New Testament passages (namely, Rom 5:1–21; 8:1–39; 1 Cor 15:1–58; Heb 2:5–18; 4:14–5:10; 7:1–28; 9:1–10:18; Rev 20:1–22:21). Of central importance to this investigation (as well as the question of human origins) is the issue of Adam and Eve’s historicity (cf. Lane 1994b:161; Niehaus 2008:15; Plantinga 1991; Schaeffer 1972:41). As was noted in chapters 2 and 4 of this study, some claim that Adam and Eve never really existed and so could not have been the principal source of genetic endowment for all humans (cf. Barbour 2000:133–134; Day 2005:17–18, 21, 25; Domning and Hellwig 2006:4, 6, 20, 71, 74, 190; Harlow 2008:197–198; Harlow 2010:181, 190–191; Haught 2000:137–138; Kass 2003:60; Lamoureux 2008:274–277, 319, 329; Murphy 2010:2; Peacocke 2001:78; Schneider 2010:201). In contrast, this treatise maintains that Adam and Eve are not fictional, generic characters appearing in an ancient Hebrew myth. Instead, they are a literal, historical couple who, before the Fall, initially existed in a genetically pristine state as persons having moral integrity. Furthermore, it was noted that when Adam and Eve sinned in the ancient Eden orchard, they experienced spiritual separation from God. Also, as a consequence, all their physical descendants are born into this world as mortal creatures who are separated in their relationship with their Creator-King as well as from one another. Previously, it was pointed out that in Romans 5:12–21 (especially verses 12 and 14), the comparison and contrast that Paul made between Adam and Jesus has the most theological potency when both individuals are understood to be actual human beings. Oppositely, the persuasiveness of the apostle’s argument is substantially weakened when it is

128

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

maintained that Adam was just a make-believe, generic character who has no tangible, historical connection with the Savior. Moreover, it is impossible for the Fall to be real if Paul had in mind a nonexistent person named Adam who committed an imaginary sin in a mythical locale. Otherwise, his transgression becomes nothing more than a phenomenological notion or experiential axiom. In truth, the apostle did not present the dire consequences of the first man’s act of disobedience (e.g. the presence of guilt, condemnation, and alienation from God; enslavement to sin; and being condemned to die) as mere metaphors, but as objective, historical facts of human existence. Therefore, just because the biblical account of Adam and Eve’s creation and fall is extraordinary, does not mean it should be dismissed outright as a folk tale. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 15:22 and 45, Paul’s reference to Adam presupposes that he actually existed in space-time history. Also, in verse 45 (which quotes Gen 2:7), the apostle made a distinction between the “first Adam” becoming a “living being” and the “last Adam” becoming a “life-giving spirit”. As Witherington (2009:240) puts it, while the “first Adam” became the “progenitor of death”, the “last Adam” became the “progenitor and indeed the bestower of life”. That being so, if the first male Homo sapien was just a microcosm story for ancient Israel or a metaphorical prototype for all humanity, the forcefulness of Paul’s contrast is enormously diminished. Also, his contention in 1 Corinthians 15 for the reality of the future resurrection of all believers is undermined. Succinctly put, the efficacy of the apostle juxtaposing the first Adam with the last Adam hinges on Genesis 2 being an account that reflects an underlying historical reality. Death through Adam, Life through Christ (Rom 5:1–21) According to the analysis offered by Witherington (2009:172), scholars from across the philosophical spectrum consistently regard Paul as the “first and greatest Christian theologian”. Admittedly, as Segal (1990:xii) notes, “Paul’s writings are neither systematic nor simple”. Young (1997:25) surmises that the apostle’s “conceptual approach to theology” was “circular and interactive”, rather than “linear”. For all that, as Barrett (1962:3) makes clear, Paul “laid the foundations for systematic theology”. The latter includes a nuanced assessment of human origins. For

Life and Death in the New Testament

129

instance, like other New Testament authors, the apostle wrestled with the biblical and doctrinal ramifications of death’s presence within the human race. This is especially so in Romans 5:12–21, where Paul compared and contrasted the first Adam with the last Adam (that is, Jesus of Nazareth). Kreitzer (1993a:12) points out that the apostle’s reference to the first male Homo sapien is “protological”, which means it is “pointing back to the beginning”. Dunn (1998:90) elucidates that as Paul developed his theological argument, he took part in an “already well-developed debate” in which “his own views” were shaped “by its earlier participants” in other Jewish literature of the period. De Boer (2000:347) is even more specific when he refers to the “conceptual affinities between Paul’s eschatological ideas and first-century Jewish eschatological expectations” (cf. 2 Bar 23:4; 48:42–44; 54:15–19; 4 Ezra 3:7, 21–22; 7:116–119; Sir 25:24; Wis 1:13; 2:23). Admittedly, as Vos (1972:27–28) observes, the “Jewish eschatology” that was contemporaneous to Paul had its starting point in the Tanakh. Even so, this detail cannot entirely “account for the agreement” existing between other Jewish writers and the apostle with respect to the “data going beyond” the Old Testament. Vos concludes that a “piece of Jewish theology has been here by Revelation incorporated into [Paul’s] teaching”. In the view of Schnelle (2009:292), the stance the apostle articulated within the context of “religious-philosophical discourse” concerning the “origin of evil and its conquest” displays “originality not in its analysis but in its resolution”. To illustrate, Paul was aware of the prevalent view that when sin entered the world, all seemed to be lost; yet, for the apostle, the fate of humanity did not end there. He revealed that to match the terrible consequences of human sin, the Father intervened with His powerful, sustaining grace. His unmerited favor prevailed in the person of His Son, who died on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. Furthermore, as Scroggs (1966:102) points out, the Messiah “not only is true humanity”, but “also mediates this true humanity to the believer”. The preceding doctrinal truths are emphasized not just in Romans 5:12–21, but likewise in verses 1–11. Thus, in order to more fully appreciate the contrast the apostle made in verses 12–21, it is worth consider-

130

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

ing verses 1–11. Previously, in 3:21–4:25, Paul clarified his theological understanding of justification. This information is germane to the apostle’s argument appearing in chapter 5. In the New Testament, the Greek word translated “justified” signified, in Paul’s day, a court setting, with a judge declaring an individual “not guilty”. The idea of justification comes from a judge pronouncing someone to be righteous or innocent of a crime. The word had a technical forensic application of a one-time rendering of a positive judicial verdict. Accordingly, Paul used the term to refer to a “once-for-all act by which God acquits the sinner” (Moo 1996:298). Put another way, justification is God’s declaration that the believer is righteous because of the atoning work of the Messiah on the cross (cf. Faulkner 1982:1168; Gingrich 1962:1028; Hays 1994:1130–1131; Ladd 1997:480–481; Lowery 1994:277–278; Lioy 2007:35; McGrath 1993:518; Morris 1990:70–71; Morris 1996:442; Packer 2001:643; Petersen 2009:878; VanDrunen 2006:3–5, 84). Furthermore, in the New Testament, the Greek word translated “righteousness” comes from a root term that means “straightness” and refers to that which is in accordance with established moral norms. In a legal sense, righteousness means to be vindicated or treated as just. From a biblical and theological perspective, God’s character is the definition and source of righteousness. As a result, the righteousness of human beings is defined in terms of God’s holiness. Because the Lord solely provides righteousness, it cannot be produced or obtained by human efforts. God makes His righteousness available to all people without distinction. Just as there is no discrimination with Him in universally condemning all people as sinners, so God does not show partiality by offering righteousness to one particular ethnic group. The Lord freely gives it to all people—regardless of their race or gender—when they trust in the Messiah (cf. Achtemeier 1962:94–95; Diehl 2001:1033; Kelly 1988:194; Leitch 2009b:140; Lioy 2007:34; Onesti and Brauch 1993:830–831; Reumann 1992:766; Ridderbos 1997a:167–169; Schnelle 2009:264–266; Schreiner 2008:352–353; Seifrid 2000:742–743; Toon 1996:687). Hafemann (1993:671) points out that recent critical scholarship has largely abandoned the “traditional Reformation understanding” of the doctrine of justification by faith taught in Paul’s writings. Indeed, de-

Life and Death in the New Testament

131

spite the “plethora of new proposals” that specialists have offered, “no consensus has yet emerged” (673). For instance, as VanDrunen (2006:36) explains, one current paradigm known as the “new perspective” on Paul (or NPP) is not a “unified, homogeneous group”, but rather a “spectrum of viewpoints”. Admittedly, supporters of the NPP are right in disapproving any caricature of rabbinicism prevalent during the Second Temple period of Judaism. Moreover, adherents are correct in emphasizing the importance of carefully analyzing primary sources written during that time, especially to obtain a clearer, more accurate understanding of the New Testament corpus, including the Pauline epistles (cf. Lioy 2007c:69). Such affirmations notwithstanding, the major tenets of the NPP are undermined by an objective analysis of the biblical and extra-biblical data. The latter, in the view of de Boer (2000:365), was dominated by “the categories and the perspectives of forensic Jewish apocalyptic eschatology”. According to Carson (2001:544), the NPP tries to adopt a single, tidy explanation for a diverse array of extra-biblical literature, with the result that the formulation is both “reductionistic” and “misleading”. Kim (2001294–295) notes that the NPP’s sociological and philosophical reconstruction of Second Temple Judaism has attained the “status of a dogma” that “insists on interpreting Paul” only through the narrow lens of that credo. Furthermore, the NPP tends to contradict far more accurate and nuanced interpretations of the apostle’s theology found in conservative, confessional forms of Protestantism (cf. Lioy 2007c:70). VanDrunen (2006:54) advances the discussion with the observation that those favoring the “new perspective” put too much “interpretive weight” on the literature found in first-century Judaism (Diaspora, Palestinian, and Qumran writings) and too little on the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (especially the broader historical perspective and theological trajectory found in them). They redefine “righteousness” as living in covenant relationship with God and remaining faithful to His covenant promises, over against the more traditional understanding of conforming to God’s perfect “moral standard”. “Works of the law” is said to refer to “boundary markers identifying Israel as God’s covenant people” (in particular, being circumcised, keeping the Sabbath, and observ-

132

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

ing dietary regulations), not attempts to create one’s own upright status before God by doing what the Mosaic law demands. “Justification” refers to the vindication of God’s covenant people before the pagan nations, not His unconditional pardoning and acceptance of believing sinners. The basis for justification is shifted from the “finished work” of the Lord Jesus at Calvary to the “Spirit-produced works of the believer”. Finally, NPP adherents reject the notion that the sin of the first Adam has been imputed to humanity and that the righteousness of the second (eschatological) Adam has been imputed to believers. Returning now to Romans, after Paul expounded on the nature of justification in 3:21–4:25, he shifted his attention in chapter 5 to explain the benefits of justification. For the apostle, justification was not only an event that put believers in a right position with God, but also had practical, lifelong implications for Christians. First among these benefits is the peace believers have with the triune God through the Son (v. 1). Because of sin, everyone is estranged from the Father and is the object of His wrath (cf. 1:18–3:20). Indeed, as Helyer (2008:228) observes, since the time of Adam, “human beings spiral downwards into a vortex of sinful behavior”. Even so, as a result of the Son’s atoning sacrifice on the cross, not only do believers avoid receiving the wrath they deserve, but also they enjoy a state of peace with God. Expressed differently, they expect fury and yet receive grace. Paul was not talking about peace as simply a sense of rest, but more importantly as an objective state of harmony between the believer and the Father. All this is possible because of what the Son did on the cross (cf. Eph 2:14). Formerly, believers were God’s enemies, but now they are His friends (cf. Col 1:21–22). A second benefit that results from justification is direct access to the triune God (Rom 5:2). Formerly, believers were prevented from coming into the presence of the Father because of their sin, but now they have full and unrestricted access. The Greek noun translated “access” can also be rendered “privilege of approach”, which is now available through faith in the Lord Jesus (cf. Eph 2:18; 3:12; Cranfield 1975:259; Fitzmyer 1993:396; Godet 1977:187; Harrison 1976:56; Morris 1988:219; Murray 1984:160; Schreiner 1998:254; Shulam and Le Cornu 1998:201; Wright 2002:516). Moreover, a third key blessing believers enjoy is the experience of divine “grace” in their daily lives. Because they have been

Life and Death in the New Testament

133

justified—that is, declared righteous—they abide in the sphere of God’s grace; and it is in this state that believers enjoy every spiritual provision in union with the Messiah. The divine gift of grace gives them the hope of experiencing the Father’s “glory” (v. 3)—the glory from which they (and all humans) previously fell short (cf. Life of Adam and Eve 20:2; Rom 3:23). Scroggs (1966:64) points out that “man’s glory is derivative”; in other words, the “glory man hopes for is God’s glory”. According to the literary analysis done by Moo (1996:293), “assurance of glory” is the “overarching theme” of Romans 5 through 8. The word “glory”, when applied to God in Scripture, refers to the luminous manifestation of His being; in other words, it is the brilliant revelation of Himself to humanity. This definition is borne out by the many ways the word is used in Scripture. For example, brilliant light consistently went with manifestations of God (cf. Matt 17:2; 1 Tim 6:16; Rev 1:16). Moreover, the word “glory” is often linked with verbs of seeing (cf. Exod 16:7; 33:18; Isa 40:5) and appearing (cf. Exod 16:10; Deut 5:24), both of which emphasize the visible nature of God’s glory. The rabbis later described the glory of the Lord abiding with Israel as shekinah, from the Hebrew word for “dwelling”. God’s shekinah dwelt with the Israelites in the wilderness period, came to Solomon’s temple when it was built, and then departed when the temple was destroyed. The Evangelist in the fourth Gospel depicts Jesus as God’s shekinah returned to earth (John 1:14). In a similar vein, Paul said it was possible to see God’s glory in Jesus when He was on earth and that believers have the promise of sharing in that glory (Rom 5:2). The latter will occur at the resurrection, when the bodies of believers are transformed into the same kind of glorified body that Jesus had after His resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:35–57; Phil 3:20–21; Aalen 1986:45; Burge 1992:269; Daily 2011; Drumwright 2009a:463–464; Gaffin 1993:348; Gordon 2009:771–772; Harrison 1982:478; Lioy 2010:50–51; Moody 1962:317–318; Newman 1997b:396). The peace with God that Paul discussed in Romans 5 did not necessarily bring tranquil circumstances in the course of daily living. The apostle realized that all believers go through times of suffering when their circumstances may seem anything but peaceful. Accordingly, in verses 3–5, Paul turned his attention to the believer’s attitude toward

134

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

suffering. Specifically, the apostle said Jesus’ followers rejoice “in” (v. 3) their sufferings, not “because of” them. This is an important distinction. The apostle was not telling believers they should be joyful when things go awry in their lives; instead, he was telling believers that they could be joyful in the midst of troubling situations (cf. Matt 5:11–12). The Greek noun rendered “sufferings” (Rom 5:3) could also be translated “afflictions”, “distresses”, or “pressures” (cf. Cranfield 1975:260; Fitzmyer 1993:397; Godet 1977:188; Harrison 1976:57; Morris 1988:220; Murray 1984:163; Osborne 2004:130; Schreiner 1998:255; Shulam and Le Cornu 1998:183; Wright 2002:516). These are broad words that encompass all kinds of events that could go wrong. In union with the Son, believers have the spiritual power to choose how they will respond to their circumstances, no matter how burdensome these might be. Verses 3 and 4 contain an interlocking sequence: suffering leads to perseverance (or steadfast endurance); perseverance produces character; and character engenders hope. (In ancient times, progressions such as this were a common literary device called concatenation.) Hence, believers could have a joyful attitude in the midst of hardships because they were assured their afflictions were not meaningless. In particular, their anguish could bear Christlike fruit, namely, the virtues of perseverance, character, and hope. Moreover, Paul affirmed that biblicallybased hope did not disappoint believers, for the Father had poured His love into the hearts of believers. The Greek verb translated “poured out” (v. 5) directs the readers’ attention to the “unstinting lavishness” (Cranfield 1975:263) of the Father’s love, which He has given to believers through the Holy Spirit (cf. Isa 32:15; Ezek 39:29; Joel 2:28–29; Zech 12:10; Acts 2:17, 33; Fitzmyer 1993:398; Godet 1977:190; Harrison 1976:58; Moo 1996:304; Morris 1988:221; Murray 1984:165; Osborne 2004:131; Schreiner 1998:257; Shulam and Le Cornu 1998:1985; Wright 2002:517). The Spirit is the agent who expresses the Father’s love in and through believers’ hearts. Such love enhanced their hope, for it did not hinge on temporal circumstances. Tobin (2004:161) explains that beginning in Romans 5:6, Paul made use of a “rhetorical device familiar to Greek and Roman audiences”, namely, that of “comparison”. The apostle first turned his attention to the magnitude of the Father’s love. Paul revealed that at the divinely

Life and Death in the New Testament

135

opportune moment (especially from an eschatological perspective), the Messiah died for those who were “powerless” to resist the control of sin and who lived in an “ungodly” manner. For centuries the Mosaic law had been in operation. It provoked and exposed sin, as well as showed people their need to be reconciled with God. Then, in the Father’s sovereign plan of redemption, His Son was born to rescue the “powerless” from their dire straights (cf. Gal 4:4). The Greek adjective rendered “powerless” (Rom 5:6) means “to be weak”, “without strength”, “feeble”, and “sickly” (cf. Cranfield 1975:264; Fitzmyer 1993:398–399; Godet 1977:191; Harrison 1976:59; Moo 1996:306; Morris 1988:222; Murray 1984:166; Osborne 2004:132; Schreiner 1998:260; Shulam and Le Cornu 1998:186; Wright 2002:518). In the present context, the term points to those who were impotent in their ability to live in a morally upright manner. Furthermore, when Paul stated that the Messiah “died for the ungodly”, the apostle was referring to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement; in other words, the Son took the believers’ place on the cross. They deserved to perish for their own sins, but the Redeemer was crucified on their behalf. In verse 7, Paul observed that people rarely give up their lives for others. Admittedly, on occasion, one might find individuals who were willing to die for a truly “good person”. That said, no one is either sufficiently upright or good, at least not in the sense that God perfectly reflects these qualities (cf. 3:23). It is against this seemingly cheerless backdrop, in which humankind was alienated from the Father, that the Son freely and voluntarily laid down His life for “sinners” (5:8; cf. John 10:17–18). The contrast is stark between the sinless one who was executed at Calvary and those for whom He died. Such an act of self-sacrifice could only be motivated by unfathomable love; and indeed, this love was demonstrated when the Messiah went to the cross on behalf of the lost. Moo (1996:307) elucidates that “Paul never thinks of God’s love for us apart from the cross”. Furthermore, the apostle “never thinks of Christ’s dying for us apart from the Father’s giving of the Son” (cf. Rom 3:25). Romans 5:9–11 continues to build on the doctrine of justification. Paul explained that believers have been declared righteous due to the fact that Jesus sacrificed His life’s blood for them. Accordingly, there is

136

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

no doubt that the Son will deliver His followers from the Father’s “wrath” (v. 9). The latter renders a Greek noun that refers to God’s final judgment of humankind (cf. Matt 3:7; Rom 1:18; 2:5, 8; 1 Thess 1:10; 5:9; Rev 6:16–17; 11:18; Cranfield 1975:266; Fitzmyer 1993:400; Godet 1977:194; Harrison 1976:60; Morris 1988:225; Murray 1984:171; Osborne 2004:135; Schreiner 1998:264; Shulam and Le Cornu 1998:191; Wright 2002:519). Since believers have been justified (that is, made positionally right with God), they will certainly not be abandoned to await a judgment of condemnation (cf. John 5:24). Next, Paul argued from a lesser truth to a greater truth. Specifically, believers, who were once the Father’s “enemies” (Rom 5:10), were now “reconciled” to Him through the Son’s “death”. Put another way, since believers have been restored to friendship with the Father, they will assuredly be “saved” from eternal damnation through the Son’s “life”. At one time, believers were the Father’s enemies due to their disobedience, and this circumstance estranged them from Him; but because of the Messiah’s sacrificial death, believers have been “reconciled” to the Father. Verse 10 refers to the removal of the enmity that stood between believers and the Father. The Son’s redemptive work on the cross put an end to all forms of hostility between the Creator and believing sinners. In truth, Jesus’ work at Calvary is the basis for a restored fellowship between the Father and the Son’s followers (cf. 2 Cor 5:20–21). Thus, Paul’s theological point is that since the Father no longer looks on believers as His enemies, the underlying basis for their salvation is complete. Additionally, the Son spiritually provides for them “through his life” (Rom 5:10). The latter phrase refers not only to Jesus’ earthly life, but also to His present postresurrection life. Expressed differently, the believer’s justification was brought about through the Savior’s death, and their sanctification is brought about through His “exalted life” (Murray 1984:174) as the “Redeemer”. Not only do believers have future provision in the Lord Jesus, but also they rejoice in the present moment to the Father through His Son. In verse 11, Paul reiterated that the Son is the reason believers can be at peace with the Father (cf. v. 1). To illustrate how believers receive all the benefits of justification, Paul drew a parallel between what Dunn (1998:94) calls “two archetypal figures”, namely, Adam and Jesus. Moo (1996:315) clarifies that the the-

Life and Death in the New Testament

137

ological “perspective is corporate rather than individual”. Furthermore, this mindset was both “rooted” in the Old Testament (cf. Josh 7:1,11) and widespread in the “Jewish world of Paul’s day” (327; cf. Apoc Moses 14:2; 2 Bar 48:42; 54:15–19; 4 Ezra 3:21–22; 4:30–32; 7:116–118). The apostle revealed that Adam’s single act of disobedience in the ancient Eden orchard enabled sin to enter the world. Furthermore, his transgression made death a permanent part of the human experience (Barrett 1994:64; Berry 2007b:29; Cosner 2009:72; Ladd 1997:443; Lowery 1994:259–260; O’Brien 2009:409–410; Pendergast 2009:834–835; Walton 2009b:100; Waltke and Yu 2007:277). Vos (1972:304) maintains that notwithstanding “any findings” of “evolutionary science”, for Paul the “opening narratives in Genesis” stood for “real occurrences recorded as facts in an inspired record”. De Boer (2000:361) explains that Paul depicted “Sin and Death as oppressive cosmic powers”. Matera (2010:137) furthers the analysis by noting that these two personified, malevolent entities are also “actors on the stage of the world”. Furthermore, both have “power and control over those who live in the world”. In a manner of speaking, sin was like an “alien intruder” (Collins 2011:49) who came right in the front door of humankind’s existence as a result of the first man eating the forbidden fruit. The consequence is that death spread like a cancer to each individual member of the human race (Rom 5:12). Scroggs (1966:78) clarifies that in Paul’s day, there was a “Jewish doctrine of the universality of sin”. Also, “Adam” was regarded as the “first sinner and the originator of sin”. As stated by Davies (1980:32), “for Paul the sin of Adam is the sin of everyman”. Be that as it may, the apostle also maintained that each person was accountable to God for their individual acts of sin. As noted in chapter 2 of this study, the penalty for sin includes both spiritual and physical death. Furthermore, spiritual death is understood to be separation from God, while physical death involves the temporary, unnatural separation of the soul from the body. According to Moo (1996:320), on one level, Paul directs his attention to “physical death as the evidence” for the “penalty incurred for sin”; yet, on another level, the “outward manifestation” also points to the broader reality of “spiritual death” (cf. Job 34:14–15; Ps 104:29–30; Eccles 3:20–21; Sir 15:14–20; 25:24; Wis 2:23–24;

138

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Rom 6:23; 7:13; 2 Cor 5:1–5; Alexander 2008:265; Berry 2001:70; Collins 2003:143; Collins 2006a:178, 180–181; Guthrie 1981a:212–213; Harlow 2008:190–191; Harlow 2010:190; Hulsbosch 1965:21, 110; Kistemaker 1997:408; Green 2008:69; Ladd 1997:446; Lane 1994b:168–169; Schaeffer 1972:86–87; Schmithals 1986:436; Vos 2000:39). The tense of all the Greek verbs in 5:12 indicates that Paul viewed the entire human race as having somehow sinned in the person of Adam. Concededly, reconciling this theological truth with individual responsibility for sin has been debated within Christianity for centuries. One approach is called the federal headship view, in which advocates consider Adam to be the historical and federal head of fallen humanity. Since Adam was the covenantal leader, God considered his sin to be representative for all human beings. Therefore, the penalty of death that was pronounced against him was also applied to the entire human race. A second approach is called the seminal headship view, whose proponents regard Adam’s descendants as being physically affected by his sin. In a real sense, all people were biologically present in the first man, and naturally therefore they all were cursed as a result of his transgression. The idea that descendants can be seminally present in a person is reflected in Hebrews 7:9–10 (cf. Bromiley 1988:519–520; Capes 2007:185; Demarest 2001:436; Hamilton 1990:214–215; Helyer 2008:231–232; Morris 1993:878–879; Murray 2009b:532; Polhill 1999:289; Pretorious 2006:49–51; Ridderbos 1997a:61–62, 96–98; Sanders 1992:44–45; VanDrunen 2006:23; Waltke and Yu 2007:278–269; Witherington 1998:239– 240). In the midst of the discussion and debate regarding these two views, it is possible that Paul had both in mind when he penned Romans 5:12. This is a state of affairs in which, as Witherington (2010:138) notes, the “progeny are like the parents in their tragedy”. Schreiner (2008:538) is even more specific when he observes that Homo sapiens “do not enter the world suspended neutrally between good and evil”. Instead, as the biological descendants of the first human couple, all people are “springloaded to do evil”. Moreover, this fallen condition prevails among all the “sons and daughters of Adam”, regardless of their race, gender, or socio-economic background. More generally, when the “fountainhead of the human race” transgressed God’s command in the primeval gar-

Life and Death in the New Testament

139

den, sin entered the human experience and became a permanent part of it. To put a theological fine point on the matter, while Adam’s single act of disobedience spiritually and morally corrupted his progeny, every individual confirms his or her solidarity with Adam by committing personal sin (cf. Eccles 7:20; Isa 59:1–8; 2 Bar 19:8; 23:4; 48:42–43; 54:15, 19; 4 Ezra 3:7–11; 7:118; Rom 3:23; 1 John 1:8–9). A literary analysis of Romans 5:13–17 indicates that these verses are an extended digression (i.e. an anacoluthon or break in sequence) from what Paul introduced in verse 12. Also, it is not until verse 18 that he again resumed his initial train of thought (cf. Barth 1956:14–15; Fitzmyer 1993:408; Gorman 2004:366–367; Cranfield 1975:269–270; Wright 2002:523, 527). In verse 13, the apostle explained that since the days of Adam, people were continually inclined toward sin (cf. Gen 6:5–13; Jer 17:9; Eph 2:1–3). Admittedly, it was not until the time of Moses that God revealed His written law. Earlier, Paul affirmed that where there is no legal code, “there is no transgression” (Rom 4:15). Schreiner (1998:279) observes that in the absence of the “Mosaic law”, sinful conduct “is not equivalent” to the offense associated with a blatant trespass of a stated injunction. Put differently, if people do not know about specific aspects of ethical right from wrong, then in one sense they cannot be held accountable to the same degree for their misdeeds. As Barrett (1962:15) puts it, the “law was not necessary to the existence but only for the assessment of sin”. The preceding theological truths notwithstanding, based on what the apostle pointed out in 2:14–15, even those who do not have the written code of Moses, have God’s moral law written upon their hearts. So all people intuitively know some form of right from wrong, and thus all must one day answer to God for what they do in this life (cf. Ps 106:31; Dan 7:10; 2 Bar 24:1; 1 En 104:7; Jub 30:17; 1 Macc 2:52; Test Ben 11:4; Rom 2:16; Rev 20:12). Be that as it may, when people from the time of Adam until Moses sinned, it was not charged to their account as a documented transgression, for one cannot violate a written law that has not yet been given (Rom 5:13). Paul was careful to emphasize that on the one hand, for a limited span of human history, wrongful acts were not reckoned or imputed as violations of the Mosaic law. On the other hand, sin prevailed in the hearts of people, and the proof of this is that

140

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

between the lifetimes of Adam and Moses, death ruled over all human beings. This remained the case even though people did not breach an explicit divine commandment, as Adam had done in the garden of Eden (cf. Gen 2:17; 3:6). At the end of Romans 5:14, Paul transitioned to a new thought by stating that Adam was a “pattern” of the promised Messiah. The Greek noun translated “pattern”, which can also be rendered “type”, “figure”, or “example”, points to the fact that there are distinct parallels between the first Adam and the second Adam (cf. Barth 1956:16–17; BoumaPrediger 2001:124; Kreitzer 1993a:13; Matera 2007:176; Moo 2002:33; Seifrid 2007:628). According to Kreitzer (1993:12), Paul used the “Adam/Christ analogy” to demonstrate the “solidarity of the two Adams with their respective followers”. In this regard, the principal commonality was that a large number of people were affected by a single act of each man. Osborne (2004:141) clarifies that the “universal effects” of Adam’s “act prefigure the universal effects of Christ’s act”. Fitzmyer (1993:418) moves the analysis further when he notes that the “resemblance between the type and antitype is not perfect”. Rather, it is “antithetical”. By this he means there are significant “differences” between the first Adam and the second Adam. So, while it is true that the “antitype reproduces the type”, it does so in a “more perfect way”. With respect to Adam, his one “trespass” (v. 15) in the Eden orchard brought “death” to all his biological descendants. As before, the reference includes not only “physical death” (Moo 1996:333), but also “spiritual death”. In contrast, as a result of Jesus’ one act of perfect obedience at Calvary, God’s gracious “gift” of forgiveness abounded to all the Messiah’s spiritual offspring (cf. Isa 53:11–12; Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45). Furthermore, whereas divine “judgment” (Rom 5:16) and “condemnation” resulted from Adam’s sin, the “justification” of believers—who were guilty of committing many offenses—was the consequence of the Redeemer’s sacrificial death. Because of the first Adam’s single transgression, death ruled like a despot over all his descendants. Put another way, sinners were perishing victims to a ruthless dictator who showed no mercy; yet this outcome pales in comparison to what the second Adam has achieved. All who receive by faith the Father’s extravagant “provision of grace” (v. 17), along with His wonderful “gift of righteousness”,

Life and Death in the New Testament

141

will triumph over sin and death and one day rule like monarchs in union with the Son (cf. 2 Tim 2:12; Rev 22:5). Earlier, in Romans 5:13, Paul revealed that as a result of Adam’s sin, all his descendants were sentenced to die spiritually and physically. Oppositely, due to Jesus’ obedience at Calvary, believers were spiritually reborn. The apostle resumed this train of thought in verse 18, first by summarizing what he had said in verses 14–17 (cf. Barth 1956:37–38; Godet 1977:203; Matera 2007:177; Murray 1984:199; Schreiner 1998:268, 271; Seifrid 2007:630). In brief, while Adam’s single transgression brought “condemnation” (v. 18) to the entire human race, Jesus’ death on the cross made righteousness leading to eternal life possible for all believers. Witherington and Hyatt (2004:142) point out that the “dark backdrop of Adam’s sin serves to highlight the brightness and clarity of God’s grace gift”. In Romans 5:19, Paul continued his contrast by revealing that when Adam disobeyed the Creator, all people were forensically and ontologically “constituted sinners” (Murray 1984:204). Paul’s use of the Greek noun rendered “disobedience” indicates that Adam voluntarily and intentionally entered into sin. Likewise, all his descendants throughout history have demonstrated their solidarity with him by willfully sinning. Regardless of their circumstance, they are all “without excuse” (1:20). Later, when Jesus allowed Himself to be sacrificed on the cross, all who trusted in Him were judicially and existentially put right with the Father (cf. 2 Cor 5:21). As Moo (1996:345–346) explains, Paul’s emphasis in Romans 5:19 was not on being “morally upright” in behavior (as laudable as this might otherwise be); instead, the apostle was stressing individuals being “judged acquitted” or “cleared of all charges” by “God’s decision”. Witherington (2010:105) aptly observes that Jesus, “as the Son of Man”, is “Adam gone right”. In Romans 5:19, Paul continued his contrast by revealing that when Adam disobeyed the Creator, all people were forensically and ontologically “constituted sinners” (Murray 1984:204). Paul’s use of the Greek noun rendered “disobedience” indicates that Adam voluntarily entered into sin. Likewise, all his descendants throughout history have demonstrated their solidarity with him by willfully sinning. Regardless of their circumstance, they are all “without excuse” (1:20). Later, when Jesus al-

142

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

lowed Himself to be sacrificed on the cross, all who trusted in Him were judicially and existentially put right with the Father (cf. 2 Cor 5:21). As Moo (1996:345–346) explains, Paul’s emphasis in Romans 5:19 was not on being “morally upright” in behavior (as laudable as this might otherwise be); instead, the apostle was stressing individuals being “judged acquitted” or “cleared of all charges” by “God’s decision”. Witherington (2010:105) aptly observes that Jesus, “as the Son of Man”, is “Adam gone right”. Paul’s Jewish readers might have wondered where the Mosaic law fit into his exposition. Up to this point, the apostle described those who sinned prior to the establishment of the written code. In 5:20, the apostle noted that when the law was established, it led to people committing more frequent and extreme forms of iniquity. Moreover, the inauguration of the law resulted in people experiencing a heightened moral awareness of wrongdoing, along with an intensification of the severity of their violations of God’s explicit directives. Cranfield (1975:282) explains that it is “only in the presence of the law” that the “full seriousness of sin is visible”. Moreover, the “responsibility of the sinner” is “stripped of every extenuating circumstance” (cf. Rom 6:19–21; 7:5, 7– 11, 13; Gal 3:19; Barth 1956:55–56; Morris 1988:241; Murray 1984:208; Osborne 2004:146; Seifrid 2007:631). Amazingly, despite the power sin exercises over people, this could not prevent God’s “grace” from abounding. Figuratively speaking, in a contest between sin and grace, the latter always triumphs. Prior to the advent of the Son, “sin” (Rom 5:21) ruled over all Adam’s descendants and brought them to “death”. Now, as a result of the Messiah’s atoning sacrifice, God’s “grace” rules in the lives of all believers. The Father declares them to be righteous, empowers to them to live uprightly, and affirms that they have “eternal life” through faith in the Son. Present Suffering and Future Glory (Rom 8:1–39) The gospel brings an entirely new dimension to human experience: a confident assurance of future glory with God. This hope empowered believers in the early church to endure persecution. Also, their hope prevented the enemies of the faith from extinguishing the spreading fires of Christianity. Paul wrote about future glory in the context of contem-

Life and Death in the New Testament

143

porary hardships and tribulations. For instance, in Romans the apostle discussed future glory in the context of God’s eternal plan of redemption, which included believers living in a godly manner. Accordingly, chapters 6 and 7 describe the principles and practices of believers loving and serving the Lord. Then, in 8:1–17, the apostle revealed that the power to be holy rests in the rule of the Spirit in the lives of believers. In order to more fully understand Paul’s teaching in verses 18–39 about present suffering and future glory, it is worth taking into account verses 1–17. Paul noted several contrasts between the sinful state of human beings (that is, their “flesh”) and the redeemed state. For instance, the fallen human nature is controlled by the power of sin and death, whereas the regenerate nature is controlled by the power of the Spirit of life (v. 2). The sinful state weakened the law and made it powerless. In contrast, God accomplished through the redeemed state what the law was powerless to do (v. 3). The fallen human nature so dominates the lost that they are set on gratifying their fleshly desires. Oppositely, the regenerate nature is set on doing what the Spirit desires (v. 5). The mindset of the sinful state leads to death, whereas the mindset produced by the Spirit results in life and peace (v. 6). Furthermore, the fallen human nature’s way of thinking is hostile to God. This corrupt disposition cannot, will not, and does not submit to God’s law. Conversely, the regenerate volition is motivated by love to obey and please God (vv. 7–8). Those who live according to the sinful state will die; but those who by the Spirit’s power put to death the wayward actions of the body, will live (v. 13). On the one hand, those who do not have the Spirit of Christ do not belong to Him (v. 9). On the other hand, the Holy Spirit inwardly testifies to the redeemed that they are God’s children (v. 16). Because of this new relationship with the Father, believers are also called “heirs of God” (v. 17) and “co-heirs with Christ”. In a typical family of that era, every child received a share in their parents’ estate. This made each child an “heir”, and the children as a group were “coheirs” (cf. Cranfield 1975:406–407; Fitzmyer 1993:502; Godet 1977:311; Harrison 1976:92–93; Moo 1996:501; Morris 1988:317; Murray 1984:298; Osborne 2004:206; Schreiner 1998:428; Shulam and Le Cornu 1998:291; Wright 2002:594).

144

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Similarly, believers, as the Father’s children, were “heirs”, and collectively they were “coheirs” with the Son (cf. Gal 4:7). Also, believers inherit “every spiritual blessing” (Eph 1:3) in union with the Messiah. Furthermore, upon entering glory, believers will immediately inherit all the eternal riches of God’s magnificent kingdom, according to the quality of their works (cf. 1 Cor 3:10–23). Believers as coheirs do not just share in the Messiah’s blessings; they also share in His sufferings (Rom 8:17; cf. Col 1:24). After identifying with the Savior in His woundedness and pain, they will one day share in His great glory (cf. 2 Bar 15:8; Ps Sol 14:10; 2 Tim 2:12). In Romans 8:18, Paul affirmed that the suffering believers presently experienced would be significantly outweighed by the glory one day to be revealed in them (cf. Dan 7:17–27; 2 Bar 15:8; 1 En 102–104; 2 Macc 7; Wis 2–5; 2 Cor 4:17; 1 Pet 4:13; 5:10; Bruce 1977:332; Capes 2007:190; Hornell 2000:66, 68; Mosert 2005:113; Wenham 1995:278, 327; Wright 2005:149). The latter included freedom from physical decay and receiving a glorified, resurrection body (Rom 8:19–23). To explain these truths, the apostle borrowed concepts that were familiar to the Jews of his time. Jewish thinking included two eras of time—the present, corrupt age, which was completely given over to sin, death, and decay; and a new, restored world that would follow a day of judgment. While the hardship endured by Jesus’ followers was always temporary, the glory given by the Son never ended (cf. 2 Cor 4:17). Paul emphasized these verities to strengthen his readers so that they could bear their present adversities. At this point in the history of the early church, systematic persecution by the Roman government had not yet begun. Even so, the believers living in Rome undoubtedly had to cope with many other kinds of hardship and opposition. For this reason, they needed the apostle’s words of encouragement. According to Romans 8:19–23, not only were the redeemed looking forward to the new earth, but also the nonhuman creation itself waited in “eager expectation” (v. 19) to be set free from the corruption and decay in which it existed (cf. Alexander 2008:163; Hulsbosch 1965:117, 119; O’Brien 2009:413; Peacocke 1979:281; Sponheim 2007:260; Wilkinson 2002:235; Witherington 1998:147). The Greek noun rendered “eager expectation” (v. 19) pictures an individual “stretching the neck, craning

Life and Death in the New Testament

145

forward” (Cranfield 1975:410), scanning the “horizon” (Godet 1955:313), and peering into the distance (cf. Fitzmyer 1993:506; Harrison 1976:94; Moo 1996:513; Morris 1988:320; Murray 1984:301; Osborne 2004:211; Schreiner 1998:434–435; Shulam and Le Cornu 1998:293; Wright 2002:596). The term usually refers to the attitude believers have regarding the second advent of the Messiah (cf. Rom 8:23, 25; 1 Cor 1:7; Gal 5:5; Phil 3:20; Heb 9:28). The liberation for which all creation longed was tied to the future manifestation of the “children of God” (Rom 8:19). The latter would occur when the Messiah returns. As noted in chapter 2 of this study, in the interim, God has held back the full potential of the “inanimate and animate world apart from humankind” (Matera 2010:200) to flourish and achieve its divinely intended goal. This constriction of earth’s fecundity is seen in the curse that God placed on the ground (cf. Gen 3:17–18; Ps 104:37; Isa 24:5–13; 2 Bar 23:4; Gen Rab 12:6; 23:6; 28:6; 4 Ezra 7:11–12, 116–126; 8:11; cf. Carlson and Longman 2010:101; Chia 2005:179–180; Dahl 1964:426; Davies 2008:814; Fretheim 2010:15; Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:52–53; Schnelle 2009:311; Spanner 1987:58). Witherington and Hyatt (2004:221) point out that “for Paul salvation has both anthropological and cosmological significance and effects”. More specifically, redemption in the Messiah “completes not only God’s plans for creation, but also his plans for calling and forming a people for himself”. Accordingly, nature’s liberation from the menace of its vexing situation was linked to the destiny of redeemed humanity (Rom 8:21; cf. Beker 1987:74; Berry 2001:72–73; Bishop 2011:5; Moltmann 1985:67–68, 226; Murphy 2003:385; Schaeffer 1972:63–64; Wilcox 2004:125). In particular, it was only when the Father resurrected His spiritual children at the second advent of His Son, that the cosmos would be renewed and ushered into the glorious freedom of eternal perfection (cf. Isa 65:17; 66:22; Jer 31:12–14; 33; 2 Bar 15:8; 1 Enoch 51:4–5; 4 Ezra 7:29–30; Test of Lev 18:10–14; Matt 19:28; 2 Pet 3:10–13; Rev 21:1; Alexander 2008:269; Collins 2003:158; Collins 2006a:184; Frame 2002:161; Haught 2000:108; Murray 2009b:531; Osborn 2000:435; Prenter 1967:196–197; Schönborn 2007a:103). Put another way, a time was coming when creation itself would be free from the influences of sin, Satan, and physical decay. That

146

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

would be the day when the Creator established the “new heaven and new earth” (Moo 1996:517). Paul portrayed the entire cosmos as a woman suffering through the “pains of childbirth” (Rom 8:22) until now. The corollary is that creation figuratively cries out for deliverance. Believers also groan inwardly for the consummation of their “adoption” (v. 23) as God’s children. In Roman culture, an adopted son enjoyed all the rights and privileges of a natural-born son, as well as lost all rights in regard to his biological family. Apparently, there are present and future aspects to the adoption of believers as God’s children. On the one hand, every believer has been adopted into God’s family because he or she has received the Holy Spirit (cf. v. 15). On the other hand, believers anticipate the completion of their adoption when Jesus’ returns. It is then that they experience the redemption, or glorification, of their bodies (cf. Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5; Brown 1996:11; Ciampa 2000:378; Clifton 2009:130; Davids 2001:25–26; Gorman 2004:376; Knobloch 1992:78; Leitch 2009a:71–72; Moo 2002:47; Morris 1990:73–74; Pretorious 2006:60; Rees 1979:54–55; Scott 1993:17–18). The Father marked believers as His own through the presence of the indwelling Spirit (Eph 1:13). In ancient times, people used seals to identify their ownership of letters, contracts, and other important documents (cf. Danker 2000:980; Louw and Nida 1989:60, 61, 675–676; Schippers 1986:497; Schramm 1993:316). The Spirit was the believers’ guarantee that they belonged to the Father and that He would do for them what He had promised (v. 14). Paul depicted the Spirit as a down payment, or deposit, of the full and final redemption awaiting Christians when the Savior returned. The Spirit’s abiding presence confirmed that one’s faith was genuine, that one’s adoption into God’s family was real, and that one was an heir of eternal life. Moreover, the Spirit’s presence served as a reminder of the rich heritage that awaited believers at the Son’s second advent. In Romans 8:23, Paul drew an analogy from the work of a farmer and stated that believers have the “firstfruits of the Spirit”. At harvest time, Israelite farmers took the first and finest portions of their crops and offered them to the Lord (cf. Exod 23:16, 19; Lev 23:9–14; Neh 10:35). The entire nation initially celebrated the offering of the firstfruits in late spring, 50 days after Passover, at the beginning of the harvest season.

Life and Death in the New Testament

147

Initially, this celebration was known as the Festival of Weeks. Later, it became known as Pentecost, the Greek word meaning “fiftieth”. The celebration was repeated throughout summer as other crops were brought in. The whole purpose of the festival was to give thanks to God for His bounty. It was a time of great rejoicing throughout Israel (cf. Burge 1993:300; Levertoff 1982:307–308; Lewis 2009:578; Mare 1996:258; Ridderbos 1997a:538; Rigsby 2003:314–315; Wilkinson 2002:241). Metaphorically speaking, the Spirit was the “firstfruits” of believers in that He was a heavenly foretaste of what lay in store for them when they were ushered into the glorious presence of the triune God. Paul linked the future day of redemption to the present “hope” (Rom 8:24) of believers. Indeed, confident expectation is what sustained them, especially as they endured their present sufferings. The believers’ hope looked forward to a future day when they would finally be delivered from their body of sin, decay, and death. The apostle acknowledged that the redemption of the believers’ physical bodies had not yet occurred. The fact that they continued to grow old was ample testimony to that circumstance. The believers’ confident expectation was for a future redemption, a reality they had not yet experienced. On that day, hope would become an actuality. In the meantime, Paul encouraged believers to wait patiently for that which they knew with certitude was still to come (v. 25). They could do so, for they realized that God’s timing and wisdom were perfect. Paul recognized the weakness of the believers’ faith and hope in the midst of circumstances beyond their control. The apostle therefore noted that one of the Spirit’s responsibilities was to help God’s children in their weakness and frailty. For example, even when believers might be at a loss as to what to pray for, the Spirit would perpetually intercede for them through “wordless groans” (v. 26). In addition, the Father knew the “mind of the Spirit” (v. 27). Thus, the inexpressible sighs of the Spirit did not need to be verbalized, for the Father was intimately familiar with the Spirit’s heart. In brief, the Lord matched the needs of His children with the Spirit’s prayers. This was a remarkable revelation of how the Father took care of believers in their present state of physical decay. Often, they might not know what the important prayer issues were, so the Spirit intervened on their behalf in the presence of the Father.

148

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Paul affirmed that in every situation, God worked for the eternal benefit of believers, who loved Him (v. 28). The apostle was well aware that believers experienced adverse circumstances. Also, while these incidents were distressing, God nevertheless could use them to bring about Christlike fruit in the lives of Jesus’ followers. Paul described believers as those whom God summoned to salvation in accordance with His sovereign “purpose”. Witherington and Hyatt (2004:228) suggest that Paul’s main objective was not to explain the way in which the lost “became Christians”. Instead, the apostle’s goal was to expound “how God always had a plan to get believers to the finish line” of eternal redemption. Moreover, from a pastoral viewpoint, Paul wanted to make known to his readers “how they will be able to persevere through whatever trials they may face along the way”. In verse 29, the apostle elaborated on what it meant to be effectually called by God. Specifically, those whom the Father foreknew in eternity past, He likewise appointed beforehand to become like the “image” of His own Son. Expressed differently, in union with the Messiah, believing sinners see what God originally intended for them as His imagebearers (cf. 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10; 1 John 3:1; Anderson 1994:244, 226; Bray 2000:576; Bromiley 1982:805; Clines 1993:427; Johnston 2000b:564; Prenter 1967:213; Turner 1996:366; Wenham 1995:120; Witherington 2009:20). The divine objective was that Jesus’ would be the “firstborn” (Rom 8:29; or the one who stood first in “order of rank” and “position of rulership”; Ridderbos 1997a:81) among those whom He redeemed (cf. Exod 4:22; Pss 2:7–9; 89:27; Col 1:15, 18; Heb 1:6). Schreiner (1998:453) notes that with this holy aim being achieved, the “marring of the image”, which was the consequence of Adam’s transgression, has been “reversed”. Furthermore, it will be “transcended” as a result of what the Messiah accomplished. The tense of the Greek verbs in Romans 8:30 indicate that what God had decreed for believers before the foundation of the world, He already considered to be an accomplished fact. This included predestining them to eternal life, calling them to trust in the Messiah for salvation, declaring them to be in a right standing with the Godhead, and sharing Jesus’ glory with them (cf. Fee 2007:520–521; Harrison 1976:98; Marshall 2004:322; Matera 2010:205; Moo 1996:536; Morris 1990:27; Osborne

Life and Death in the New Testament

149

2004:224; Schnelle 2009:209–210). Christians have different views on how God’s sovereignty relates to human freedom, especially in the area of salvation. Two of these theological outlooks are worth mentioning. Some think God used His foreknowledge to look down the corridor of time to see which human beings would respond favorably to His offer of eternal life and then called those persons to salvation. Others maintain that God does not base His calling on foreknowledge, but rather sovereignly elects certain individuals to salvation for His own glory (cf. Bromiley 2001b:458; Elwell 1993:228; Hamilton and Harris 2009:1052; Horne 2009:270–271; Murray 2009a:294–295; Murray 2009c:633–634; Polhill 1999:293; Reid 1986:946; Schreiner 2008:343–347; Shogren 1992:443– 444; Wolf 1996:266). Regardless of one’s perspective on this contested issue, it is certain that believers have an incredible destiny awaiting them. In accordance with the Father’s eternal plan of redemption, they will be entirely “conformed to the image of his Son” (v. 29; cf. 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18; Phil 3:10, 20–21). With respect to this glorious future, Paul posed seven questions. His first query asked how believers should respond to what he had revealed (Rom 8:31). Undoubtedly, it would be an exclamation of praise. Then, the apostle noted that since the Father was on the side of believers, who could jeopardize their eternal future? Certainly, from time to time human beings stand against believers. Also, Satan and his demonic cohorts are the adversaries of Jesus’ followers. Even so, God is the King of the universe and the one who is ultimately in control. Because He is for His spiritual children, no one could successfully stand against them. Accordingly, the person who revered and obeyed God had no reason to cringe in terror from anything or anyone else. Paul noted that the Christians’ hope rested in the Father’s gracious gift of His one and only Son (cf. John 1:14, 18; 1 John 4:9). Scripture reveals that the Father gave His Son for the believers’ salvation and future glory. Since the Father did not spare His own Son, Jesus’ followers could trust Him to take care of all their needs, especially while they lived in the interim period between bondage and freedom, between decay and new life (Rom. 8:32). Next, Paul raised three hypothetical questions that had a legal ring to them: (1) Who would accuse believers, who are God’s elect (cf. Isa 50:8), of wrongdoing? (2) Who would condemn them for

150

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

their transgressions? and (3) Who would separate them from the Messiah’s love? The Greek verb rendered “charge” (Rom. 8:33) carries the idea of lodging a formal accusation in a “law court” (Morris 1988:336; cf. Cranfield 1975:438; Fitzmyer 1993:532; Godet 1977:330; Harrison 1976:99; Moo 1996:538; Murray 1984:326–327; Osborne 2004:226; Schreiner 1998:459; Shulam and Le Cornu 1998:307; Wright 2002:613). Certainly Satan—the “accuser” (Rev 12:10)—denounces believers because of their sin; yet since the redeemed have trusted in the Son, the Father declares them to be forgiven (that is, completely cleared of guilt). Hence, all charges are dismissed for those who put their faith in the Savior. Paul asked whether anyone had the right to condemn those whom the Father had chosen for eternal life (Rom 8:34). It is true that the Father appointed the Son to judge the world (cf. John 5:22, 27; Acts 17:31). Be that as it may, it is also true that Messiah champions the cause of the elect. With Him on their side, no one can successfully denounce them as being guilty. Above all, He died for His followers, was raised to life for them, and was sitting at the place of highest honor next to the Father to plead their case. Next, Paul asked whether anyone could “separate” (Rom 8:35) believers from their Savior’s “love”. In response, the apostle mentioned seven deprivations that might seem to be able to divorce the Messiah from His followers. Paul had personally experienced all these misfortunes (cf. 2 Cor. 11:23–28), and he declared that none of them could sever the bond of unconditional compassion and commitment between Jesus and the redeemed. Paul quoted from Psalm 44:22 to emphasize that the believer, while in the world, would face affliction—perhaps even martyrdom (Rom 8:36). In all such adversities, believers had complete victory over their temporal and eternal foes through the Savior (v. 37). Believers not only won their spiritual battles, but in the end they enjoyed the Lord’s presence. Paul exulted in the fact that absolutely nothing in the entire cosmos—that is, “subhuman creatures and nature” (Witherington and Hyatt 2004:234)—would ever drive a wedge between believers and the love the Father had for them in His Son (vv. 38–39). His sacrificial death on the cross demonstrated the Father’s love for the lost (cf. 5:8). The apostle listed a series of items in 8:38–39 to illustrate his point. Most of

Life and Death in the New Testament

151

these are in pairs—the extremes of existence (death, life), spiritual armies (angels, demons), time (present, future), and space (height, depth). None of these examples—at either extreme—could snuff out God’s love for His children. A lingering question concerns why Paul included “angels” (v. 38) as a possible opponent of God’s love. Based on the analysis offered by Harrison (1976:99–100), one option is that the apostle was being consistent with the contemporary Jewish understanding of angels, namely, that some of them are morally deviant. Another option is that these angels should be categorically understood as ethically virtuous, implying that no such angel would ever seek to come between God’s love and believers. In contrast, “demons are evil spirits” who would gladly divorce believers from God’s love. Be that as it may, these celestial beings are impotent to achieve such a diabolical outcome. Neither can “time” produce a chasm between God and His children, regardless of whether it is “present” time with its deprivations and enticements to sin or “future” time with its unpredictability. Equally feeble were “powers”, which probably refers to spiritual forces engaged in metaphysical combat with believers (cf. 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21; 6:12; 1 Pet 3:22). “Height nor depth” (Rom 8:39) could refer to the level of a believer’s emotion or spiritual mood. Even in this case, one’s fluctuating feelings cannot undermine the stability of God’s love. Alternately, astrological terms could be what Paul had in mind. Astrology dominated ancient people, who were convinced that the destiny of humans was determined by the star under which they were born. Accordingly, “height” referred to a star at its peak, when it was most influential. “Depth” referred to the star at its lowest point, waiting to regain control (cf 1 En 18:3, 11). In this view, Paul was telling those influenced by astrology that the stars could not hurt them and certainly could not separate them from God’s love (cf. Barrett 1962:10; Cranfield 1975:443–444; Fitzmyer 1993:535; Godet 1977:334–335; Morris 1988:341– 342; Murray 1984:334; Schreiner 1998:465; Shulam and Le Cornu 1998:313; Wright 2002:615). In short, no matter how dark the days or no matter how grim the future looked, believers could claim the unshakable, enduring nature of the Father’s love for them.

152

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective Jesus’ Resurrection and the Nature of the Believer’s Resurrection Body (1 Cor 15:1–58)

In 1 Corinthians 12 through 14, Paul provided a lengthy discussion of spiritual gifts.* Then, in chapter 15, the apostle shifted his focus to another important doctrinal topic: the resurrection of the dead and the essence of “postmortal existence” (Thiselton 2000:1170). According to Witherington (2010:131), “by and large Paul’s logic is a narrative one”. Longenecker (2002:88) further notes that much of the apostle’s “theological reflections” are characterized by nuanced and sophisticated “narrative dynamics”. Undoubtedly, this is because, as Goldingay (2003:29) explains, the “dominant way” the Old Testament “expounds the nature of its faith is by telling Israel’s story”. Prominent examples would be the “two narrative sequences Genesis-Kings and Ezra-Nehemiah-Chronicles”, as well as the “short stories about Ruth, Esther, Jonah, and Daniel and his friends” (30). Amid this scholarly exchange, Gorman (2004:277) concludes that 1 Corinthians 15 “represents the pinnacle of Pauline rhetoric and theological argument”. As was noted in chapter 3 of this study, the early Israelites believed that when people died, they went to a subterranean chamber called sheol (cf. Job 10:21–22). Both Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2 speak about the resurrection of the dead, so by New Testament times, the Pharisees had come to believe in a general resurrection of the dead at the last day (cf. Job 14:14; Pss 16:10; 49:15; 73:24; 2 Bar 50:2–4; 1 En 51:1; 62:14–16; 4 Ezra 7:32–33; Test of Ben 10:6–8; Test of Judah 25:4). This is the view that Martha expressed to Jesus when He told her that her brother, Lazarus, would rise again (cf. John 11:23–24). In contrast, the Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection at all (cf. Matt 22:23; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27; Acts 23:8). Perhaps this religious group rejected the doctrine because it was not overtly taught in the Mosaic law, to which they strictly adhered (cf. Brown 1986a:268–270; Gaster 1962b:40; Kreitzer 1993c:806; MartinAchard 1992:682–683; Muller 1988:145–146; Schep 2009:90–91). The church at Corinth appears to have been influenced by the erro* What follows in this section is a revision of material in my journal article titled, “Jesus’ resurrection and the nature of the believer’s resurrection body (1 Cor 15:1–58)”, which appears in the September 2011 edition of Conspectus (cf. Lioy 2011b).

Life and Death in the New Testament

153

neous ideas commonly taught in Greco-Roman culture. Numerous ancient philosophers thought that all forms of matter are wicked and that the ultimate goal in life is to become free from one’s evil material existence. If there is an afterlife, it is alleged to be purely spiritual in nature and meant only for the soul, not the body. Numerous philosophers taught that the soul is the true core of a person’s identity and that it is imprisoned in one’s physical body. Release from this confinement was thought to come at death. Even though the body decays into nonexistence, the soul was believed to live on eternally (cf. Barrett 1994:111–112; Brown 1986b:677–679; Dihle 1999:608–617; Dunn 1998:76–78; Gill 2002:174; Guthrie 1981a:120–121, 829; Ladd 1997:499–500; Morris 2001a:205; Sand 1993:501; Schnelle 2009:228–229; Thielman 2005:301– 302; Young 1997:123). Evidently, because of the faulty understanding the believers at Corinth had about what it meant to be spiritual, some of them did not accept the truth of a bodily resurrection. They may have believed that Christians, after death, live on forever in heaven as disembodied spirits; but to them the idea of one’s soul being rejoined with one’s body was distasteful. The cornerstone of Paul’s faith was the resurrection of the Messiah. Indeed, the apostle had built his entire ministry on knowing that the Father had raised the Son from the dead after His crucifixion. Furthermore, Paul had endured all sorts of hardship because of his commitment to the risen, living Lord. Therefore, the apostle was dismayed that some in the fledgling church at Corinth were denying the bodily resurrection of the dead. Consequently, Paul determined that he had to correct this theological error. In a figurative sense, as Ciampa and Rosner (2010:754) point out, the apostle swam “against the tide of Greco-Roman teaching and with the flow of the Old Testament and its Jewish interpreters”. Furthermore, Paul rode the “wave created by the coming of Jesus”. The apostle began his argument by establishing common ground with his readers: they all believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. When Paul had arrived in Corinth, he had proclaimed the gospel, namely, the core of teachings about Jesus and salvation that had been handed down from the first Christians. The apostle’s readers had not only accepted the gospel, but also had based their faith squarely upon it (1 Cor 15:1). Furthermore, it was on the basis of this good news that

154

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

they would reach final salvation (v. 2). The preceding observations notwithstanding, some of the believers at Corinth had begun to assert that there was no future resurrection of the dead, an idea that was contradictory to the gospel. Paul warned his readers that if they held to this theologically heterodox notion, then their Christian faith was made pointless. In verses 12–19, the apostle would explain what he meant. For now, Paul repeated a portion of the gospel he had preached in Corinth, namely, the part that related to Jesus’ death and resurrection. In actuality, this was a truth of foremost “importance” (v. 3). Due to the structure, wording, and content of verses 3–5, it may be that here the apostle was quoting a “very early creedal formulation that was common to the entire church” (Fee 1987:71; cf. Conzelmann 1975:249; Fitzmyer 2008:541; Furnish 1999:109; Garland 2003:684; Godet 1979:758; Grosheide 1984:349; Morris 1985:201; Prior 1985:259; Sampley 2002:973; Thiselton 2000:1188–1189; Tobin 2004:163, 176). The first statement is that in accordance with Old Testament prophecy (cf. Ps 22; Isa 52:13–53:12; Luke 24:25–26, 44–46), the Messiah died on the cross to atone for the sins of the lost. Accordingly, the Savior’s sacrificial death was not a tragic accident or even an “afterthought” (Morris 2001a:201). It had a divinely intended purpose, that is, to rescue sinners. Second, Paul stated that Jesus “was buried” (1 Cor 15:4). Burial in a tomb certified the reality of His death (cf. Heb 2:9, 14). Third, after being interred on Friday afternoon, the Savior was resurrected on Sunday morning (1 Cor 15:4; cf. Ps 16:8–11; Hos 6:2; Jonah 1:17; Matt 28:1–10; Mark 16:1–8; Luke 24:1–12; John 20:1–10). Fourth, Jesus manifested Himself to Peter, and then the remainder of the apostles (1 Cor 15:5; cf. Matt 28:16–17; Luke 24:24, 36–43; John 20:19–29; 21:1–25; Acts 1:1–9). These appearances proved the reality of the Messiah’s bodily resurrection. Paul expanded the creed he had been quoting by citing additional postresurrection appearances that he had learned about. To begin with, the apostle reported that Jesus had manifested Himself to a group of believers numbering more than 500 (1 Cor 15:6). This incident is not elsewhere mentioned in Scripture. Since many of these people were still living at the time Paul wrote, his readers would have plenty of eyewitness testimonies to the Savior’s resurrection, that is, if they really

Life and Death in the New Testament

155

wanted them. The risen Lord also appeared to His half-brother, James (v. 7; cf. Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 1:14), who by this time was a prominent leader in the Jerusalem church (cf. Acts 15:13; 21:18; Gal 1:19; 2:9). Once more, Scripture reveals nothing more about this appearance. In addition, Jesus manifested Himself to a larger group of “apostles” (1 Cor 15:7). Finally, Jesus appeared to Paul. Clearly, the apostle was referring to his meeting with Jesus on the Damascus road (cf. Acts 9:3–6; 22:6–10; 26:13–18). To Paul, this encounter was more than just a vision. He had seen Jesus as surely as had all the others. In describing his own sighting of the risen Lord, Paul called himself “one abnormally born” (1 Cor 15:8). This phrase translates a Greek noun that referred literally to an abortion, a miscarriage, or a stillbirth (cf. Danker 2000:311; Garland 2003:693; Gill 2002:176; Louw and Nida 1989:257; Morris 2001a:203; Müller 1986:182; Orr and Walther 1976:318, 323). The other apostles had all achieved their status through following the Savior during His earthly ministry; but Paul regarded his entrance into his apostolic office as being sudden and abnormal, like a freakish birth. Some in Corinth might have come to undervalue Paul in comparison to the other apostles. If so, Paul seemed to agree when he called himself the “least” (v. 9) among his peers. Here he may have been making a pun on his Roman name, Paulus. The latter means “the little one” and implies his status was that of an ecclesiastical “dwarf” (Fee 1987:733; cf. Balz 1993:59; Danker 2000:789; Hornell 2000:25; Louw and Nida 1989:829). Indeed, Paul said he was unworthy to be included in that esteemed inner circle of church leaders, for he was guilty of maltreating the “church of God”. Despite Paul’s criminal past, he was an apostle due to God’s unmerited favor. The Lord could have punished Paul for his actions, but instead He forgave him and called him to service. Moreover, in response to God’s grace, Paul labored longer and harder than any of his apostolic contemporaries in proclaiming the good news. That said, Paul was careful to add that this activity, too, was by the Lord’s “grace” (v. 10). Since Paul was a genuine apostle, he was heralding the same gospel that all the others were preaching. Furthermore, it was this gospel through which the Corinthians had come to faith (v. 11). Most likely, Paul meant that if his readers were disbelieving a portion of the good news—that

156

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

is, the part about the bodily resurrection from the dead—then they were going against not only him, but also the rest of the apostolic leadership of the Church. In this regard, Thiselton (2000:1213) describes what Paul heralded as the “common kerygma of a shared, transmitted gospel tradition” (cf. Barrett 1968:346; Bruce 1971:143; Conzelmann 1975:260; Fitzmyer 2008:543, 553; Furnish 1999:106; Garland 2003:679, 695; Godet 1979:771; Grosheide 1984:354; Morris 1985:205; Sampley 2002:974, 976). While Paul and his readers occupied some common ground by agreeing that Jesus had been resurrected, the apostle was aware of a theological problem. Some of the parishioners in Corinth were denying the possibility of a general resurrection (v. 12). Expressed differently, they were convinced that “nothing of a personal life survives death” (Orr and Walther 1976:340). Moreover, they abhorred the notion that the “dead have a future existence in some somatic form” (Fee 1987:741). Because Paul recognized the seriousness of this disagreement, he strove to reason with his readers about their mistaken opinion. To start, the apostle noted that if the dead are not raised, then neither could Jesus have been raised, for the latter would be an exception to the rule. Besides, if the dead are not raised, then there was no point in Jesus being raised. Thus, the Corinthians’ two beliefs contradicted each other. In brief, they could not claim that Jesus was raised and also assert that the dead are not raised (vv. 13, 16). From the latter observation Paul drew some conclusions, ones his readers would not like but would have to recognize as logically consistent with their denial of resurrection. First, if Jesus was not raised, then Paul’s preaching was futile and the Corinthians’ faith was pointless (v. 14). The reason is that the Savior’s resurrection is at the core of the Christian faith. Without Jesus rising from the dead, the gospel is not worth heralding or believing. Next, if the Messiah was not raised, then Paul had taught a falsehood about God. Expressed differently, the apostle was a liar and his readers could not trust his teaching (v. 15). Finally, if the Son was still dead in the burial chamber, then the Corinthians’ belief in Him was baseless, for He had done nothing to solve their sin problem (v. 17). In short, as Ciampa and Rosner (2010:757) maintain, they and their deceased fellow believers were still “culpable” for their transgressions and “standing under divine judgment” (v. 18). That being the case,

Life and Death in the New Testament

157

no one was more pitiable than a Christian, for believers were hoping for eternal salvation while remaining condemned for their sin (v. 19). Conzelmann (1975:267) observes that the apostle is “not arguing in timeless theoretical terms, without regard to the real situation”. Instead, he is “challenging” his readers “in the light of their faith” (cf. Bruce 1977:306–307; Capes 2007:158; Gorman 2004:279; Marshall 2004:278; McRay 2003:412–413; Polhill 1999:249; Polkinghorne 2009b:135; Schnelle 2009:227). In one sense, all the logical conclusions Paul had drawn from the Corinthians’ implicit denial of Jesus’ resurrection were meaningless. After all, He was raised, and His bodily resurrection is the prototype of the future resurrection of all those who trust in Him for salvation. Paul depicted the Messiah’s resurrection as just the beginning, the “firstfruits” (v. 20) of the resurrection harvest yet to occur at His second advent (cf. Exod 22:29; 23:19; 34:26; Lev 23:9–14; Num 15:18–21; Deut 18:4). Indeed, Jesus not only was the first to rise from the dead, but He also serves as a pledge that more resurrections would one day follow. His resurrection guaranteed that all believers, whether deceased or living, would someday be raised to eternal life. In point of fact, Jesus’ resurrection “set in motion” (Fee 1987:759) an unstoppable “chain of events”. For instance, Jesus made death’s destruction irrevocable with His own death on the cross and resurrection from the dead; but complete victory over death awaits the return of the Messiah to defeat Satan, the one who introduced sin into the world and brought the judgment of death upon the human race when Adam and Eve first sinned in the ancient Eden orchard (cf. Beker 1987:73; Collins 2010:155; Green 2008:172; Kreitzer 1993a:11; Orr and Walther 1976:332–333). To further develop the doctrinal implications of the Messiah’s resurrection, Paul used “typological exegesis” (Lincoln 1981:43). The apostle’s objective was to set up a comparison between Adam and Jesus and argue that the Son was the Father’s “righteous agent of salvation” (Thiselton 2000:1228; cf. Rom 5:12–21; Cosner 2009:71; Dahl 1964:435–436; Mosert 2005:109; Ridderbos 1997a:98; Schreiner 2008:307–308). As Dunn (1998:200) explains, Jesus is the “eschatological counterpart of primeval Adam”. Because Adam sinned, all people die; and because Jesus was raised from the dead, all believers likewise would be raised from the

158

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

dead (1 Cor 15:21). Adam brought death to all his physical descendants, whereas Jesus brings eternal life to all His spiritual offspring (v. 22). Paul stated that the resurrection of the dead follows a specific order: first the Savior, then His followers. Jesus has already been raised from the dead, and at His second coming the redeemed would be resurrected (v. 23). As part of what takes place at the end of history, two additional events would occur. First, the Messiah would abolish “all dominion, authority and power” (v. 24), meaning forces that oppose Him. Second, the Son would present the kingdom to His Father. In verse 25, Paul quoted Psalm 110:1 to describe the Messiah’s total victory over His foes. That verse reflects an ancient practice in which a monarch would symbolize his control over an enemy by placing his foot on the other’s neck (cf. Josh 10:24). In fulfillment of Psalm 110:1, Jesus would “put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Presumably, the Son’s adversaries included the evil powers of darkness that presently dominated the world. Death was also the Messiah’s foe. Last of all, then, He would eliminate death, thus removing the penalty for the original sin of Adam, the biological progenitor of the human race (v. 26; cf. Isa 25:8; 26:19; Hos 13:14; Rev 20:13–14). The abolishing of death is another way of referring to the resurrection of the dead; in other words, eternal life would win out over death. From a theological standpoint, death was not originally a part of God’s plan for humanity. As noted in chapter 2 of this study, prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve were “naturally mortal” (Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:217), but as a result of their sin, they lost their “potential for immortality”. Expressed differently, Adam’s sin required the punishment of spiritual and physical death, and the only way to remove that penalty was through the atoning sacrifice of the Son. In the future, He would consummate His victory on the cross by irreversibly putting an end to death in all its aspects. Alexander (2008:267) explains that “physical death is an enemy to be destroyed”, for “it has no place in the fulfilled kingdom of God”. Consequently, as Gillman (1997:18) states, one day “death itself will die” (cf. Beker 1987:76, 90; Godet 1979:791; Capes 2007:159–160; Cosner 2009:72; Fee 1987:747; Furnish 1999:116; Garland 2003:712; Morris 1985:212; Witherington 2010:407). In 1 Corinthians 15:27, Paul quoted from Psalm 8:6 to show that ul-

Life and Death in the New Testament

159

timately it was the Father who enabled the Son to sovereignly reign over all His foes. For clarification, however, the apostle added that the Father Himself was not subject to the Son. In fact, after the Father had made everything subservient to the Son, then the Son would be made subordinate to the Father (v. 28). At the end of the age, the Father would be “all in all”, which means He would reign supreme and unchallenged. As Morris (2001:213) explains, this statement does not mean that the Son is in some way metaphysically inferior to the Father (and the Spirit); instead, within the triune Godhead, each member performs different soteriological and eschatological functions. According to Gruenler (1986:xvii), the subordination between the three members of the Godhead is “voluntarily assumed”. It also “flows out of the dynamic and mutual hospitality of the divine Family as a unity”. In this regard, “each of the persons of the Trinity willingly, lovingly, and voluntarily seek to serve and please the other”. The subordination, then, is not one in which the Son and the Spirit are reduced to “second- and third-class” status within the Godhead; instead, all three “persons of the Triune Family” remain co-equal and co-eternal with one another. Neither Satan nor sin nor death would stand against the triune God. Indeed, all the enemies of faith would be vanquished. Thus, by denying the resurrection of the dead, the Corinthians were actually opposing the ultimate sovereignty of God, for if death was not vanquished, then God did not rule completely everywhere over everything. In verses 23–28, Paul did not give an exact chronology or timetable of the preceding endtime events. Be that as it may, one interpretive option finds a definite sequence for what happened at the Messiah’s second advent. According to this view, the dead in Christ would rise first at His return (vs. 23), followed by those believers who were alive at the time, an event sometimes called the rapture. “Then” (v. 24) the Messiah would begin His millennial reign on earth, when the saints ruled with Him (cf. Rev 20:4–6), followed by His conquest of the kingdoms of this world (cf. vv. 7–10). The devil and his demonic cohorts would be defeated, and then death itself would be cast into the lake of fire (cf. 1 Cor 15:26; Rev 20:14). In contrast, another interpretive option understands the phrase, “he must reign” (1 Cor 15:25), as what the Savior is doing now in this age. Put another way, His reign is more spiritual in nature, extending over

160

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

the entire course of human history. Hence, Jesus’ reign during this present age is His moral rule over the lives of the saints. After such a reign, then comes the “end” (v. 24; cf. 2 Bar 29; 73; 74; 4 Ezra 7:26–30; 13:29–50; Barrett 1968:356–357; Bruce 1971:147–148; Fitzmyer 2008:571–572; Furnish 1999:107–108, 117–118; Garland 2003:709–711; Grosheide 1984:369– 370; Hill 1988:308–320; Mare 1976:285–286; Prior 1985:268–269; Sampley 2002:981–982; Thiselton 2000:1232–1234). In case Paul’s theological arguments for the resurrection were not enough, he offered a collection of practical reasons in support of the doctrine. First, the apostle mentioned “living people having themselves vicariously baptized for dead people” (Conzelmann 1975:275). This was an early religious practice about which there is little information. Literally dozens of explanations have been offered to explain what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 15:29, though only three of the commonly mentioned possibilities are summarized here: (1) Believers were being baptized on behalf of loved ones who had died without trusting in the Messiah. These believers mistakenly thought that baptism, in itself, conveyed spiritual life and that it effects could be transferred from one person to another. (2) Believers were being baptized as a public statement of their hope of one day being raised from the dead. (3) Newer converts were being baptized in the name of deceased believers. This was the converts’ way of declaring their intent to take the place of the deceased in serving the Redeemer (cf. Beasley-Murray 1986:147; Bromiley 1979:426; Bromiley 2001a:135–136; Fape 2000:396; Grogan 2009:501–502; Grudem 1995:134; Oepke 1999:542; White 1996:49; Schreiner 2008:729–730). Regardless of what Paul actually meant, it seems the rationale for the custom depended on the teaching that the dead would be resurrected. The apostle was saying that it was pointless for people to be “baptized for the dead” (v. 29) if there was no life after death. The latter statement did not necessarily constitute an outright endorsement for or condemnation of the religious practice; instead, Paul referred to a well-known ritual in the lives of his readers to strengthen his broader argument. Next, Paul discussed his own life. In carrying out his apostolic work, he constantly put himself in danger of injury and death, both from persecution and from the natural risks of travel in his day (v. 30; cf. Acts 27; 2 Cor 11:23–33). It seemed to the apostle that nearly every day he

Life and Death in the New Testament

161

faced the prospect of dying. He affirmed that the latter was as certain as his own boasting in what the Messiah had done for the Corinthians (1 Cor 15:31). As Paul wrote to his readers from Ephesus, he had fresh in his mind some attacks he had already endured while in the city. The exact nature of these attacks remains unclear (e.g. whether they were literal or figurative); but the apostle compared these onslaughts to fighting “wild beasts” (v. 32). The latter was a cruel form of entertainment and execution in the Roman world. Paul openly questioned why he would put himself at such risk of losing his life if there was no resurrection. If he had nothing more than temporal “human hopes”, what good would his missionary work do anyone? In that case, it would make more sense for him to live solely for the pleasures of the moment, as Isaiah 22:13 described (cf. Isa 56:12; Wis 2:5–6; Luke 12:19). Finally, the apostle did not want his fellow believers in Corinth to be deceived by those who denied the reality of the resurrection. To emphasize his point, the apostle quoted from the Greek poet, Menander, a man whose writings the Corinthians might have known. The resurrection doubters were the “bad company” (1 Cor 15:33) who would poison the thinking, ruin the “good character”, and corrupt the behavior of unsuspecting believers (cf. Menander’s play, Thais, fragment 187 [218]). The anti-resurrection crowd was not only a toxic influence, but also “ignorant of God” (1 Cor. 15:34). Paul considered it shameful that such a dearth of theological knowledge was present in the church at Corinth. The apostle summoned the believers to give up their sinful point of view and return to a sober, accurate understanding of the resurrection. Paul’s remarks indicate that there is a direct connection between what people believe about the future and how they behave in the present. For instance, those who think that death is the absolute end of personal existence tend to see little reason for living morally. After Paul elaborated on some of the theological implications of denying the resurrection of the dead, he next focused on describing the nature of the resurrection body. His intent was to get at the core of the objections advanced by his readers. As was noted earlier, they contested the idea of a dead physical body coming back to life. This aversion, though, did not deter the apostle from insisting that believers would have real bodies at the resurrection. Still, it would be incorrect to infer

162

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

from this truth that Paul had in mind either the “reanimation of decayed corpses” (Garland 2003:701) or a “spruced-up version of the physical body” (733). Rather, there is a profound difference between a resurrection body and an earthly one. In what Conzelmann (1975:280) refers to as a “loose diatribe style”, the apostle imagined the questions the Corinthians might have had about the resurrection body. For instance, a presumed group of dissenters would want to know what form the body would take (v. 35; cf. 2 Bar 49:2). In response, Paul rhetorically labeled as “foolish” (1 Cor 15:36)—that is, senseless or thoughtless—anyone who would ask such questions (cf. Barrett 1968:370; Bruce 1971:151; Gill 2002:179–180; Mare 1976:290; Sampley 2002:987; Thiselton 2000:1263). Next, the apostle explained that the natural world existing all around his readers showed how physical entities went through transformation and were of different types. For an example, Paul referred to plant life. He noted that a seed is a sort of body, and it undergoes a kind of death when it is sown; but then the seed grows into a plant, which is another type of body (v. 37). There is continuity between the seed and the plant, and yet they are different in form and function. The apostle used a number of different examples to teach that various physical entities in the natural world were different from one another (v. 38). Seeds, for example, differed; human and animal bodies also differed from one another (v. 39); and heavenly bodies were glorious in a different way than were earthly bodies (v. 40). Among heavenly bodies—such as the sun, moon, and stars—there are differing kinds of glory (or splendor). Even among a particular kind of heavenly body—namely, the stars— the glory (or radiance) differed (v. 41). Regardless of the distinctions, all of them were due to “God’s creative determination” (Fitzmyer 2008:590). What Paul stated in these verses reflects a prescientific understanding of how the world functioned (e.g. that living organisms were basically static and existed as separately created groups). If his observations are recognized as being couched in the language of appearance, then it is reasonable to regard them as being sufficiently valid on a theological level. It would be misguided, though, to insist that the apostle’s inferences have no intrinsic value just because he did not utilize modern sci-

Life and Death in the New Testament

163

entific classifications of organisms. The intent of Paul’s exposition was not to draft a precise taxonomy (contra Frame 2002:311; Klenck 2009:118; Morris 1995:86; cf. Brunner 1952:20–21; Bube 1971:203; Jeeves 1969:107; Lamoureux 2008:135–137; Wilcox 2004:41), but to use comparisons to natural things to explain how believers can be transformed in the resurrection (cf. Bruce 1977:308; Ciampa and Rosner 2010:801; Garland 2003:728; Harlow 2008:190–191; Hulsbosch 1965:10; Orr and Walther 1976:342, 346; Vos 1972:180–181). When the apostle’s underlying purpose is kept in mind, one can see how these verses affirm (rather than deny) the doctrinal integrity of God’s Word. Verse 38 draws attention to the Lord’s involvement in the natural world. As noted in chapter 2 of this study, just as God presided over the creation of the entire cosmos, so too He superintended the biological evolutionary process of all forms of carbon-based life on earth so that they developed according to His perfect will and for His everlasting glory. This includes His providential involvement in the planet’s history (through both natural and supernatural means) to foster the emergent complexity of life found across the globe (cf. Brown 2010:62; Jackelén 2006:623; McGrath 2010a:10; O’Connor and Wong 2006; van Huyssteen 2006:662–663). Moreover, it was stated that God created the cosmos with “functional integrity” (Murphy 2001). This means that while the universe is completely dependent on God for its existence, He has “endowed” it with the “ability to accomplish” its purpose without necessitating supernatural “corrections” or “interventions”. Paul wanted his readers to firmly grasp the truth that the new spiritual body raised from the dead would be related to the old natural body that dies; yet at the same time, the new body would be remarkably transformed in at least three ways to enable it to accommodate what its existence would be like in the eternal state (cf. Barrett 1968:373; Fee 2007:116, 517, 519; Fitzmyer 2008:591; Grosheide 1984:383; Prior 1985:273; Sampley 2002:987; Thiselton 2000:1273). Whereas the natural body was weak, subject to sin, and prone to sickness and death, the transformed spiritual body would not die, could not engage in unrighteousness, and would share in the resurrection power of the Son Himself (vv. 42–44). Moreover, as with a seed placed in the ground and the plant it produces, there is both continuity and a splendid difference between

164

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

what dies and what is raised from the dead. Put another way, the seed is not the same as the plant, anymore than the resurrection body is metaphysically the same as the old body. Kreitzer (1993c:807–808) clarifies that the phrase “the resurrection of the dead” (v. 42) loses some of its emphasis when it is translated from Greek to English. In English, people usually think of “dead” as a “state of being” or a locale where individuals who have “departed” reside. In Greek, however, the phrase “resurrection of the dead” conveys a “much more dynamic image”. When translated literally, it says something like “the standing up from the midst of corpses”. From a theological perspective, Paul was not saying that the cadaver of a deceased believer literally comes back to life, but that God causes life to rise out of death as a new, glorified body emerges. As Kreitzer (1993b:74) points out, it is “extremely difficult to know precisely what Paul envisioned this body to be like or what bodily properties he held it to have”. In truth, the many comparisons the apostle used in verses 36–44 show how inadequate and constricted “language” (75) can be in trying to explain in a definitive, accurate way what “resurrection” is and how it happens. Undoubtedly, the idea of the resurrection body being “spiritual” (v. 44) is absurd to an atheistic, naturalistic mindset; nonetheless, as noted in chapter 2 of this study, with respect to the Messiah, almighty God directly intervened to bring about a time-bound, historical circumstance and outcome that is beyond scientific verification. Paul insisted on the truthfulness of what he wrote by once more comparing Adam and Jesus, in which an “antithetical orientation” (Vos 1972:11) between the two figures is set within an “eschatological framework” (Barrett 1962:73). The apostle drew his readers’ attention to Genesis 2:7 (cf. Wis 15:11). As was noted in chapter 4 of this study, Genesis 2:7 reveals that when the Creator breathed life into the first Homo sapien, he became a “living being” (1 Cor 15:45). The implication is that the biological progenitor of the human race had a physical, natural body. In contrast to the “first Adam”, the “last Adam” became a “life-giving spirit”. Paul was referring to Jesus’ resurrection body, which was raised in a glorified, supernatural form (cf. Chia 2005:189; Collins 2006a:146– 147; Dahl 1964:429–430; Green 2008:173; Guthrie 1981a:337; Marshall 2004:265; McRay 2003:416). Due to that historic event, Jesus is the “Liv-

Life and Death in the New Testament

165

ing One who gives life to others” (Fee 2007:119). On one level, the Savior “fulfilled in His life the potentialities of unfallen Adam” (Merrill 1991:17). On another level, the sacrificial death and resurrection of the Savior “restored all mankind to those potentialities”. In light of these monumental achievements, Jesus is the “perfect counterpoint to Adam” (Matera 2010:143). The apostle stressed that Adam’s natural body preceded the spiritual one of the risen Lord (v. 46). Perhaps Paul made this emphasis because the Corinthians thought they had already entered into a wholly metaphysical state of existence. In reality, they had to complete their lives with morally depraved, natural bodies like the one belonging to Adam. As was noted in chapter 2 of this study, everyone is born in a state of sin and guilt, has an inner tendency or disposition toward sinning, and is powerless to rescue themselves from their predicament (cf. Eccles 7:29; Jer 17:9; 2 Bar 4:3; 17:2–4; 23:4; 43:2; 48:46; 54:15, 19; 56:5–6; 4 Ezra 3:7, 21–22, 26–27; 4:30; 7:118; Sir 14:17; 15:14; 25:24; Wis 2:23–24; Rom 3:23; 6:23; 7:5, 13; Eph 2:1–3). It is only at the resurrection that believers receive a glorified, heavenly body like that of the Savior. He alone is both the “Inaugurator of the new humanity” (Ridderbos 1997a:56) and the “prototype of God’s new human creation” (Dunn 1998:265). Paul further differentiated Adam and Jesus by noting that the “first man” (1 Cor 15:47), as a “living being” (v. 45), was made from the soil of the ground and thus earthly in nature. Oppositely, the resurrection body of the “second man” (v. 47) was heavenly, or spiritual, in nature (cf. Barth 1956:22; Barrett 1968:375; Bruce 1971:151–152; Edgar 2002:37; Fitzmyer 2008:598–599; Garland 2003:737; Grosheide 1984:388; Sampley 2002:988; Thiselton 2000:1286). All Adam’s physical descendants inherited his “earthly” (v. 48) type of body, and as was noted in chapter 2 of this study, shared his spiritual and genetic fingerprint. In contrast, all Jesus’ spiritual offspring receive “heavenly” bodies when they are raised from the dead. Moreover, all who came after the man of dust bore his “image” (v. 49). The encouragement and exhortation for believers was for them to wear the likeness of the one who came from heaven. From a theological perspective, even though within fallen humanity the image of God has been defaced through sin, people still bear the divine

166

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

likeness to some degree (cf. Gen 5:1; 9:6; Jas 3:9). For believers, the image of God not only includes temporal (physical) life, but also eternal life (cf. Bruce 1977:311; Brunner 1952:58; Godet 1979:858–859; Kreitzer 1993a:75; Levison 1993:189; Lioy 2010:8; Witherington 1998:148; Wright 2005:28). Paul reiterated in straightforward terms that natural, earthly bodies were not suited to a spiritual, heavenly existence. Put another way, that which was subject to death and decomposition could never receive as an inheritance that which was eternal and glorious in nature (1 Cor 15:50). Lincoln (1981:53) explains that Paul’s “concept of the heavenly dimension” is “firmly tied” to his “view of humanity and its destiny”. More specifically, the apostle believed that the “heavenly dimension was not simply a peripheral cosmological trapping”, in other words, a mode of being that had “nothing to do with the real essence of human existence”. Likewise, Paul did not regard heaven as an “order of existence” that “completely separated Christ from humanity”. Instead, the apostle considered heaven to be “integral to humanity”, in accordance with the sovereign and eternal will of God. At this point, the apostle had a “mystery” (v. 51) to impart to his readers. For Paul, a mystery was a truth that in times past had been veiled, but now was disclosed through the Messiah (cf. Danker 2000:662; Finkenrath 1986:504; Krämer 1993:448; Liefeld 2009:361; Louw and Nida 1989:345; O’Brien 1993b:622; Orr and Walther 1976:351). In the present context, this mystery was that living and also deceased believers would have their bodies miraculously transformed when the Lord Jesus returned. The apostle revealed that not all Christians would “sleep” (that is, physically die). Some believers would be alive at the time of the Second Advent. Be that as it may, all believers would be “changed”, which means their earthly bodies would be reconstituted and transformed into glorified, resurrected ones. Paul disclosed that at the consummation of history, this metamorphosis would happen in the “smallest conceivable instant” (Garland 2003:743), that is, quicker than the blink of an eye (v. 52). In the Old Testament era, the Jews would blow a series of trumpets to signal the start of great feasts and other significant religious events (cf. Num 10:10). The sounding of the “last trumpet” (1 Cor 15:52) on the

Life and Death in the New Testament

167

day of the Lord would signal the occurrence of the resurrection (cf. Isa 27:13; Joel 2:1, 15; Zeph 1:14–16; Zech 9:14; 4 Ezra 6:23; Sib Or 4:173– 175). There are at least three primary views regarding the nature of the final trumpet: (1) It is the seventh and last in a series of trumpet calls that would be sounded at the resurrection (cf. Rev 8:2, 6, 13; 11:15). The end of the present world order would then be ushered in. (2) It is the loud trumpet blast mentioned in Matthew 24:31. At the Redeemer’s second coming, He would dispatch His angels to gather His chosen from all over the earth. (3) It is the sounding of the trumpet mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. The redeemed would be carried away from the earth prior to a period of tribulation and the Savior’s return to earth (cf. Best and Huttar 2009:352; Friedrich 1999:86–87; Harris 1986:874; Jones 1992:938–939; Ryken 1998:900; Werner 1962:472–473). Regardless of which view is favored, Paul’s overriding theological point remains clear, namely, that “perishable” (1 Cor 15:53), mortal bodies were unfit to inhabit heaven. Consequently, it was necessary for them to be transformed into “imperishable”, immortal ones. It would be incorrect to conclude from what the apostle revealed that there is no real connection between the earthly body and the heavenly body; instead, the fundamental difference between one’s temporal and eternal existence was like a person putting on a new robe. The weak and dying bodies of believers would be replaced by ones that would not be ravaged by death and decay. In that future day, the long-anticipated defeat of “death” (v. 54) would occur. Here death is “personified as God’s eschatological antagonist” (Schnelle 2009:247) that needed to be vanquished. Paul quoted Isaiah 25:8 to indicate that the sovereign Lord would completely conquer death. Then, in 1 Corinthians 15:55, the apostle quoted Hosea 13:14, the context of which is a prophecy of God’s judgment against Israel. Paul sought to rhetorically taunt “death” as if it was a loser that did not have ultimate power to inflict harm. The apostle was probably not so much making an argument in 1 Corinthians 15:55 based on Scripture, but rather using biblical language to emphasize an important theological truth. Metaphorically speaking, death was like a poisonous hornet or scorpion whose stinger had been pulled and “drained of potency” (Ciampa and Rosner 2010:836). Jesus, through His atoning

168

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

sacrifice, had dealt a lethal blow to death. The believers’ confident expectation was that when the Messiah returned, He would raise them from the dead. In this way, He would rescue them forever from the clutches of death (cf. John 11:25–26). In 1 Corinthians 15:56, Paul told his readers that it was through the presence of sin that death received its power to hurt believers. As the apostle revealed in Romans 5:12, after Adam disobeyed God’s command, death became a permanent fixture in his life and in the lives of all his physical descendants. Paul also disclosed that sin misappropriated the Mosaic law to manipulate people. Sin was like a personified entity that used God’s commands to produce all sorts of wrong desires in people and to seduce them into disobeying Him (cf. 7:7–11). Apart from God, all people are powerless to resist sin or overcome death. The apostle gave thanks to the Father for the triumph available through His Son, the risen Lord Jesus (1 Cor 15:57). Paul wanted his cherished friends to remain steadfast in his teaching about the resurrection and resolute in their faith, for they had ultimate victory in the Redeemer (cf. Gilkey 1959:267, 283–284; Gorman 2004:281; Matera 2007:147; Peters 1989:108; Polhill 1999:250; Polkinghorne 2009b:136). The hope of the resurrection was meant to spur on the apostle’s readers (and all believers) to serve the Lord diligently and wholeheartedly. The apostle assured them that their efforts would never be wasted, since in the Savior they would bear eternal fruit and reap a heavenly reward (v. 58). Jesus and the Destiny of Believers (Heb 2:5–18) In conjunction with what was discussed in chapter 3 of this study concerning Hebrews 1:1–3, McDonough (2009:210) observes that among the New Testament letters, “Hebrews significantly illuminates our understanding” of Jesus’ “role in primal creation”, especially in connection with His “messianic status”. Attridge (1989:69) goes further when he refers to Jesus as “God’s instrument in creation who is now enthroned in majesty”. In line with these theological observations, because of the Son’s status as the Creator, His divine-human nature, and His redemptive work, the author of Hebrews warned his readers about the danger of drifting away from the Christian faith. Moreover, the writer emphasized the importance of them taking the message of the gospel seriously.

Life and Death in the New Testament

169

The salvation Jesus offered was so great that ignoring it would bring eternally dire consequences. Next, in 2:1–4, the writer of the epistle commented on the great salvation announced by the Lord, confirmed by the apostles, and validated by the miracles they performed. In what Witherington (2009:415) considers to be a “tour de force argument”, the author revealed that angels would not control the new “world to come” (vs. 5). This refers to the “eschatological realm of salvation” (Lane 1991a:46), which would reach its final and most complete stage at the Messiah’s second advent. The Father had made His Son the King of the future inhabited earth with its people and their civilizations (cf. Heb 11:10; 13–16; 12:22–24; Rev 21:1–3, 10–27). To explain this point, the writer showed how Jesus, the perfect man, fulfilled the ideal for humans to be rulers; for instance, in Hebrews 2:6–8, the writer quoted Psalm 8:4–6 (cf. 3 Enoch 5:10; 4 Ezra 6:53–59; Gen Rab 8:6). Hughes (1977:84) regards this sacred song as a “poetic recapitulation of the account of man’s creation in Genesis 1”. As was noted in chapter 3 of this study, Psalm 8:4–6 present the paradox of people being insignificant yet highly honored. David wondered why God loved and cared so much for humans, who seemed puny and trivial against the backdrop of the universe. After all, in the present era, God made people, who are mortal, lower in rank to the angels, who are immortal; nevertheless, God also crowned humans, like a monarch, with glory and honor. Also, like a conqueror, they had the world put under their feet. On one level, God has blessed humans with a “divine, ongoing commission” (Guthrie 2007:945). Yet, on another level, the Old Testament reveals there is a “repeated failure to fulfill that commission by Adam, Noah, Israel, and so forth”. In Hebrews 2:7, the phrase “a little lower” could also be rendered “for a little while lower”. In that case, the phrase would refer to the fact that humans are inferior in status to immortal angels only during the present era, due to the fact that people are mortal. Until their sin, Adam and Eve enjoyed the “potential for immortality” (Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:217); and after the resurrection, believers will be immortal again. The author of Hebrews picked up on the last phrase of the quote in verse 8 to reaffirm that “everything” in the world was subjected to people (cf. Gen 1:28); but then the author pointed out the obvious fact

170

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

that, as believers looked about them, they saw that humans were not in complete control of the world. While God intended people to live and govern the world under His authority, they had rejected that position, choosing instead to go the way of sin, following the plan of God’s archenemy, the devil. As a result, people found themselves no longer free, but enslaved to the masters they had chosen: sin and Satan (Heb 2:14, 17). Also, tragically, those two entities brought humanity into further subjection to death itself (vv. 14–15). The writer of Hebrews explained that while not everything was subject to humans, believers focused the eyes of their faith on “Jesus” (v. 9), who fulfilled the ideal for Homo sapiens that David described. Moreover, from a theological standpoint, it was by inherent privilege that the hierarchy of God’s order was set: Jesus belonged to the highest honor, the angels came next, and humanity fell into third position; but as the epistle continued, the writer highlighted Jesus’ unbelievable humility. He, who had eternally occupied first place willingly, for a time, gave up that position. He stooped not merely to second place—the level of the angels—but accepted an even lower position, equality with human beings (vv. 11, 14, 17). Concededly, all things were subject to the Son, including the future messianic age. To fulfill the ideal, Jesus had to become a true human being. Like other people, He was made “lower than the angels” (v. 9) for a relatively brief period. Thus, though Jesus was fully God, He also became fully human. Of course, as a man, the Son was without sin and He obeyed the Father even to the point of dying for the sins of humanity. For the Son’s obedience, the Father crowned Him “with glory and honor”. The risen and exalted Redeemer now sits on the throne in heaven at the right hand of the Father (cf. Heb 1:4; Phil 2:5–11). It was the Father’s desire that those who trusted in the Son (and thus became members of His spiritual family; cf. John 1:12) would share in Jesus’ “glory” (Heb 2:10). Only the Lord could make this happen, for He created all things and all things existed for His glory. Jesus was the “pioneer” of the believers’ “salvation”, for eternal life originated with Him (cf. Acts 3:15; 5:31; Heb 12:2). The writer’s pastoral intent was to encourage his readers to “press on towards the final destination” (O’Brien 2010:107) of their spiritual journey. Jesus, as their leader, first

Life and Death in the New Testament

171

went down the path of suffering, opening up the way of salvation so that others could enter it. Though the perfect Son of God, Jesus needed to become fully qualified as His followers’ human representative. He was made “perfect” (Heb 2:10) by successfully resisting temptations and enduring many trials, including death. In this way, He earned the right to be the Savior of redeemed humanity. By saying that the Father made the Son perfect, the writer of Hebrews did not intend to imply that the Messiah was ever spiritually or morally deficient or that He somehow improved Himself through suffering; rather, the author meant that the Son, by fully experiencing the bitterness of suffering, was altogether able to carry out the task the Father had given Him. Because the Messiah so thoroughly identified with humankind, He became qualified in every respect to be sacrificed on their behalf. Thus, by suffering on the cross, the Son fulfilled—or perfected—the plan of the Father. Also, the Son, by subjecting Himself to the Mosaic law, fulfilled it, thus satisfying the righteous demands of the Father. In this way, the Son restored believing sinners to a place of holiness with the Father. In fact, both Jesus and His followers belonged to the same heavenly Father. That is the reason Jesus was not ashamed to affirm them as members of His heavenly family (v. 11). The author of Hebrews was trying to dissuade his readers from turning back to their former religious tradition. One way he could change their minds was by emphasizing the familial bond they had with the Redeemer. He was not just their Savior and Lord; He was also proud to call them His spiritual “brothers and sisters”. This truth would encourage them to remain loyal to the Messiah even in the midst of their darkest trials. In verse 12, the writer quoted from Psalm 22:22, which concerns the sufferings and triumphs of God’s righteous servant. The author of Hebrews noted that the Son proclaimed the Father’s holy character to the Son’s followers, namely, those who believed in Him. Furthermore, the Son would sing the Father’s praises in the midst of the redeemed, and in this way show them that the Son was one with them. Evidently, at some point in David’s life, he faced a combination of evils: he was sick; enemies surrounded him; and he felt abandoned by God. Israel’s king wrote Psalm 22 to describe his feelings at that time. No known episode in David’s life could account, in a literal sense, for many of the expres-

172

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

sions in this psalm; yet those expressions fit the suffering of David’s greatest descendant, the Lord Jesus, in a remarkably literal way. Hebrews 2:13 quotes Isaiah 8:17–18 to express how the Son put His trust in the Father to see the Son through His earthly ministry. Additionally, believers were the spiritual children whom the Father had given to the Son (cf. John 6:37; 10:27–29; 17:6). The idea is that if Jesus was their spiritual brother, then God was their Father. Ultimately, of course, Jesus joined humanity to become the Savior. Given the divine imperative to redeem the lost, it was necessary for the Son to become incarnate. He then died on the cross to atone for humanity’s sins. In this way, Jesus broke the devil’s “power” (Heb 2:14) to kill, for his accusations against believers were now groundless (cf. 1 En 10:13; Sib Or 3:63–74; Test of Dan 5:10; Test Judah 25:3; Test Levi 18:2; Wis 1:12–14; 2:23–24; Matt 12:25–30; Luke 10:18; John 12:31; 1 John 3:8; Rev 12:7–10). It would be incorrect to conclude from Hebrews 2:14 that Jesus somehow caused the devil to no longer exist; rather, the Messiah reduced to nothing Satan’s ability to wield the “power of death”. Expressed differently, Jesus metaphysically emasculated the wicked despot so that he would no longer exploit people through their tendency to sin and their dread of dying. Verse 15 revealed that people were gripped by the “fear of death”. The devil, in turn, took advantage of this phobia to enslave people; but Jesus, through His redemptive work at Calvary, freed believers from Satan’s oppression. Consequently, rather than enter the afterlife with angst and uncertainty, they could face death with security and assurance, for they knew that their sins had been forgiven. The incarnation of the Messiah pointed to the theological truth that He came to earth to help the seed of Abraham, not “angels” (v. 16). It seems best to see the writer of Hebrews referring to both saved Jews and Gentiles in his mention of “Abraham’s descendants” (cf. Gal 3:29). The divine plan of redemption included the Son representing human beings before the Father, just as the high priest represented all of Israel when he made atonement for the sins committed by the covenant community. In order for the Father’s will to be carried out, the Son was obligated to become fully human Himself. Furthermore, it was only by being tested in every way as people are and by triumphing over every temptation He encountered, that Jesus could be the “merciful and faith-

Life and Death in the New Testament

173

ful high priest” (Heb 2:17) of those who trusted in Him. In His service before the Father, the Son proved Himself to be gracious and reliable to meet the spiritual needs of believers. This is the first time in Hebrews that the author labeled Jesus as the High Priest. Perhaps the writer hinted at this title in 1:3, when he wrote that the Son had done what priests do, that is, provide purification for sins. Though the Son was without sin, He died on the cross to atone for the transgressions of others; and He demonstrated His faithfulness by bearing and appeasing the Father’s wrath. The idea is that the Son, at the cross, dealt with humanity’s sin in such a way that it no longer stood as a barrier to open fellowship with the Father. This, in turn, implied the restoration of the once broken relationship between God and believers (cf. Rom 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). The Father’s love for the lost was the reason the Son sacrificed Himself on their behalf (cf. John 3:16; 1 John 4:9–10). Hebrews 2:18 reveals that Jesus shared all the facets of human experience, including hunger, fatigue, temptation, and pain. This assured believers that they could look to Him for help in their time of testing, confident that He had experienced similar trials and was the helper they needed. The Gospel of Matthew indicates that after Jesus was baptized, the Spirit sent Him out into the desert to be tempted by Satan (cf. Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). The phrase “led by the Spirit” (Matt. 4:1) means the Messiah was directed and empowered by the Spirit. The Greek verb rendered “tempted” can denote either “being put to the test” or “being enticed to sin”; the latter is the meaning here. As the representative for sinful humanity, Jesus had to endure real temptation and triumph over it. The three particular temptations mentioned by Matthew apparently occurred at the end of Jesus’ 40-day fast (v. 2). Therefore, when the devil launched his final attacks, Jesus was at a disadvantage. As believers know from their own experience, temptation, anxiety, and worry tend to threaten them most powerfully during their moments of physical exhaustion. With respect to the Lord Jesus’ temptation, He countered each challenge with Scripture. The writer of Hebrews wanted his readers to understand that because of all the suffering Jesus endured on earth, He had empathy for those who were being tempted and was able to carry them through their time of testing (Heb 2:18).

174

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective Jesus as the Believers’ Compassionate High Priest (Heb 4:14–5:10; 7:1–28; 9:1–10:18)

In the preceding section, it was noted that Hebrews draws attention to the Son’s status as the Creator, His divine-human nature, and His redemptive work (cf. 1:1–4). Likewise, 4:14–5:10; 7:1–28; and 9:1–10:18 deal with these theological issues. Additional creation themes that are discussed include the insidious presence of sin within the human race and the Father’s response to it through the high priestly ministry of His Son. The latter is an appropriate emphasis, for as was noted in chapter 4 of this study, God expected Adam to perform various sacerdotal responsibilities within Eden, including the cultivation and upkeep of the shrine-garden (cf. Gen 2:15). Furthermore, it was stated that from the beginning, the Creator had a special covenantal arrangement with Adam and Eve (cf. Apoc of Moses 7:1; Test of Moses 1:12–14). Similarly, the Lord established the Mosaic covenant with the people of Israel (cf. Exod 19–24). They were also the recipients of the law God issued to Moses on Mount Sinai (cf. chaps. 19–20). In the first century of the common era, the Jews looked upon the Mosaic law as their most prized possession (cf. Rom 2:17). Moreover, the faith community engaged in the “temple worship” (9:3), which included its various sacrifices and offerings. This was a great privilege, in view of the fact that God manifested His glorious presence in the Jerusalem shrine (cf. Ezek 43:4). As well, the Jews were the heirs of God’s special promises—above all, those made to Abraham, the forefather of the chosen people (cf. Gen 12:7; Rom 4:1). Accordingly, the writer of Hebrews framed his theological discussion about the divine response to the Fall in categories of thought that were familiar to his original audience. The latter emphases included Jesus’ all-sufficient, atoning sacrifice for sin and His status as the great high priest of the new covenant, which He administered in the heavenly tabernacle. Since the dawn of human history, people offered sacrifices to God. For instance, at the end of the growing season, Cain (the first son of Adam and Eve) brought some of his harvest as an offering to the Lord (Gen 4:3). Likewise, Abel (Cain’s brother) offered to the Lord “fat portions” (v. 4) taken from “some of the firstborn” sheep of his herd. Later,

Life and Death in the New Testament

175

after the great Flood, Noah presented “burnt offerings” (8:20) to God to express his gratitude for the Lord’s deliverance of him and his family. Each of the Old Testament patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, often built altars on which they made offerings to the Lord as a demonstration of their faith in His covenant (cf. 12:7–8; 13:18; 22:9; 26:25; 33:20; 35:1, 3, 7). Be that as it may, it was not until the Israelites had camped in the Sinai desert that the Lord instituted formal sacrifices among His people. Moses instructed the Israelites to make five different types of sacrifices: burnt, grain, fellowship, sin, and guilt offerings (cf. Lev 1:1–7:21; Anderson 1992:877–879; Averbeck 1997:1020–1021; Averbeck 2003a:710– 722; Beckwith 2000:756–759; Carpenter 1988:268–269; Gaster 1962c:148–149; Rainey 2009:242–249; VanGemeren 2001:854–855). In the biblical era, there were three orders in the hierarchy of priests: the high priests, priests, and Levites. Whereas the Levites were subordinate sanctuary officials who supervised the minor duties of the temple, the priests were associates of the high priests. Priests were to come from the tribe of Levi and had to be without any physical defect. They were organized into 24 divisions that served the sanctuary in rotation. Each of the divisions ministered for a week, beginning on the Sabbath, except during the annual feasts, at which time all the priests served together. The ceremony of consecration of the priests was much like that for the high priest, but not as elaborate. The clothing of the priests included a tunic, breeches, and a turban—all of which were made with white linen, as well as a white linen girdle embroidered with blue, purple, and scarlet. The chief duties of the priests were the care of the sanctuary vessels and the sacrifices at the altar; but the priests also taught the law, watched over the physical health of the nation, and administered justice (cf. Abba 1962:877–880; Duke 2003:651–654; Ellingworth 2000:697–698; Feinberg 2009b:966–967; Klingbeil 2005:811–814, 818; McCready 1986:967–968; Rehm 1992:304–305). Under the old covenant, the sacrificial system was God’s provision for reconciling sinful people to Himself. Even though God prescribed these sacrifices, they had limitations. They were external rituals and ceremonies, and they were not able to change the hearts of the worshipers. Also, the sacrifices needed to be repeated, because they could not atone for future sins. Only sins already committed were covered. Moreover,

176

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

repetition was required to atone for any sins committed since the last sacrifice was made. Another weakness was that from the time the Lord gave the law of Moses until the time of the Messiah’s death and resurrection, believers had to go through priests to have access to God. If someone needed atonement for sins, only a priest could offer a sacrifice in that person’s behalf. Also, if someone wanted to sacrifice an animal to God, the priest was required to offer it on the altar. Furthermore, only once a year, on the day of atonement (i.e. Yom Kippur), the high priest entered the most holy place, stood before the ark of the covenant, and made atonement for the sins of the people (cf. Feinberg 2009a:442–445; Garrett 1996:252–254; Hartley 2003:56–57; Möller and Payne 1979:360– 362; Motyer 2001:114; Rylaarsdam 1962:314–315; Wright 1992:72–73). For Jews living in the first century of the common era, the Mosaic law was final. To them, it was God’s definitive word to humanity. Along the same lines, the Levitical priesthood also had an air of finality for the Jewish people. This mindset stood firm, even though their religious system was quite limited and imperfect. The writer of Hebrews did not share the widespread Jewish perspective, arguing instead that God had devised a better way (cf. Averbeck 2003a:732; Fanning 1994a:396; Guthrie 1981a:697–698; Ladd 1997:628–629; Marshall 2004:609–610; Matera 2007:344; Morris 1990:305–306; McRay 2003:321; Schreiner 2008:384– 385, 665–666; Thielman 2005:602; Witherington 2009:445; Witherington 2010:240). It is against this theological backdrop that 4:14 might be regarded as the thesis statement of the epistle. Perhaps there is no other strong and straightforward declaration about the superiority of the Messiah’s priesthood in the rest of Scripture. The author had touched on Jesus as the believers’ High Priest in 2:17 and 3:1, but at this point in the letter, the topic became a controlling concept. By calling Jesus a “great high priest” (4:14), the writer implied Jesus’ primacy over all the generations of Jewish high priests. Though the high priests were the only ones permitted to pass beyond the final curtain of the tabernacle or temple into the most holy place, Jesus had “ascended into heaven” (or, alternately, “passed through the heavens”) and taken His divinely ordained place at the Father’s right hand. As was noted in chapter 3 of this study, an examination of the New Testament discloses the presence of a three-tiered notion of reality. In keeping

Life and Death in the New Testament

177

with this finding, Guthrie (2002:30) stated that the “biblical writers joined other peoples of the ancient world in describing the universe phenomenologically”, namely, “as they observed it”. The Letter to the Hebrews was directed to believers who faced adverse circumstances and challenges to their faith. Evidently, they had failed to progress in their spiritual understanding and discernment. They also seemed to be growing more slothful and discouraged. Moreover, they had even begun to question whether they should remain professing Christians or revert to their old ways and traditions. In response, the writer urged his readers to embrace resolutely their faith in “the Son of God” (4:14). This is a significant messianic title for Jesus of Nazareth and emphasizes the special and intimate relationship that exists between the first and second persons of the Trinity. “Son of God” indicates that Jesus is to be identified with the Father and considered fully and absolutely equal to Him (cf. 2 Bar 70:9; 4 Ezra 7:28–29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9; Matt 16:16; Luke 1:35; John 5:18; 6:40; 10:30, 36; 14:13; 17:1; Bauer 1992:770; Bock 2002:599; Cole 2009:579; Drane 1998:1112–1113; Evans 2000:1136; Fossum 1992:136; Guthrie 2002:30; Hurtado 2003:103–104; Michel and Marshall 1986:611–612). The Messiah was not austere, aloof, or fear-inducing; instead He was willing and able to “empathize” (Heb 4:15) with the “weaknesses” of His spiritual brothers and sisters. After all, when He became fully human, He experienced life just as any person did. More to the point, Jesus faced all the sorts of temptations others encounter; but unlike the rest of humanity, the believers’ “high priest” remained sinless (cf. John 7:18; 8:46; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 7:26; 1 Pet 1:19; 2:22; 1 John 3:5). A superficial analysis might suggest that if Jesus did not sin, He was not truly human, for all humans sin; but such a contention fails to realize that human beings are in an abnormal state. God did not create Adam and Eve as sinful, but as holy and righteous (cf. Gen 1:26–27). As noted in chapters 2 and 4 of this study, it was their willful disobedience that introduced sin into the human race (cf. Gen 3:1–24; Rom 5:12). Another incorrect supposition is that because Jesus never sinned, He could not really have compassion for the weaknesses of others; but only a person who has never transgressed has experienced and resisted the full force of temptation. Unlike the rest of sinful humanity, the Son

178

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

never yielded to the sinful enticements He experienced. Accordingly, the faultless one, rather than turning haughtily away from sinners, invited such people to approach His Father’s “throne” (Heb 4:16), where they would find “grace”. They were encouraged to do so bravely, not timidly, due to what the Lord Jesus had achieved for them at Calvary. They were to draw near to God to “receive mercy”, as well as “find grace” whenever they needed assistance. The writer of Hebrews explained that Israel’s religious leaders chose a “high priest” (5:1) from a pool of qualified men (namely, the descendants of Aaron) and “appointed” him to that office. This means that no person could lobby to be a priest and no amount of human initiative could make one worthy of the office. The eligibility for priestly service was already settled by God’s choosing (v. 4). Indeed, the Lord selected Aaron as the first high priest (cf. Exod 28:1). Each accredited high priest represented his fellow Israelites in matters pertaining to God. Specifically, he offered “gifts” (Heb 5:1; which were voluntary) and “sacrifices” (which were required) to expiate their “sins”. The author of Hebrews disclosed that the priests had “weaknesses” (v. 2) of their own. For this reason, they could understand the frailty of the ones they were representing, offer kindly direction to the “ignorant”, and gently admonish the wayward. Moreover, a priest’s sinful nature morally obligated him to “offer sacrifices” (v. 3) to atone for his own misdeeds as well as for those of the faith community he represented. The Mosaic law first required the high priest to present a bull for his own sin offering on the day of atonement (cf. Lev. 16:11). Only after he had made this sacrifice was he permitted to minister on behalf of others. In the performance of his sacerdotal responsibilities, the high priest was to take the middle ground between apathy and anger. Expressed differently, he was called upon not to be indifferent toward his people’s moral failures, but at the same time, he was not to treat them too harshly for such lapses. He recognized that his high-priestly office was sacred, and it was an “honor” (Heb 5:4) to serve in it. To seize control of this office would be a sign of disrespect for God, who had graciously instituted it. Concerning the Son, He did not unilaterally assume the honor of the high priesthood, but rather was called to the office by the Father (v.

Life and Death in the New Testament

179

5). To illustrate this point, the author of the epistle first quoted Psalm 2:7 (cf. Ps Sol 17:14–20; Test of Levi 4:2; Acts 4:25–26; 13:33–34; Heb. 1:5). In that passage, the Father declared that the anointed one was His Son. Evidently, the Israelites applied Psalm 2:7 to the descendants of David, whom they crowned as king; yet, the verse’s ultimate reference is to the Messiah. The idea is that the Father declared Jesus to be His Son when He raised Him from the dead (cf. Acts 13:30; Rom 1:4). In this momentous event, the Father conferred great dignity on His Son and officially ratified His installment to His high-priestly office in heaven. The writer of Hebrews then quoted from Psalm 110:4 to stress that the Father appointed His Son to a unique and exalted sacerdotal office. Specifically, Jesus’ priesthood was not in the Aaronic line. The Son was a High Priest forever in “the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:6). Melchizedek, who predated Aaron by centuries, was a king and priest of Salem during the lifetime of Abraham. Melchizedek directed the worship of his subjects, as well as exercised political authority over them. Melchizedek means “my king is righteousness” or “king of righteousness”, which certainly is an appropriate name for the Redeemer. In this way, Melchizedek is an Old Testament type of the Messiah, who also is the perfect combination of a king-priest in one person. (The historical circumstances involving Melchizedek and his theological significance are covered below; cf. Allison 1997:729; Andrews 2003:562, 564; Astour 1992:684, 686; Burdick 1986:312–313; Kennard 2008:354–355; Paul 1997b:934–935; Peterson 2000:659; Waltke 2009b:192). In verse 7, the writer directed his readers’ attention to the “prayers and petitions” made by the Son to the Father (cf. 2 Macc 11:6; 3 Macc 1:16; 5:7, 25). Of particular interest is the time in the garden of Gethesemane when the Messiah anguished over the prospect of having to die on the cross (cf. Matt 26:36–39; Mark 14:32–36; Luke 22:39–44). With vehement “cries and tears” (Heb 5:7), Jesus appealed to the one who could deliver Him out of “the realm or power of death” (Attridge 1989:150; cf. Pss 22:22–24; 116:1–8; Isa 53:3). The agony expressed by Jesus highlights His humanity, and by doing so, it also focuses attention on His oneness with the human race. In short, Jesus could have compassion on the lost because He suffered and died for them on the cross. Due to the fact that the Son honored and obeyed the Father, He an-

180

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

swered His Son’s request by raising Him from the dead and exalting Him to the throne room of heaven (cf. Rom 1:4; Heb 1:3; 13:20). Jesus’ priesthood was superior to that of Aaron, for it was eternal and heavenly in nature. Like the Aaronic priests, the Messiah could identify with those He represented and served; yet unlike the Aaronic priests, Jesus was guiltless. Whereas the priests of Aaron could not make permanent atonement for sins, the Lord Jesus, by the sacrifice of Himself, provided eternal redemption. Though the Aaronic priests could serve for only a limited period, the Messiah remained the believers’ High Priest forever. Accordingly, the writer of Hebrews urged believers to remain faithful to the Son. (These theological truths are covered below in more detail in connection with the discussion of Heb 9:1–10:18.) The author, in 5:8, may have been alluding to Jesus’ temptation in the desert as well as to the Crucifixion when he wrote about Jesus’ afflictions. In the process of His suffering, Jesus “learned obedience”. This does not imply that the Messiah turned from disobedience to obedience; rather, it means that the Son obeyed the Father in a way He had never done before, namely, as a human being. Verse 9 builds on this doctrinal point by revealing that Jesus was “made perfect”. This does not indicate that the Savior was ever in some way flawed; instead, the writer was emphasizing a “sort of completion of ministerial training” (Witherington 2009:429) in which the Son became “fully equipped and enabled to play the role of heavenly high priest”. Put another way, Jesus’ human experience entered a new dimension of fullness and culmination as a result of overcoming temptations and dying on the cross. On one level, Jesus came into the world, “like Adam, with a pure human nature” (Hughes 1977:188); but on another level, Jesus succeeded “where Adam failed”. Whereas Aaron and his successors offered many sacrifices that could never really propitiate sin, the Messiah offered one absolute sacrifice— Himself—to atone for transgressions forever; and, whereas the Aaronic priests served for a limited time, the Savior’s priesthood abides forever (cf. 7:23–28). Even though the Jewish religion with its Aaronic priesthood might have looked appealing to the initial recipients of the author’s epistle, the former religious tradition paled in comparison to Jesus and His unending, heavenly priesthood. Jesus’ life of learned obe-

Life and Death in the New Testament

181

dience and His victory over sin offset the disobedience of Adam (cf. Rom. 5:19). That is why the Messiah could become the source of “eternal salvation” (Heb 5:9) to everyone who obeyed Him. The corollary is that Jesus lived forever to intercede as the believers’ Melchizedekian “high priest” (v. 10). Aside from Psalm 110:4, Genesis 14:17–20 is the most extensive passage in the Old Testament concerning Melchizedek. In what is arguably the “most sustained messianic motif” (McDonough 2009:193) in Hebrews, the writer summarized the biblical data by noting that Melchizedek was the monarch who ruled over the city-state of Salem; in addition, he ministered as a “priest of God Most High” (7:1). The key factor is that Melchizedek was both a king and priest. Here was an individual outside the boundaries of God’s revelation to Israel and yet he worshiped the Lord. The author recounted how Melchizedek met with Abraham (probably before 2000 B.C.E.) when the patriarch was returning from his defeat of the kings of Elam, Goiim, Shinar, and Ellasar. During their meeting, Mechizedek blessed Abraham. The patriarch, from whom God promised to build the nation of Israel, responded by presenting Melchizedek with a tenth of the spoils he had taken in his victory over the four kings (v. 2). In ancient times, the person who collected the tithe was considered to be greater than the one who presented it. Also, the person who blessed was thought to be greater than the one who received the blessings (vv. 4–7). The implication is that Melchizedek was higher in rank than Abraham, along with all his descendants, including Levi and the priesthood originating from him (vv. 8–10). The recipient of Abraham’s gift was both a “king of righteousness” (7:2) and “peace”. As it stands, there is no record in Scripture of Melchizedek’s parents and ancestors. It is almost as if the life and priesthood of this “shadowy and mysterious” (Craddock 1998:85) person had no beginning or ending. In these ways, he prefigured or foreshadowed the “Son of God” (v. 3). Based on the Greek phrase rendered “without father or mother”, there is the possibility of incorrectly concluding that Melchizedek was a Christophany, that is, a preincarnate appearance of the Messiah; but this supposition misunderstands the actual intent of the author of Hebrews. He was making a sophisticated, nuanced comparison between Melchizedek and the Lord Jesus. For instance, like

182

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Melchizedek, there was no record of the Messiah’s priesthood beginning or ending; but unlike Melchizedek, it was because there really is no beginning or ending to Jesus’ sacerdotal ministry. The implication is that the Messiah, the King-Priest according to the royal “order of Melchizedek” (v. 17), was superior to all Levitical priests. The latter group, along with the Mosaic law, was unable to make anyone perfect in God’s eyes (v. 11). The preceding “regulation” (v. 18) was also “weak and useless”. In addition, all the sacrificial rituals performed by the priests had really done little toward reconciling penitent sinners with God (vs. 19). The preceding observations do not mean there were no faithful people in the Old Testament era who enjoyed a sense of nearness to God. The writer’s point was that the foundation of the Israelites’ legal system, along with the Levitical priesthood and the outward rituals they performed, was crumbling. For that reason, the Father annulled the old system and replaced it with the high priesthood of His Son (vv. 11–15). Jesus did not attain His priestly status on the basis of the Mosaic law, but by the power of a life that could not be destroyed (v. 16). As a human being, He died on the cross; but afterward, He rose again to new life and now lived forever. He was the “better hope” (v. 19) whom the Father introduced to give people complete and lasting access to Him. In essence, the gospel of salvation through faith in the Son was infinitely superior to the ritualistic law. The author noted that there was no divinely sworn affirmation when Levites became priests. In contrast, the Father made an “oath” (v. 20) in appointing the Son to His priesthood. Quoting once again from Psalm 110:4, the author showed his readers how this affirmation was worded: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever’” (Heb. 7:21; cf. 5:6, 10; 7:17). In Psalm 110:1, God the Father told David’s Lord (the Messiah) to occupy a regal position at the right hand of the divine. Therefore, God the Father was recorded as addressing God the Son in this passage. Hence, in verse 1, the Messiah was affirmed to be a king, and in verse 4, He was declared to be a priest. Whereas the Levitical priesthood had as its inception the Father’s command, the Son’s high priesthood had as its inception the promise the Father made to His Son. Unlike the Levitical priesthood, the Son’s sacerdotal ministry would not fall short of its goal, and consequently

Life and Death in the New Testament

183

would never come to an end. In the ancient world, people took an oath to back up a statement’s truthfulness. Sworn affirmations were used as a guarantee that a promise would be kept. Sometimes vows were even used as evidence in court. Those making solemn pledges often called for some punishment to be inflicted upon them if they broke their word. God’s covenant people would swear by someone greater than themselves, usually the king or the Lord. God adapted Himself to a human custom by sometimes making an oath as a guarantee of performance (cf. Heb. 6:17). When His vow was accompanied by a promise of blessing, it was given for assurance. Oppositely, with a promise of judgment, it amounted to a curse. Because of the Father’s oath concerning the Son’s eternal priesthood, the Son was the guarantee of a “better covenant” (7:22). This means the Savior took full responsibility for ensuring that the divine promises associated with the new covenant would be fulfilled. What the Father specifically pledged could be found in the new covenant recorded in Jeremiah 31:31–34 (cf. Heb. 8:8–12; 10:16–17). In contrast with the old covenant inaugurated at Mount Sinai, the new covenant ratified through Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, bestowed greater blessings on the righteous and executed more severe judgments on the wicked. In short, the final covenant was more complete in nature and comprehensive in scope (cf. chapter 6 of this study, which explores further the theological implications of the new covenant). There are two ways in which the Son was the guarantee (or surety) of a better covenant. First, He assured humanity that the Father would fulfill His promise to forgive. Second, the Son assured the Father that those who believed in the Son were acceptable and permitted to enter the Father’s presence. The Greek adjective translated “guarantor” (Heb 7:22) came from a word used to refer to the human hand. The idea is that what a person could see in another person’s hand was guaranteed. In Greek sources outside of the Bible, the same word was used for someone who acted as an undersigner, namely, someone who agreed to pay a banking debt or post bail if the debtor or prisoner defaulted (cf. Attridge 1989:208; Becker 1986:372; Danker 2000:271; Koester 2001:363– 364; Louw and Nida 1989:669; Preisker 1999:239; Spicq 1994:390–395). From a doctrinal perspective, Jesus, through His sacrifice on the cross,

184

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

paid off humanity’s debt of sin, and by doing so, provided believers eternal life. The author explained that under the old religious system, there had been numerous high “priests” (v. 23) to serve the Israelites; but because they all died, their time in that office was cut short. By contrast, death could not stop the Messiah’s service as the believers’ great High Priest. Because His life would never end, His heavenly sacerdotal ministry was “permanent” (v. 24). Moreover, the salvation the Son offered was ongoing in extent and everlasting in intent. Through His sacrifice, He was able once, now, and “completely” (v. 25) to eternally rescue those whom He led to the Father. No matter what the need of the repentant sinner, the Son was capable of saving the lost and making them worthy of entering into the Father’s presence. Furthermore, because the Son would never die, His intercession for (or pleading on behalf of) the redeemed before the Father never came to an end. The believers’ great High Priest was perfectly suited to meet their temporal and eternal needs. In particular, His ability to do so was based on five virtues. First, Jesus was “holy” (v. 26), which implies that He, like the Father and the Spirit, was free from all wickedness and the source of whatever is true, right, and good. Second, the Messiah was “blameless”, which indicates He was guiltless and without iniquity. Third, He was “pure”, in the sense that He was morally undefiled. Fourth, He had no part or association with “sinners”. Fifth, He occupied the highest place of honor in the “heavens”. Now that the Son’s sacrificial work on earth had been accomplished, He sat at the right hand of the Father’s throne. When taken together, these five virtues imply that Jesus possessed the morally spotless character of God. Whether in motives, thoughts, words, or acts, the Messiah was upright and pure. He was free from all forms of evil, and also loved all goodness and truth. Accordingly, He abhorred every aspect of wickedness, ethical impurity, and duplicity. As noted earlier, the Mosaic law required God’s people to offer a number of specific kinds of sacrifices. On some occasions, the leaders and citizens of Judah could bring the objects to be offered, but only the priests were authorized to perform the actual sacrifice. In all circumstances, these were to be made only to the Lord. Hebrews 7:27 presents

Life and Death in the New Testament

185

an interpretive problem, for the Jewish high priests did not make sin offerings on a daily basis. However, in 9:7 the author indicated that he was aware of the sacrificial regulations (cf. 9:25; 10:1). Therefore, for the sake of argument, he must have been combining the annual day of atonement sacrifices with the daily burnt offerings (cf. Num. 28:1–8). Naturally, any time a high priest himself sinned, he might offer a sacrifice for his trespass, but rarely on a daily basis. The Messiah stood in stark contrast to the “high priests” (Heb 7:27) of Israel. Unlike them, He did not have to “offer sacrifices” for any misdeeds of His own, for He was blameless. Also, He did not have to continuously offer ritualistic sacrifices for the transgressions of others, for He made the ultimate sacrifice of Himself at Calvary. He did so once and for all to atone for humanity’s transgressions. Expressed differently, Jesus’ sacrifice for the sins of the world was final. No other sacrifices needed to follow it. Two types (or orders) of priests are discussed in verse 28. Those appointed by the Mosaic law were subject to “weakness”. In contrast, the one High Priest sworn in by the oath of God was absolutely and eternally “perfect”. Moreover, the priests appointed by the law were limited, just as all ordinary people were limited. They were mortal and sinful and could only offer animals for sacrifices, which could never provide a real substitute for the sins of humanity. Oppositely, the High Priest appointed by divine oath was unlimited in His ability to save. Also, He was immortal and sinless. Only He was qualified and approved by the Father to offer Himself as the complete and eternal sacrifice for the sins of all human beings. By describing the Messiah as the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, the author of Hebrews had established a theological basis by which he could emphasize that Jesus’ sacerdotal ministry was far better than that of the Levitical priests who ministered in the Jerusalem temple. Centuries earlier, at Mount Sinai, God told Moses to construct a tabernacle, a tent that was to be set up in the center of the Israelites’ encampments as they traveled toward the promised land. It was to be the heart of the Israelites’ worship. The writer said that the sanctuary of that earthly tent was modeled after the sanctuary in heaven, at which the Son served as the believers’ High Priest. In fact, the author called the earthly tabernacle a “copy and shadow” (8:5) of the real one in

186

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

heaven (cf. Exod 25:40). It would be incorrect to infer from these observations that in heaven there was some sort of physical counterpart to the earthly shrine; rather, the writer of Hebrews was implying that Israel’s tabernacle was like a preliminary sketch and silhouette of vastly greater and more nuanced eternal realities (cf. Craddock 1998:97–98; Hughes 1977:292–295; Kent 1972:146–147; Kistemaker 1995a:216–217; Lane 1991a:205–206; Lioy 2010:36; Westcott 1980:214–215). Because humans constructed the earthly tabernacle, it was defective and temporary. In contrast, because God established the heavenly sanctuary, it was perfect, permanent, and the true place of worship (8:2). To better understand and appreciate the superiority of the new covenant, the author explained the details of the sacrificial system under the old covenant. He described the layout of the outer room of the tabernacle and depicted the contents of the inner room (9:1–5). In particular, the shrine was a portable, tent-like structure that could be carried around by the Israelites on their wilderness sojourn. The northern, western, and southern sides of the tabernacle were constructed on a wooden framework to give it greater stability and security than ordinary tent poles could provide. Only the eastern side, or front of the structure, was essentially a linen screen. A tent covered the entire tabernacle, and over the tent there were further coverings. The total structure consisted of three parts. First, there was the outer court, which was enclosed by curtains placed over its top and which hung down on each side. The entire structure was supported on pillars. It was oblong in shape and possibly had a flat roof. On the eastern side was the entrance. Second, within the courtyard, facing the entrance, was the altar of burnt offerings. Behind it, towards the west, was the laver for the priests’ ceremonial washing. Third, in the western portion of the courtyard was the sanctuary proper or the tabernacle. This was divided into two chambers by a hanging curtain. The first of these was the holy place, which only the priests could enter. It contained the table of showbread, the lampstand, and the altar of incense. The second of the chambers was called the holy of holies or the most holy place. It contained the ark of the covenant (which was called the mercy seat). The high priest entered this area once a year on the day of atonement. Precious metals and finely woven colored materials were employed in the con-

Life and Death in the New Testament

187

struction of the most holy place. Also, only objects made of rare and costly materials were located near the sacred space. The objects placed further away were made of bronze and ordinary woven cloths (cf. Averbeck 2003b:807–815; Brown 1986c:814–815; Davies 1997:1154–1155; Feinberg 2009c:675–676; Guthrie 2002:52–56; Lioy 2010:35; Michaelis 1999:375–378). The lower ranking priests moved in and out of the holy place, carrying out such responsibilities as burning incense, setting the bread loaves out on the table of showbread, and trimming the lamps (v. 6). Only the high priest could enter the inner sanctuary on just one day of the year: the day of atonement. During this solemn occasion, he was required to take with him an offering of blood to atone for both his sins and the sins of the people (v. 7). After killing an animal, the high priest collected its blood and carried it into the shrine. There he sprinkled the blood before the curtain that led into the most holy place. Next, he turned back to the altar of incense and poured some of the blood onto each of the four horns of the altar. The culmination of the ritual was when the high priest carried the blood behind the curtain into the most holy place. There he sprinkled the animal’s blood over the covering of the ark of the covenant. After the high priest finished performing the blood rituals, he burned the animal’s fatty tissue at the altar of burnt offering. Edible flesh that remained was given to the priest for food. The Holy Spirit used the regulations about access to the most holy place to teach important theological truths to the Israelites. Most notably (and as mentioned earlier), they had no direct access to the presence of God. Additionally, they could never gain that access as long as the first tabernacle was still in operation (v. 8). Thus, the tabernacle and its sacrificial system were a figurative portrayal of how the old covenant failed to effectively deal with the sins of humanity and clear the worshiper’s conscience (v. 9). The sacrifices that were part of the old covenant were external actions, and so had only an external effect. In fact, the author called these rituals “external regulations” (v. 10). The writer implied that these rituals had served their purpose in times past; but now with the advent of the Messiah, a “new order” was in place. This better system was the new covenant, and it revolved around internal essentials rather than externals, for no external ritual or action could ever substitute for

188

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

believers’ having a direct, personal relationship with the Savior. Under the old covenant, the main purpose of a priest was to sacrifice for sin. Therefore, as the believers’ High Priest, Jesus too had to offer a priestly sacrifice. Other priests offered animals as a sacrifice for sins, but those sacrifices were not able to cleanse the consciences of the people who brought them (v. 9). The Son sacrificed Himself by dying on the cross and so secured the Father’s forgiveness and blessing for believing sinners. Jesus had now become the High Priest over all the “good things” (v. 11) that were “already here” (for example, such eternal blessings as direct access to the Father and the perfecting of the conscience). Indeed, Jesus had entered the “greater and more perfect tabernacle” in heaven. Humans did not make this celestial sanctuary and it was not part of the earthly realm. It would be incorrect to conclude that the risen Lord was engaged in some elaborate ritual in heaven; rather, those external, earthly elements in the tabernacle below found their spiritual and eternal counterpart in the reality of the Messiah and His sacerdotal work (cf. Attridge 1989:247; Bruce 1985:165–167; DeSilva 2000:282–283, 304, 313; Morris 1981:85–86; Niehaus 2008:113; O’Brien 2010:321–322). The Son was not counted worthy of entering the Father’s presence— and making a way for the redeemed to do so—by sacrificing animals such as “goats and calves” (v. 12) and sprinkling their “blood” on the mercy seat in the most holy place of the earthly tabernacle. This was, of course, how the Levitical priests were counted worthy, and they were required to offer such sacrifices year after year. The Messiah made His passage into the heavenly sanctuary by shedding His “own blood” on the cross. He did not have to offer sacrifices one year after the next, for He gave His own life, once and for all, to secure the believers’ redemption from sin forever. After paying the ransom for people’s transgressions, the Son ascended into the true heavenly sanctuary. From there, His salvation was continually offered to all who would repent and believe in the truth of the gospel. In verse 13, the writer briefly recounted how the high priests under the old covenant made atonement for the sins of the people, especially by means of two types of sacrifices. On the day of atonement, goats and calves were slaughtered and their blood shed (cf. Lev 16); but that annual ceremony was different from the ashes of a sacrificed calf (i.e. a

Life and Death in the New Testament

189

young adult animal) being sprinkled on those who were ceremonially defiled (Heb 9:13). This purification rite could take place any time during the year. In it, the priest slaughtered a red heifer, burned its carcass, and stored its ashes. Whenever a person became ritually impure by touching a corpse or being in contact with a foreigner, he or she could be cleansed by being sprinkled with these ashes mixed into water (cf. Num 19). As was noted earlier, the effectiveness of these ceremonies was limited in duration and superficial in benefit. Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, in contrast, was eternal in its saving benefit and provided inward spiritual cleansing. When compared to the many offerings sacrificed by the priests under the old covenant, the shed blood of the Son was infinitely more valuable. He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to the Father through the power of the “eternal Spirit” (Heb 9:14). Another possibility is that the author was referring to Jesus’ own spirit (that is, His divine nature). This means the Son gave Himself on the cross as an eternal and spiritual sacrifice to the Father. In either case, the greatness of the Messiah and His offering was incomparable. Because His shed blood was unblemished and undefiled, He could purify the “consciences” of believers from “acts that lead to death” (including useless rituals). The Son’s crucifixion at Calvary also enabled believers to serve the Father. Because they were no longer hampered by their sins, they were able to engage in priestly ministry to the Creator with every aspect of their being (cf. 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6). In Hebrews 9:15, the writer returned to his earlier theological theme of the new covenant. He noted that the Son mediated the “new covenant” between the Father and humanity. Like the arbitrator between two alienated factions, Jesus represented both sides. His objective, though, was not to seek some sort of mutually agreed upon compromise, for God, who was righteous, could not accept unrighteous human beings into His presence. Therefore the Son, who is both God and human, lived a perfectly righteous life and then died as a ransom so that believers could be set free from the penalty of the sins they committed under the first covenant (cf. Rom 3:23–26). So great was the Son’s sacrifice that it enabled all who were “called” (Heb. 9:15) to be given the “eternal inheritance” the Father had “promised” them. These indi-

190

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

viduals were Jesus’ spiritual brothers and sisters, who would inherit salvation (cf. 1:14; 6:17). The Greek noun translated “will” (9:16) is the same term that is rendered “covenant” elsewhere in the New Testament. Hellenistic writers used the noun when referring to a last will and testament. When the testator had died, his or her will was read to people who had no choice but to accept it. In that way the testator’s words carried a sense of finality. Among Jews who spoke Greek, the word was also used to refer to divine covenants. In a compact, God issued the terms and the people accepted them. So just as in a last will and testament, in a covenant, God’s words carried a sense of finality (cf. Behm 1999a:131–132; Danker 2000:228; Guhrt 1986a:369–372; Koester 2001:417; Louw and Nida 1989:452, 572; Newman 1997:248–249; Payne 2009a:1067–1068). The author of Hebrews may have used the noun in 9:16 as a rhetorical device to enhance the eloquence of his argument. He smoothly moved from using the word to mean “covenant” (v. 15) to using it to mean “will” (v. 16). DeSilva (2000:308) observes that by taking this literary approach, the writer was able to “hold together the affirmation of Jesus’ death as a covenant inauguration sacrifice”, as well as emphasize the “passing away of a testator”, which in turn “enables the property of the testator to fall to the heirs”. It was a universally accepted idea that a “will” took effect only when it could be confirmed that the testator had died. A will never carried any force while the one who wrote it was still alive (v. 17). Accordingly, even the old “covenant” (v. 18) was inaugurated with the “blood” of an animal. In essence, the writer meant that something living had to die in order for a covenant to be instituted. Exodus 24:3–8 records the ceremony described in Hebrews 9:18–21 (cf. Lev 14:4–7, 51–52; Num 19:6). The presence of additional details not in the original account suggests the author relied on other dependable Jewish sources of information. Also, at times he changed the wording of the biblical text from what appears in the Septuagint. The author wanted to stress that when Moses performed a sacrificial ritual to confirm the covenant, blood was shed for the sake of human purification. In point of fact, the Mosaic law necessitated that almost “everything be cleansed” (Heb 9:22) by the pouring out of “blood”, for apart from this happening, there was no

Life and Death in the New Testament

191

pardoning of sins (cf. Lev 17:11). Just as in Hebrews 9:1–11, the writer had portrayed the earthly tabernacle as a model of the heavenly sanctuary, so in verses 23–28 he maintained that the earthly animal sacrifices were only prototypes (as it were) of Jesus’ supreme sacrifice of Himself at Calvary. For instance, it was imperative that the earthly tabernacle be cleansed with animal “sacrifices” (v. 23; cf. Lev 16:16–19). This being the case, it was even more paramount for the celestial sanctuary (after which the earthly one was modeled) to be “purified” (Heb 9:23) with an infinitely superior offering. There is no consensus over the way in which the heavenly temple would be in need of cleansing. One option is that the redeemed required purification before they could enter the presence of God. In this way of thinking, believers are understood to be God’s dwelling place, and thus it is the church that necessitated cleansing. A second option is that heaven itself required purification, specifically because spiritual forces of evil had been operative there (cf. Eph 6:12; Attridge 1989:261–262; Bruce 1985:219–220; DeSilva 2000:312–313; Hughes 1977:379–382; Koester 2001:421, 427; Lane 1991b:247–248; Morris 1981:91; O’Brien 2010:336–337; Westcott 1980:270–271). Regardless of which option is preferred, the author’s main theological point remains the same, namely, that there is a vast distinction between the earthly tabernacle and heavenly sanctuary. The writer explained that the Messiah never entered a holy place that was made by humans and merely a prefiguration of the “true” (Heb 9:24) sanctuary; instead, the Son came before the Father’s “presence” in “heaven”. This was necessary because repentant sinners were not fit to plead their own case before the Creator. In addition to their own moral depravity, they were on earth and their Judge was in heaven. Hence, they needed an advocate worthy of going before the Father as their mediator. The Son did just that (cf. 1 John 2:1–2). Under the old covenant, the high priests entered the “Most Holy Place” (Heb 9:25) year after year to offer sacrifices. Furthermore, they used “blood” from slaughtered animals that was insufficient to forgive sins. In contrast, the Messiah’s single sacrifice of Himself on the cross was the only offering that could atone for humanity’s transgressions. The writer countered the notion that the Redeemer’s offering was

192

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

somehow inadequate. If that were true, He would have had to sacrifice Himself repeatedly since the time God created the cosmos (v. 26). As the author had done in verse 15, he again implied that Jesus’ offering was effective for all time. In truth, its impact began at the dawn of time. No human throughout the ages could have been saved had the Son not allowed Himself to be sacrificed on the cross. Furthermore, the Son manifested Himself only once at the eschatological turning point of history to provide the sole means by which all the sins committed by the lost could be annulled (v. 26). By offering Himself at Calvary, Jesus ushered in the final state of affairs, namely, the messianic era, the epoch in which all antecedent ones culminated. The author reinforced his point about the superiority of the Messiah’s sacrifice by noting that all human beings experienced death only “once” (v. 27). As was noted in chapter 2 of this study, the physical demise of Homo sapiens was a consequence of the Fall. Moreover, death was not an event people could control; indeed, it was part of the natural order for everyone to expire physically. This outcome was made all the more foreboding by the fact that after they die, humans must face God’s “judgment” and render to Him an account of their lives. The author explained that just as it was everyone’s destiny to pass away one time only, so it was the Father’s decree that the Son should offer Himself on only one occasion to bear the “sins” (v. 28) of the lost (cf. Isa 53:12). Then, at His second advent, the objective would be to bring about the consummation of “salvation” for all believers, not deal once more with their misdeeds. The writer might have used the Greek phrase rendered “to those who are waiting for him” (Heb 9:28) to compare the Messiah’s second coming to the image of a high priest emerging from the temple after offering sacrifices in the most holy place on the day of atonement. The original recipients of the epistle might have seen the high priest of their day appear outside the Jerusalem shrine, disappear inside the sanctuary, and reappear after making offerings. Likewise, the author stressed that the Son also “appeared” (v. 26) on earth to offer Himself as a sacrifice, disappeared from earthly view and manifested Himself in “heaven” (v. 24) before the Father on behalf of believers, and one day would “appear a second time” (v. 28) on earth. Then, Jesus would bring to completion

Life and Death in the New Testament

193

the eternal salvation He purchased on the cross for the redeemed. The author gave credit to the Mosaic law, along with the Levitical priesthood and the sacrificial system, for prefiguring future “good things” (10:1). The latter refers to the new covenant, with its new priesthood, new sanctuary, and new sacrifice, all of which the Messiah introduced. This foreshadowing, however, was not a copy of its real counterpart. The Greek noun rendered “shadow” can also mean “image” or “archetype”, and typically referred to a likeness such as the head on a coin or the parental resemblance in a child (cf. Danker 2000:281–282; Flender 1986:287–288; Kittel 1999b:395–397; Louw and Nida 1989:65, 589–590, 592; Spicq 1994:417–419). Expressed differently, the religious observances were only broad outlines. Like an artist who draws a rough pencil sketch of a work before actually painting a more detailed picture, so too, the writer considered the Hebrew Scriptures as a rudimentary silhouette of the realities to come. Thus, the Old Testament, by calling for animal sacrifices to expiate sins, revealed not much more than the general contour of the propitiatory sacrifice the Messiah would later bring. Verses 1–4 recap theological truths developed in 9:11–28. The author’s main emphasis was on the failure of the old covenant to permanently atone for sins. After all, if the sacrifices made under the Mosaic law and Levitical priesthood had been sufficient in expiating transgressions, then it would have been unnecessary for them to be repeated indefinitely. In short, the Hebrew sacrificial system looked forward to the Messiah’s sacrifice of Himself on the cross. His death and resurrection made the old order obsolete. While the latter had been based on following the rules and regulations of ceremonial worship, the new covenant was founded entirely on what the Savior did for the lost at Calvary. Not only was His offering perfect, but also it completely and permanently removed the guilt of sin from the redeemed. To substantiate his doctrinal point, the writer again appealed to the Hebrew Scriptures. In verses 5–6, he quoted from the Septuagint version of Psalm 40:6–8 (a sacred song that was originally authored by David). Throughout much of Israel’s history, God was displeased with the way His people offered their sacrifices, for they were insincere and characterized by rebellion. Other biblical writers also declared that God valued

194

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

obedience far more than any offerings (cf. 1 Sam 15:22; Ps 50:8–11; Isa 1:10–13; Jer 7:21–24; Hos 6:6). The four terms for sacrifices used in Hebrews 10:5–6 probably refer to the entire Levitical sacrificial system. When the Son came to earth, He was completely submissive to the will of the Father. The attribution of the words of Psalm 40:6–8 to the Savior points to His eternal preexistence. Also, the statement “it is written about me in the scroll”, indicates that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. Indeed, He was ready and desirous to sacrifice His body on the cross to fulfill the Father’s redemptive plan. In the Hebrew of Psalm 40:6, David said, “my ears you have opened”, rather than, “a body you prepared for me” (Heb 10:5). Israel’s king might have been referring to a ceremony in which Hebrew servants had the option of permanently serving a kind master. In that case, the servants would officially signify their commitment to their master by having their ears pierced with an awl against a door. The servants literally received an earmark to show that they permanently belonged to that master (cf. Exod 21:5–6; Deut 15:16–17). In the Septuagint version quoted by Hebrews 10:5, the author of the epistle probably resorted to a figure of speech called synecdoche. If so, the writer referred to a person’s entire body by talking about one part of it, namely, an ear. It follows that people hear commands through their ears, and it is through their bodies that they heed those edicts. Accordingly, the Son’s willingness to carry out the Father’s directives was demonstrated by the Son taking a human body, which the Father through the Spirit had specially prepared for the Son (cf. Matt 1:20; Luke 1:35). In Hebrews 10:8, the writer again portrayed the Levitical sacrificial system under the old covenant as being divinely ordained; and yet, they were only preliminary to the new covenant to be inaugurated by the Messiah. Concededly, the rituals had served their purpose; but now they were replaced. Put differently, the old order was not God’s final answer to humanity’s sin problem; instead, the Messiah would make complete and permanent atonement for sins at Calvary. The implication is that the Father had abrogated the old covenant (which is based on the shed blood of animal sacrifices) in order to “establish” (v. 9) the new covenant (which is based on the one-time offering of the Son). Moreover, Jesus’ death on the cross made it possible for believers to be “made holy” (v.

Life and Death in the New Testament

195

10). Here the author was not referring to the process of continual sanctification; instead, he was talking about the once-for-all change in the status of believers when they are united to the Messiah by faith. In this way, Jesus separated them from the guilt of sin and qualified them to worship the Lord. Apparently, the original recipients of Hebrews were at a crossroads. Would they take the pathway that led to deeper Christian faith, or would they take the road that led back to their former religious ways? In verses 11–18, the author took a strong and vital stand on the premise that the Messiah was better than all else, including the Mosaic law and the Levitical priesthood. The writer emphasized once more that the old order was over, for the supreme sacrifice of all the ages had been offered. In turn, this antiquated and annulled all animal offerings. As before, the author wrote about the religious regimen that was probably being carried out in the Jerusalem temple, even while he penned his epistle. He noted that all the assigned “priests” (v. 11) stood in front of the altar and ministered the same “religious duties” time after time. Their standing posture indicated that the performance of their rituals was never finished. The cumulative effect of all the “sacrifices” could still not remove the guilt of the covenant community’s transgressions. In contrast, the Son only died once on the cross as an atoning “sacrifice for sins” (v. 12). The Father then raised the Son from the dead and seated Him at His “right hand”, the place of utmost power and highest dignity. The Messiah’s seated posture indicates that His redemptive work was accomplished, never to be repeated; and His place by the Father’s side indicated that the Son was ever ready to intercede on behalf of His followers. Moreover, the Son now waited in heaven for the Father to overthrow all His “enemies” (v. 13). The writer quoted Psalm 110:1 to stress that Jesus would one day completely triumph over His foes (cf. 1 Cor 15:25). The exact identity of these adversaries remains debated. One alternative is that the author was referring to Jesus bringing an end to all evil. Another alternative is that the writer’s intent was to issue a word of caution to the original recipients of his epistle. In this case, he urged them to make sure they were not in league with the Savior’s adversaries. In Hebrews 10:14, the author once more emphasized the superlative

196

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

nature of Jesus’ sole sacrifice. In particular, by His single offering, the Son had forever freed from sin the people He brought to the Father. Moreover, the Son made them holy so that they would be able to serve the Father and worship Him in His presence. Evidently, the writer was referring to all people who, at various intervals throughout the ages, were being added to the body of Christ, His church. They were the ones who accepted the salvation Jesus offered. They also were the ones who were being set apart forever for God’s service. The author’s reference in verse 15 to the “Holy Spirit” indicates that He was the one who inspired the words of the Hebrew Scriptures (cf. 3:7). In 8:8–12, the writer quoted Jeremiah 31:31–34. In Hebrews 10:16–17, he once more cited Jeremiah 31:33–34. The author did this to again stress that the Son had inaugurated the new covenant through His death at Calvary. Whereas, the old covenant was written in stone, the new covenant was engraved on the “hearts” (Heb 10:16) and “minds” of believers. The main reason the writer reminded his readers about this Old Testament text was to restate the theological importance of the new covenant. The Father promised to no longer recall the “sins and lawless acts” (v. 17) committed by His spiritual children. Under the old covenant, the procession of offerings was a constant reminder of transgressions (cf. v. 3). In contrast, under the new covenant initiated by the Son, the allknowing Father no longer recalled such iniquities. In brief, a single provision for the sins of the lost had been made one-time-for-all-time. Because all the trespasses of believers were pardoned, there was no need for any other sacrifice (v. 18). The significance of this is that repentant sinners could not credit themselves, anyone, or anything else with their redemption. All the glory for their salvation belonged to Jesus alone. Jesus’ Final Victory (Rev 20:1–22:21) Horton (2011:906) motivates the need for this section when he observes that “eschatology and creation are interdependent themes”.* Concerning the Apocalypse, it begins and ends with the Messiah (cf. 1:1; 22:21). Though it is filled with magnificent visions and symbols that may be * What follows in this section is a revision of material in chapter 6 of my monograph titled, The Book of Revelation in Christological Focus (cf. Lioy 2003).

Life and Death in the New Testament

197

difficult to understand, first and foremost the book is about the Savior— His character, His mission, and His final goal of bringing all things into subjection to His Father’s perfect will (cf. 1:5–8). Admittedly, a lot of mystery surrounds Revelation. Perhaps no other book of the Bible is more difficult to interpret than this one. Its abundant figures and intriguing symbols have stimulated many different explanations about the book’s message; and certainly the unusual imagery of the Apocalypse has caused numerous disagreements among interpreters. Despite the enigmas surrounding Revelation, this book is primarily characterized by hope. The writer declared that the Messiah would one day return to vindicate the righteous and judge the wicked. The book is also known for its warnings. Throughout this spectacular vision, the risen Lord called believers to commit themselves to live in righteousness and integrity by the power of the Holy Spirit. He also admonished the wicked to turn away from their sin and trust Him for their salvation. The traditional view is that John the apostle wrote the Apocalypse during a period of exile and suffering on the island of Patmos (1:9). At this time, Rome persecuted Christians, demanded that they renounce their faith, and pressured them to worship the emperor. It is quite possible that the aging apostle was sentenced to hard labor in the rock quarries on this island for refusing to deny the Lord. The book is addressed to seven churches in the Roman province of Asia (vv. 4, 11), which is now part of western Turkey. The cities in which these churches were located were Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. Some think John wrote Revelation during the persecution that occurred under the reign of Nero (A.C.E. 64–68), while others maintain John wrote the book during the reign of Vespasian (A.C.E. 69–79). Though there are symbolic images in the Apocalypse that may refer to either Nero or Vespasian, much of the evidence suggests that the apostle wrote the book later, during the reign of Domitian (A.C.E. 81–96). Throughout this period, emperor worship was prevalent all over the empire—a problem that was addressed in Revelation. For this reason many think John wrote the Apocalypse around A.C.E. 95, a date the early church fathers also favored (cf. Aune 1997:xlix–lxx; Beale 1999:4–27, 34– 36; Beckwith 1967:343–393; Brighton 1999:12–15; Collins 2000:384–387; Johnson 1981:404–406; Mounce 1998:8–21; Osborne 2002:2–9; Roloff

198

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

1993:8–12; Rowland 1998:513–517; Stefanovic 2002:2–5; Thomas 1992:2– 23). With respect to literary structure, there is a Prologue (1:1–8) and Epilogue (22:6–21). In between these opening and closing sections are the following: John’s vision of the risen Messiah (1:9–20); Jesus’ exhortations to the seven churches (2:1–3:22); and a series of prophetic visions (4:1–22:5). Regarding the breakdown of the latter section, there are the following units: a worship scene in heaven (4:1–5:14); seven seal judgments (6:1–8:1); seven trumpet judgments (8:2–11:19); various personages and events (12:1–14:20); seven bowl judgments (15:1–16:21); the fall of Babylon (17:1–18:24); the vindication of the church and the return of the Messiah (19:1–21); the reign of the saints, the doom of Satan, and the judgment of the dead (20:1–15); and the new heaven, the new earth, and the new Jerusalem (21:1–22:5). The literary structure and content of Revelation help to advance the theological argument of the book. The Messiah’s vanquishing of the wicked and vindication of the redeemed receives heightened emphasis in the closing chapters of Revelation, particularly 20 through 22. The prelude to this material is chapter 19, which spotlights the righteous lauding the demise of the great whore, Babylon (vv. 1–5), the consummation of the Messiah’s union with the church (vv. 6–10), and the divine warrior defeating and overthrowing His enemies (vv. 11–21). Revelation 20:1–10 deals with the aftermath of the Messiah’s victory. Specifically, verses 1–3 detail the binding of Satan for 1,000 years. This is followed by the resurrection of the righteous and their reign with the Savior for a millennium (vv. 4–6). Then, at the end of this period of idyllic peace, there is the release and second defeat of Satan (vv. 7–10). There are four main groups who take different approaches to interpreting this and similar apocalyptic material. First, the preterist interpretation says that the prophecies of Revelation already have been either partially or completely fulfilled. Second, the historicist interpretation maintains that the prophecies have been and are continuing to be fulfilled. Third, the futurist interpretation claims that the prophecies will be primarily fulfilled at the end of time. Fourth, the idealist interpretation believes the prophecies represent ageless truths with no definite time of fulfillment (cf. Clouse 2001:770–771; Collins 2000:409–411; Dodd

Life and Death in the New Testament

199

1997:741; Ford 1992:834; Jewett 2009:388; Ladd 1997:671–675; Montgomery 1986:360–361; Payne 2009b:1075–1076; Walvoord 2009:254; Wilson 2002:358–359). In stepping back from these four hermeneutical approaches, it seems that an eclectic combination of them—in which one recognizes the strengths of each view—is closest to the truth. Furthermore, regardless of whether the references to a “thousand years” in 20:1–10 are understood literally or figuratively, the sovereignty of the Messiah, His rout of the wicked, and His vindication of the upright remain undisputed theological emphases (cf. Deut 1:10–11; 7:9; 32:30; Josh 23:10; 1 Chron 16:15; Job 9:3; 33:23; Pss 50:10; 68:17; 84:10; 90:4; 105:8; Eccles 6:6; 7:28; Song of Sol 4:4; Isa 7:23; 30:17; 60:22; Dan 7:10; Amos 5:3; Jub 4:30; 23:27; 30:20). As was noted in chapter 2 of this study, throughout history, Satan has deceived humanity and tormented God’s people. At the end of the age, however, the Messiah would bring an end to the devil’s reign of terror. In this regard, John saw an angel descend from heaven holding both the key to the Abyss and a heavy chain (Rev 20:1). The angel grabbed Satan, bound him (v. 2), threw him into the bottomless pit, and then shut and locked the pit’s entrance. This action prevented the devil from further deceiving the nations for 1,000 years (v. 3; cf. Gen 3:15; Isa 27:1; 1 En 10:4–16; 18:11–19:3; 53:3–4; 54:3–6; 88:1–3; Jub 5:6–14; 48:9–19; Sib Or 2:289; Test of Levi 18:12; Tob 8:3; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6; Rev 12:7–12). There are two ways to understand the binding of Satan. One option is that this episode refers to the results of the Messiah’s death and resurrection that had already restricted the devil’s power to deceive (cf. John 12:31; Col 2:15). Another option is to associate Satan’s binding with the beginning of an extraordinary future age of peace and prosperity (cf. 1 Thess 2:18; 1 Pet 5:8; Aune 1998:1082; Beale 1999:985–986; Beckwith 1967:735–738; Brighton 1999:548–555; Johnson 1981:581–582; Mounce 1998:361–363; Osborne 2002:700–701; Roloff 1993:223–226; Rowland 1998:707; 562–565; Thomas 1995:404–405). Despite these unresolved interpretive issues, believers could rest assured that Satan was a defeated foe awaiting certain doom. Given the varying hermeneutical approaches to Revelation, there are corresponding differences of opinion concerning the reference to the 1,000 years mentioned in 20:2. One possibility is that John referred to a literal millennium in which the Messiah

200

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

would reign on earth. Another possibility is that the apostle was speaking metaphorically about an indefinite interval in which the Messiah ruled from either heaven or earth. John did not identify the occupants on the thrones mentioned in verse 4. While they could be angels, they were most likely believers— whether the 12 apostles, the resurrected martyrs from a final period of distress, or the redeemed throughout history (to name a few interpretive options). The Father allowed these people to exercise judgment and rule with the Son (cf. Ps 122:5; Dan 7:9–27; Matt 19:28; 1 Cor 6:2–3; Rev 3:21; 4:4; 11:16). John saw the souls of believers who had died remaining loyal to the Messiah. Despite the abuse they received from the forces of darkness, they refused to give up. The Father would vindicate their faith when He raised them from the dead and allowed them to reign with the Son. John called this event the “first resurrection” (Rev 20:5; cf. Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1–14; Dan 12:2; 2 Bar 21:9, 23–24; 30:1–3; 42:8; 85:11–12; 1 En 51:1–5; 4 Ezra 7:32, 75–101; 14:35; Jub 23:27–31; 2 Macc 7:8–36; 4 Mac 7:19; 13:17; 16:25; 17:12, 18; 18:23; Sib Or 4:179–182; Test of Ab 20:9–15; Test of Isaac 7:1; Wis 3:1–8; Luke 20:35–38; John 5:28–29; 6:39–40, 44, 54; Acts 24:15; Rev 6:9). There are two major views concerning what the apostle meant by the preceding phrase. One alternative is that John referred to a bodily resurrection of all believers. When the Messiah returned, He would raise them from the dead and allow them to reign with Him in His kingdom (cf. Luke 14:14; John 5:29; 1 Cor 15:51–57; 1 Thess 4:13–18). Another alternative is that John referred to a spiritual resurrection of believers. It took place either at the moment of regeneration or when one went to be with the Messiah at the time of bodily death (cf. John 5:24–25; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil 1:23; Aune 1998:1090–1091; Beale 1999:1004–1015; Beckwith 1967:738, 740–741; Brighton 1999:555–568; Johnson 1981:584–585; Mounce 1998:366–370; Osborne 2002:707–709; Roloff 1993:227–228; Rowland 1998:707–708; Stefanovic 2002:565–566; Thomas 1995:416–417). John explained that God did not resurrect the remainder of the dead until the end of the 1,000-year period. It is unclear whether this group was restricted to the wicked or included both saved and unsaved people. In either case, the participants in the first resurrection were “blessed and holy” (Rev 20:6), for they were immune to the “second death”,

Life and Death in the New Testament

201

namely, eternal separation from God (cf. v. 14). They would serve as priests of the Father and the Son, and they would reign with the Son in His kingdom. When the millennium was over, Satan would be released from his dungeon (v. 7). Despite the long passage of time, wickedness and rebellion would still characterize the devil and unregenerate humanity. Satan tricked the world’s nations to join him in a final assault against God and His people (v. 8). John probably had in mind the language of Ezekiel 38–39 when he said that Gog and Magog symbolized the vast horde under Satan’s control (cf. Josh 11:4; Judg 7:12; 1 Sam 13:5; Zeph 3; Zech 12–14; Rev 16:14; 19:19). It is unclear whether the apostle was referring to a virtual or figurative battle when he described the forces of evil surrounding the beloved community of God’s redeemed. There was no doubt, however, about the outcome. Fire from heaven devoured the attacking armies (Rev 20:9). Then Satan would be placed in the “lake of burning sulfur” (v. 10), where he—along with the “beast” and the “false prophet”—would spend eternity in torment. Unlike human victories, the Son’s triumph did not end on the battlefield, but before the pure and holy throne of the Father (cf. Ezek 1:26–28; Dan 7:9; Rev 4:2; 5:7). The “earth and the heavens” (Rev 20:11; or the sky) would flee from the Lord’s holy and fearsome presence, yet no spot could be found to veil the cosmos. If this verse is taken more literally than figuratively, then it could imply that at this time God would destroy the present heaven and earth and replace them with a new heaven and earth. John saw all the dead appearing before God’s “great white throne”. No great reputation or noteworthy lifestyle would exempt anyone. Similarly, there was no human life so humble or insignificant that the Father would overlook it (v. 12). It is unclear who would actually stand before the divine throne. One option is that the judgment involved only unbelievers, while another option is that both saved and unsaved appeared before God. Either way, the Father’s judgment was fair and impartial. Only those who had trusted in the Son would be saved from eternal condemnation. John saw several books being opened that contained a record of the deeds of every human being (cf. Dan 7:10; 12:1–2; 2 Bar 24:1). The Lord would judge all people according to their works. This did not mean that salvation was based on good deeds, but that God kept a record of what

202

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

people did in this life. The Father then would open “the book of life” (Rev 20:12), which recorded the names of those who trusted in the Son for salvation. The Lord would deliver from judgment only those whose names appeared in this book. For those who spurned the Son, all that remained was for the Father to condemn them. It would be a terrifying scene as He issued a verdict of guilty against the unsaved. Next, John saw the sea giving up the dead who were in it, and death and Hades (i.e. the realm of dead) also giving up their occupants (v. 13). The idea was that no one would escape judgment. God cast death and Hades into the eternal lake of fire (cf. 1 En 10:12–13; 27:1–10; 103:7–8). John called this the “second death” (Rev 20:14), for it was the final state of everlasting torment. The documents detailing humanity’s deeds would be a sobering witness that could not be refuted. The Father banished forever from His presence those who do not have their names listed in the Son’s book of life. No unsaved person would escape this fate (v. 15). In John’s unfolding vision, the condemnation of the wicked was followed by the new creation that awaited believers. Throughout history, people failed to establish utopian communities. God, however, would ensure that the situation was far different for believers in the eternal state. They would dwell in the new Jerusalem and enjoy the beauty of the Lord. Moreover, those who were victorious in this life would enjoy unbroken fellowship with the Lord of glory. The apostle related that he saw “a new heaven and a new earth” (21:1). These were total replacements for their old counterparts, “the first heaven and the first earth”, which God had destroyed. He evidently did this to eliminate any corrupting presence or influence of sin (cf. Ps 102:25–26; Isa 34:4; 51:6; Joel 2:10; 2 Bar 44:12; 1 Enoch 72:1; 91:16; Sib Or 3:75–90; 2 Pet 3:7, 10–13). God would also eliminate the vast and mysterious seas. In the Old Testament, the sea was a symbol for the agitation and restlessness associated with evil (cf. Isa 57:20; Jer 49:23). In the Apocalypse, the sea was the source of the satanic beast and a burial site for the wicked dead (cf. 13:1; 20:13). In the eternal state, there could be no physical and symbolic place for this seething cauldron of wickedness (cf. Bonting 1999:328; Bouma-Prediger 2001:115; Goldingay 2006:731; Jacob 1958:141; Mabie 2008:50; Paterson 2009:372; Waltke and Yu 2007:180). What John saw was consistent with the reference in Isaiah 65:17 to

Life and Death in the New Testament

203

the “new heavens and a new earth”. The apostle, however, was not thinking of a world merely free of sin and hardness of heart. John’s vision was of a creation new in all its qualities (cf. Isa 66:22; 2 Bar 32:1–6; 57:2; 1 Enoch 45:4–5; 4 Ezra 7:75; Jub 1:29; 4:26; Fretheim 2005:9; Schnelle 2009:767–768; Waddell 2009:40–41; Wilkinson 2002:261; Witherington 2010:420). Isaiah’s final prophecies most likely applied in part to the exiles who returned from Babylon; but his language clearly went beyond any fulfillment in ancient history. Earlier, while prophesying about endtime judgments, Isaiah had said, “the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment” (51:6). Now Isaiah recorded God’s declaration that in place of the old heavens and earth He would create “new heavens and a new earth” (65:17). So glorious would the new creation be that God said “the former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind”. Those former things, such as weeping and crying, would give way to new things, including gladness, rejoicing, and delight. God, too, would find joy in the new creation. He would “rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in [His] people” (v. 19). In John’s vision of the future, his attention quickly passed from the creation of the new heaven and earth, to “the Holy City, the new Jerusalem” (Rev. 21:2), which God sent down out of heaven. This reference looks back on Isaiah 52:1 with its mention of “Jerusalem, the holy city”. The Lord magnificently adorned the new Jerusalem (the bride) for her husband (the groom; cf. 61:10; 62:5). The implication here is that the city surpassed the beauty of everything else God had made. It is possible that the new Jerusalem in the Apocalypse is a symbol of the Christian community in heaven (cf. Eph 5:25–32; Rev 19:6–9). Another option, based on the detailed information recorded in Revelation 21:10–21, considers the new Jerusalem to be a literal city where God’s people dwell for all eternity. In either case, the main point is that a new world was coming, and it promised to be glorious beyond imagination. Next, John heard a loud voice from the heavenly throne declare that “God’s dwelling place” (v. 3) was among human beings; in other words, in the eternal state, the Father would permanently manifest His presence among the redeemed of all ages. They would be His people, and He would be their God (cf. Lev 26:11–12; Ezek 37:26–28; 43:7; Zech 2:10–11; Jub 1:17, 29; 2 Cor 6:16; Rev 7:15). The voice also disclosed that

204

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

five scourges of human existence would not exist in the eternal state— tears, death, sorrow, crying, and pain. The new order would eliminate all these forms of sadness (Rev 21:4; cf. Isa 25:8; 35:10; 51:11; Rev 7:16–17). In Isaiah 65:20–25, the prophet described what the glorious, newly created Jerusalem would be like for God’s people. This new creation would be so spectacular that any beauty of this present world would pale in comparison; yet beyond the beauty, this set of verses contained four promises of great blessing. Those who would live in newly created Jerusalem would have long lives, would not labor in vain, would be speedily answered by God when they pray, and would live in an environment without hostility. When taken together, these blessings seem to indicate that the effects of the Fall would be reversed in the new heavens and new earth, as well as in the new Jerusalem. God declared that He was doing away with the old order and making “everything new” (Rev 21:5; cf. Isa 43:19). The Lord told John to write down what He had said, for His words were “trustworthy and true” (Rev 21:5). Believers could stake their hope for spending eternity with the Father in heaven, for they knew that the divine promise was accurate and reliable. At the Son’s final meal with His followers, He referred to heaven as a large house, which has many rooms, belonging to His Father. Though Jesus was leaving His disciples, He was going there to prepare a place for them. He told them that if this were not so, He would not have made this promise to them; but since this was true, they could count on being reunited with the Savior no matter what happened to Him or to them (cf. John 14:2–3). In Revelation 21:6, the phrase “it is done” could also be rendered “it has happened”. The idea is that everything the Lord declared was finished and absolutely certain to occur. This was possible because God was “the Alpha and the Omega” as well as “the Beginning and the End”. God’s declaration of Himself as “the Alpha and the Omega”— drawing upon the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet—was emphatic in the original. It was as if the Lord were saying, “I and no other”. It was similar in meaning to the expressions “the Beginning and the End” and “the First and the Last” (cf. 1:17; 22:13). The idea behind these statements—which were applied interchangeably to both the Father and the Son—was one of totality. Put another way, the Lord was the begin-

Life and Death in the New Testament

205

ning and ending of all things. Also, His rule encompassed the past, the present, and the future. Furthermore, He was sovereign over all that took place in human history and was directing its course to a final and proper conclusion (cf. the discussion in chapter 3 of this study concerning Col 1:17 and Heb 1:3). In John’s continuing vision of the eternal state, God promised to give water from the life-giving fountain to everyone who was thirsty (Rev 21:6; cf. Isa 49:10; 55:1–3; 1 En 48:1). This pledge was a vivid reminder of the refreshment and satisfaction believers would enjoy in heaven. In eternity, God would permanently satisfy the yearnings of the soul. This assurance was grounded in the Lord’s own nature. Those who overcame in this life would receive an everlasting inheritance and an abiding relationship. They would be the eternal people of the eternal God (Rev 21:7). Virtue and purity would distinguish life for the redeemed in heaven. Accordingly, the Lord would ban from heaven all who were characterized by the vices listed in verse 8. The habitually wretched actions of these people would be irrefutable evidence that they were not saved (cf. Matt 7:21–23). The angel that John mentioned in Revelation 21:9 was one of the seven who previously had emptied the bowl plagues (cf. 16:1). The celestial being may also be the same angel who had revealed to the apostle the judgment of the prostitute (cf. 17:1). The messenger of God invited John to see the “bride, the wife of the Lamb” (21:9). Suddenly, the apostle found himself being transported by the Spirit to a huge, majestic mountain (cf. Ezek 40:1–2; 43:5). “Spirit” (Rev 21:10) could also refer to John’s human spirit. In either case, the apostle seemed to have been in a trancelike state as he viewed the holy city—the new Jerusalem—descending out of heaven from God. This towering, luminous domicile was the final dwelling place of those who followed the Messiah (cf. Exod 19–20; Deut 34:1–4; Ps 48:2; Isa 2:2–3; 4:2–5; 25:6–26:2; Mic 4:1–2; 1 En 18:8; 24:1–3; 25:3; Jub 4:26). John noted that the eternal abode of the redeemed was filled with the glory of God and its radiance was like an extremely precious jewel (cf. Isa 58:8; 60:1–2, 19). Indeed, the holy city was crystal clear like a prized jasper stone (Rev 21:11). In the first century of the common era, jasper tended to be mostly reddish in hue, though stones have been found that are green, brown, blue, yellow, and

206

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

white in color (cf. Aune 1998:1154; Beale 1999:1067–1068; Brighton 1999:610; Johnson 1981:595; Mounce 1998:390; Osborne 2002:749; Roloff 1993:242; Rowland 1998:722; Stefanovic 2002:586; Thomas 1995:461– 462). The new Jerusalem sparkling like a gem suggested that it radiated the majesty of the Lord. In language that recalls Ezekiel 40–48, John described the celestial megalopolis as being a gigantic cube and the same shape as the Most Holy Place in the tabernacle and temple. In ancient Israel, both the tabernacle and the temple were set apart for God and became the place where He manifested His presence among His people. Every detail of their exterior construction and interior contents were to correspond exactly with God’s definitive instructions. The holy city John saw had a massive, high wall with 12 gates. On the latter were the names of the 12 tribes of the nation of Israel, and there were 12 angels stationed at the gates (Rev 21:12). In terms of distribution, the east, north, south, and west sides of this magnificent abode each had three gates (v. 13). Moreover, the wall of the new Jerusalem had 12 foundation stones, and on them were inscribed the 12 names of the 12 apostles of the Lamb (v. 14). The length, width, and height of the new Jerusalem were equal (about 1,400 miles), making it perfectly symmetrical (vv. 15–16). The wall was about 200 feet thick (or high; v. 17) and made of jasper. The pristine conurbation was pure gold, like transparent glass (v. 18), while its foundation stones were inlaid with 12 gems (vv. 19–20). Each of the 12 gates was made from just one pearl. The main street of the new Jerusalem was pure gold, as transparent as glass (v. 21; cf. Exod 28:17–21; 39:8–14; Isa 54:11–12; Tobit 13:16–17; Alexander 2008:20; Wilson 2002:369). All the dimensions of the new Jerusalem were multiples of 12, which symbolically designated the fullness of God’s people. Also, the Lamb was very prominent in the new Jerusalem, along with the Father and the Spirit. The splendor and opulence of the city reflected the beauty and majesty of the triune God. The believers’ eternal home was characterized by awesomeness and durability. Unlike the Jerusalem of John’s day, the new Jerusalem did not have a temple within it (Rev 21:22). The reason was that “the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” were the city’s sanctuary. Likewise, the new Jerusalem had no need for the sun or the moon, for “the glory of God” (v. 23) illuminated the city and “the Lamb”

Life and Death in the New Testament

207

was the city’s source of light (cf. Isa 24:23; 60:19–20). John’s reference to the Lord God as the “Almighty” (Rev 21:22) renders a Greek noun that means “all-powerful” or “omnipotent” (cf. Braumann 1986:717; Danker 2000:755; Langkammer 1993:11–12; Louw and Nida 1989:139). Outside Revelation, this term was found only once in the New Testament (cf. 2 Cor 6:18), but in the Apocalypse it occurred nine times (cf. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). The word conveyed the sense of God being invincible. The idea is that no matter how fierce and wicked Satan and his demonic cohorts might be, they could not defeat the triune God. In the Lord’s time and in His way, He fulfilled His promises and accomplished His sovereign purpose in history. Consequently, while human rulers might claim total dominion over the world and have themselves celebrated as rulers of history, in reality it was God alone to whom dominion over the world and history belonged. All “the nations” (Rev. 21:24) would walk in the light of the new Jerusalem. Likewise, “the kings of the earth” would bring their glory and honor to the city. The new Jerusalem would truly be the center of life for the redeemed in eternity (cf. Isa 66:20; Zech 14:16–19; Tobit 14:6–7). It would be such a safe and secure haven that during the day its gates would never “be shut” (Rev 21:25). Even night, with all the fears and uncertainties connected with it, would be eliminated (cf. Isa 2:2, 5; 60:3, 5, 11). Moreover, in the new Jerusalem, God would be worshiped face-to-face. The city would be a cosmopolitan place where redeemed humanity in all its cultural diversity would live together in peace. In fact, the “glory and honor of the nations” (Rev 21:26) would stream into the new Jerusalem. The celestial abode of the redeemed in eternity stood in sharp contrast to the earthly city of Babylon (cf. 14:8; 16:19). Despite the purported grandeur of the latter, it was the dark pit of every wicked impulse and corrupt inclination within the sinful human race (cf. 17:5). God would vindicate the faith of the redeemed by forbidding any immoral or evil people to enter the holy city. The inhabitants of the new Jerusalem would only be those whose names were recorded in “the Lamb’s book of life” (21:27). Next, John saw a pure river filled with the “water of life” (22:1; cf. Gen 2:10; Ezek 47:1–9; Zech 14:8). The river was crystal clear, and it poured out from God’s throne down the middle of the city’s main thor-

208

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

oughfare. The river and its water were a symbol of the fullness of eternal life that proceeds from the presence of God. To those living in the hot and dry climate of Palestine, this scene would be a vivid image of God’s ability to satisfy a person’s spiritual thirst (cf. Isa 35:6–9; 41:17–20; 43:18–20; Ezek 36:25–27; Joel 3:18; John 3:5; 4:7–14; 1 John 5:7–10; Rev 22:17). In Revelation 22:1, John mentioned “the throne of God and of the Lamb”. The apostle’s repeated reference to the Messiah suggested that John did not want his readers to miss the significance of the Lamb in the eternal state. In this vision of the future, the Father and the Son were joint owners of the heavenly throne. Also, the imperial role of the Father and the Son had become a functional unity. John observed that a tree of life grew on each side of the river. It is possible that the Greek noun rendered “tree” (v. 2) can be taken in a collective sense to refer to an orchard lining both sides of the riverbank. In any case, the tree bore 12 different kinds of fruit, with a new crop appearing each month of the year. The fruit gave life, and the leaves were used as medicine to heal the nations. The presence of curative leaves did not mean there would be illness in heaven; rather, the leaves symbolized the health and vigor that believers would enjoy in eternity (cf. Ezek 47:12; Zech 14:8; 4 Ezra 2:18). As noted in chapter 4 of this study, a tree of life first existed in the ancient Eden orchard, and it must have been lush. For all that, after Adam and Eve sinned, God prohibited them from eating the fruit of the life-giving tree (cf. Gen 2:9; 3:22). In eternity, however, the all-powerful Lord would allow the redeemed to partake fully of eternal life, which was symbolized by the tree and its fresh, abundant fruit (cf. Alexander 2008:156; Niehaus 2008:32). As was noted in chapter 2 of this study, after the Fall, God placed everything under sin’s curse. In the eternal state, however, He would remove the curse of sin and all its effects. Similarly, God would ban from the new Jerusalem anyone who was accursed because of wickedness (Rev 22:3; cf. Gen 3:14–19; Rev 22:15; Collins 2010:154; Wilson 2002:370). This truth was one reason for the wicked to abandon their evil ways and for the upright to avoid the path of sin. Moreover, in the last book of Scripture, readers discovered that many themes introduced in Genesis found their fulfillment in Revelation (cf. Alexander 2008:10–11; Bube 1971:120–121, 204–205; Gage 1984:8; Peacocke 1979:330; Lioy 2010:132–

Life and Death in the New Testament

209

133). By way of example, long ago God created the sun (cf. Gen 1:14–18), but in the eternal state it would no longer be needed (cf. Rev 21:23; 22:5). Early on, sin entered the human race (cf. Gen 3:1–7), and was expelled in the end (cf. Rev 21:8, 27; 22:15). Whereas before, people tried to hide from God (cf. Gen 3:8), in the eternal state, the redeemed enjoyed intimacy with Him (cf. Rev 21:3; 22:4). Furthermore, the earth now languished under the scourge of sin (cf. Gen 3:17) and was subjected to futility (Rom 8:20); but one day the planet would join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay (cf. Rom 8:21; Rev 21:1, 4–5; 22:3). Whereas now, tears were shed over sorrow from sin (cf. Gen 21:16; 27:34, 38), in the eternal state, there would be no more tears and sorrow, for sin would be eliminated (cf. Rev 7:17; 21:4). From the moment of their birth, people were destined to die (cf. Gen 5:5–31), but the wonderful news was that the Savior had defeated death, and believers would live forever with Him in heaven (cf. Rev 21:4; 22:1–2, 17). In the new creation, the Father and the Son would be seated on their throne, and the redeemed would worship and serve them continually (cf. 22:3). The fact that they shared one single throne drew attention to the full divinity of the Son and His equality with the Father and the Spirit. Moreover, at the end of the age, the redeemed would not only be like the Messiah, but also see Him as He truly was (cf. 1 John 3:2). Now they viewed things imperfectly, like trying to see their reflection using an inferior mirror; but in the eternal state, they would understand their place in the universe with perfect clarity (cf. 1 Cor 12:12). Admittedly, believers now knew the Lord only partially; nevertheless, they looked forward to a time when they would know Him fully (cf. 1 Cor 13:12). In point of fact, their presence with the Lamb in heaven would enable them to see His face (cf. Num 6:25–27; Pss 4:6; 31:16; 67:1; 80:3, 7, 19; 119:135.). It would be incorrect to infer from Revelation 22:4 that the triune God, who is spirit (cf. John 4:24), had a literal human face; rather, John spoke figuratively to stress that the Lord would establish unbroken communion with His people. The apostle also used metaphorical language when he said that the name of the Lamb would be on the foreheads of His followers (Rev 22:4). The idea is that He would claim them as His own. The end of history would be better than the beginning, for a radiant

210

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

city would replace the ancient Eden orchard, and the light of God’s glory would drive out all darkness (cf. 4 Ezra 7:97–98; Test of Zeb 9:8). There would be no idleness or boredom in the eternal state, for the Lord would give His people sacerdotal responsibilities as His vice-regents (Rev 22:5). The last book of Scripture assured believers of God’s final purposes. Revelation should also increase their longing for communion with the triune God. What they now enjoyed was only a foretaste of grand and glorious things to come. If John (or any of his readers) had doubts concerning the vision he had received, the interpreting angel dispelled them with words of reassurance. He declared that God’s prophecies about the future—for instance, the Lamb’s overthrow of evil and the joys awaiting His followers in the eternal state—were true, trustworthy, and certain to take place at the divinely appointed time (v. 6). One prominent, Christ-centered message of the Apocalypse was the return of the Savior at the end of the age (v. 7). The certainty of His future appearing should have comforted His followers in times of hardship and motivated them to be obedient and faithful in times of temptation. Moreover, in this sixth statement of blessing found in the Apocalypse—which mirrors the first statement of blessing recorded in 1:3—the upright were reminded that by remaining devoted to the Son, they would be the privileged recipients of the Father’s favor. Previously, in 1:2, John affirmed his own testimony concerning the Messiah. The apostle again picked up on this theme in 22:8 when he said he was an eyewitness to the visions recorded in the last book of Scripture. The apostle also affirmed that he faithfully wrote down what he saw so that future generations of believers could read and obey these unveiled mysteries. This statement emphasizes that a Christ-centered goal of John was to shift the focus of believers from themselves to the Lamb. Oddly enough, when John saw and heard what the interpreting angel had revealed to him, the apostle fell down to worship the celestial being; but the angel commanded him to stop and urged John to worship the Lord (v. 9). Similarly, His people were to make Him the recipient of their homage and praise. Centuries earlier, in Daniel 12:4, an angel commanded the elder statesman to seal, or close up, the vision he had received so that it would remain confidential (cf. 8:26; 12:9). In contrast, an angel told John not to

Life and Death in the New Testament

211

keep the prophecies he had received a secret. The message he recorded was relevant not only for Christians in the first century of the common era, but also for believers today. As the latter group studied and applied the truths recorded in the Apocalypse, they would be better prepared for the return of the Savior (Rev 22:10; cf. 4 Ezra 12:37–38; 14:5–6, 45–46). People could respond either positively or negatively to the message of this book. A proper response included repenting of sin, seeking to live uprightly, and desiring to become more like the Messiah. An improper response included remaining entrenched in the world’s evil system and taking God lightly. Those who responded in this way would become spiritually hardened and more firmly set in their present course of wrongdoing (Rev 22:11; cf. Dan 12:10). Revelation began by stressing the certainty of Jesus’ return, the importance of remaining faithful to the Lord, and the genuineness of the prophecy John had received. These same themes were emphasized in the conclusion of the book and proved to be an encouragement to John and other believers, especially as they faced intense persecution. Throughout history, Christians have endured abuse from enemies of the faith. Jesus’ promise that He was “coming soon” (Rev 22:12) would be a source of comfort to His followers down through the centuries. No one could determine exactly when Jesus would return; yet believers knew that when His appearing did occur, it would take place quickly (cf. Isa 40:10; 62:11; Matt 24:36–25:13; Mark 13:32–37; Acts 1:7; 1 Thess 1:9–10; 2 Tim 4:8; Titus 2:13). They could rest assured of His coming, for Jesus, as the “Alpha and Omega” (Rev 22:13), was sovereign over all that transpired in history. Furthermore, as “the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End”, His lordship encompassed the past, the present, and the future. At the end of the age, Jesus would reward people for what they had done. While eternal joy was the heritage of the righteous, eternal sorrow was the lot of the wicked. Ultimately, the way people lived was an indicator of whether they were regenerate or unregenerate (v. 14; cf. Mal 3:5; Matt 7:15–20; 1 John 1:6–7). God would allow the faithful—namely, those who had not defiled themselves by the corrupt world system—to live with Him in heaven and enjoy the blessings of eternal life; however, God would exclude from His presence the “dogs” (Rev 22:15)—namely,

212

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

people of immoral and unspiritual character (cf. Deut 23:18; 1 Sam 17:43; Ps 59:6, 14; Ps Sol 17:26–29; Matt 15:26–27; Mark 7:27; Phil 3:2). Jesus assured His followers that the assertions recorded in the Apocalypse were true and could be trusted. He guaranteed what He declared, for He was the Messiah who came from the house and lineage of David (cf. Isa 11:1). As the “bright Morning Star” (Rev 22:16), He ensured that a new day of salvation would dawn. With such promises from the Savior awaiting fulfillment, it was appropriate for God’s Spirit and His people to extend an invitation for everyone to come to Jesus in faith and experience the joys of redemption. All were welcomed to drink from the water of eternal life, which the Lamb offered free of charge (v. 17). Revelation—like the rest of Scripture—was to be distinguished from mere human words. The book’s message was so important that God promised to judge those who might distort what it said (for example, by adding things to it or omitting things from it; vv. 18–19; cf. Deut 4:1–2; 12:32; 29:19–20; 1 En 104:11). The reference to the “tree of life” (Rev 22:19) recalled what existed in the ancient Eden orchard. The latter, being a sacred space where the first human pair communed with their Creator, found its counterpart in the “Holy City” that would exist in the eternal state. The good news was that Jesus would one day return. With John, all believers could affirm the certainty of this promise. The phrase rendered “Come, Lord Jesus” (v. 20) was equivalent to the transliterated Aramaic expression Maranatha, which is rendered “Come, Lord!” in 1 Corinthians 16:22 (cf. Did 10:6). John ended the last book of Scripture with a benediction of the Savior’s abundant grace for the people of God (Rev 22:21; cf. 1 John 2:28). As believers awaited Jesus’ return, they could serve the Lord out of love and with deep devotion. Also, by His grace they could resist any temptation to compromise their faith. Then when He appeared, they would be able to face Him with joy and gladness. At that moment, all of their deepest spiritual longings would finally be fulfilled. Conclusion Whereas the preceding chapter undertook a biblical and theological analysis of life and death in the Old Testament, the current chapter shifts the focus to the New Testament. There is a corresponding motivation

Life and Death in the New Testament

213

for doing so, namely, that the reality of death was a key part of the way in which believers living in the first century of the common era conceptualized the spatio-physical world in which they lived. Furthermore, as before, an awareness of this perspective helps to shed light on ways in which Christian belief is compatible with creation themes pertinent to origins science. Specifically, Jesus’ earliest followers maintained the following: that physical and spiritual death came through Adam, while new life came through Christ (cf. Rom 5:1–21); that present suffering would one day give way to future glory (cf. 8:1–39); that Jesus’ resurrection from the dead served as a pledge of the imperishable, glorious nature of the believer’s resurrection body (cf. 1 Cor 15:1–58); that Jesus made it possible for believers to share in His glory (cf. Heb 2:5–18); that Jesus was the believers’ compassionate High Priest (cf. Heb 4:14–5:10; 7:1–28; 9:1–10:18); and that at Jesus’ second coming, He would bring about final victory for believers (cf. Rev 20:1–22:21). Paul’s exposition in Romans 5:1–21 is the starting point for the biblical and theological analysis of life and death in the New Testament. The apostle revealed that the Son’s sacrificial death showed the remarkable extent of the Father’s love for the lost. The Father did not require any religious acts or works of righteousness on the part of humanity when He sent His Son. Also, the Father did not limit His salvation only to certain kinds of people or to those with correct behavior; instead, the Father opened the door of eternal life to every repentant sinner. Indeed, the characteristic that unites all human beings is that they have transgressed God’s Word. Paul explained that when Adam rebelled against God by deliberately disobeying His command, the entire human race became alienated from their Creator. Moreover, Adam’s decision brought enormous negative consequences upon all his descendants by introducing sin, hopelessness, and despair into the world. The apostle contrasted the woeful outcome of Adam’s transgression with the joyous results of Jesus’ single act of unconditional love. Whereas Adam’s iniquity brought condemnation to all his descendants, Jesus’ atoning sacrifice brought justification and new life to all who receive by faith His gift of salvation. Adam’s disobedience and all its dire consequences could be reversed through Jesus’ work on the cross. Paul noted that frustration caused by the Mo-

214

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

saic law actually served a useful purpose. Specifically, the more people became aware of their hopeless condition and their capacity to sin, the greater the opportunity for God’s grace to abound in its work of justification. A biblical and theological analysis of Romans 8:1–39 builds on the preceding observations. Paul revealed that those who trusted in the Messiah for salvation were forgiven. Moreover, they need not fear being punished by the Lord in the future day of the condemnation of the wicked. The apostle stated that those who operated in the flesh transgressed God’s Word in the decisions they made, the people they spent time with, and the values they embraced; in contrast, by operating in the Spirit, believers were empowered to dwell upon what was virtuous, enjoy the peace of God’s presence, and treat others with consideration and kindness. When believers were yielded to the Spirit’s control, they enjoyed the fullness of eternal life offered by the Father. Also, the Spirit provided them with an inner sense that they truly belonged to the Father. In the midst of the preceding circumstance, Paul offered a felicitous theological perspective. He found that in the light of eternity and the glory that was yet to come, the believers’ present sufferings were rather insignificant. Also, until God’s redemption was complete, believers could expect a certain degree of frustration in this world. That said, believers had not yet been privileged to see or experience everything God had in store for them. The Christian hope was a confident expectation that something more was coming. While believers might feel spiritually weak and unable to grapple with life’s difficulties, the Father had provided them encouragement through the Spirit. Even in the midst of suffering or pain, or when they did not know how they ought to pray, the Spirit interceded to link their hearts with the Father’s supremely wise purpose. Paul maintained that no one could stand against believers in doing the Father’s will. The question, then, was not so much whether God was on the side of His children, but whether they were on His side. To align themselves on God’s side, the desires and ambitions of believers had to bow to His redemptive plan. The apostle revealed that since the Father had given His Son, He would not withhold any eternal blessing from

Life and Death in the New Testament

215

believers. They could be sure, even when circumstances seemed out of control and unbearable, that the Father was working out His ultimate good purpose in the lives of those whom He called. Moreover, since the Father justified His children when they trusted in His Son, no one else could accuse them. Indeed, the Father left no grounds for anyone to charge them, even though Satan would like to do so. In the real world, it would be unheard of for an attorney or barrister to take the penalty for a client; but that is what the Son did at Calvary. He made it possible for the Father to pardon repentant sinners of all their transgressions. A biblical and theological analysis of 1 Corinthians 15:1–58 highlights the truth that the Messiah conquered death so that believers could have new life in Him. Paul reminded his readers that the crux of the gospel centered around the Son dying for the sins of the lost, being buried, being raised on the third day, and appearing to a sizable group of His followers. The apostle then linked the believers’ resurrection with the Son’s resurrection. Paul noted that if believers were not to be raised to new life, then neither was the Son raised; and if that were the case, then all Christianity was a farce. The apostle’s contention, though, was that the Son had been raised from the dead. Moreover, He had blazed an eschatological trail for all believers to follow. The apostle revealed that at the Son’s return, He would destroy all forces that opposed Him, including death itself, which He would deal a fatal blow. Then He would hand over the divine kingdom to the Father, who would reign supreme and unchallenged. Paul reminded his readers that death entered the world because of Adam’s sin; and since the human race is related to Adam through natural birth, sin and death spread to all humanity. The apostle explained that while one man’s disobedience brought natural death to all, in the same way, another man’s obedience would result in resurrection and eternal life for all who were spiritually related to Him. Furthermore, His resurrection was the down payment, or guarantee, that believers would also be raised. Additionally, the Savior’s bodily resurrection was the prototype of the future resurrection of all those who trusted in Him for salvation. Paul explained that the Messiah sealed death’s destruction with His own crucifixion and resurrection from the dead; but complete victory over death would only come when the Messiah returned to de-

216

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

feat Satan. Though the apostle thought it was foolish to try to pinpoint the exact nature of the resurrection body, he used comparisons to natural things to explain how believers would be transformed. For instance, as a seed had a relationship to a plant it produced, so the resurrection body was related to the old body; but the seed was not the same as the old body, anymore than the resurrection body was the same as the old body. Expressed differently, a glorified body raised from the dead would be related to the old, natural body that died, and yet, it would be remarkably metamorphosized. The resurrection body would not die or engage in sin, and it would share in the resurrection power of the Messiah. Furthermore, Paul revealed that this transformation would not be slow and gradual; instead, when the Savior returned, believers—whether dead or alive—would be instantly changed. They would receive incorruptible bodies, and this transformation would display the Son’s complete and final victory over death. A biblical and theological analysis of Hebrews 2:5–18 centers on the place humankind occupied within the creation order. In 1:1–14, the writer clearly stated that the Son was far greater than angels; but there still remained the question of where Homo sapiens fit into that hierarchy. The writer conceded that at least in some senses, they fell into third place, that is, a level lower than the angels held. By right, the hierarchy of God’s order was set: Jesus belonged to the highest honor, the angels came next, and humanity fell into third position; but as the epistle continued, the writer highlighted Jesus’ unbelievable humility. He, who had eternally occupied first place, for a time, willingly gave up that position. He stooped not merely to second place—the level of the angels— but accepted an even lower position, equality with human beings. The author of Hebrews explained that when God created human beings, He crowned them with glory and honor. God also placed all other visible creation under their authority; nonetheless, as Scripture revealed, humanity had not lived up to God’s expectations. The Creator originally intended the human race to exercise dominion over the world. Scripture and history confirmed that God’s desire for humanity to be sovereign over everything in the creaturely realm, had not been fully realized. This is because people allowed the devil and sin to rule

Life and Death in the New Testament

217

their lives. In turn, those two entities brought humanity into further subjection to death. The plight of the lost, though, did not prevent the Son from becoming a human being. In fact, it was precisely their need that motivated Him to move toward them. The Son became one with humanity in every way, but with one important distinction. Unlike the rest of the human race, the Son followed the Father’s plan. Jesus rejected the ways of sin; and in doing so, He showed Himself stronger than Satan and death. At Calvary, the Messiah dealt directly with Satan and death, beating them down. As a result, Jesus became the pioneer of the believers’ salvation. A biblical and theological analysis of other selected portions from Hebrews (specifically, 4:14–5:10; 7:1–28; and 9:1–10:18) points to Jesus as the believers’ compassionate High Priest. In the Old Testament era, the humanity of accredited priests enabled them to stand in the place of God’s chosen people. Also, the priests’ commission enabled them to approach God with the people’s sacrifices and prayers. For a period, these priests’ God-ordained service was adequate, but it could be neither permanent nor complete. The writer of Hebrews explained that God always knew the better plan He would subsequently establish. His later strategy would still involve a human mediator. Like the Old Testament priests, this person would experience all forms of testing common to humanity; and this human priest could sympathize with the weaknesses people endured. Be that as it may, the ministry of one more merely human priest would offer no improvement over the service the Levites had offered. The Father’s better plan involved a priest who was both human and divine. The God-man, Jesus Christ, would not only experience temptation, but also, unlike all other human priests, completely conquer it. The author noted that throughout the Messiah’s life, His thoughts and actions were characterized by obedience and moral purity. Also, as the Son of God, the Redeemer’s earthly life ended, not with a physical body decaying in a grave, but rather with the risen Lord victoriously passing through the heavens. In short, Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection qualified Him to be the source of eternal salvation. As such, He served forever as the believers’ High Priest in the royal order of Melchizedek. Just as Melchizedek seemingly appeared and disappeared without

218

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

record of parents, birth, or death, so too the existence of the Son of God was without beginning or end. From a theological perspective, the Son’s priesthood was superior to that of Aaron, for it was eternal and heavenly in nature. Like the Aaronic priests, the Son could identify with those He represented and served; yet unlike the Aaronic priests, Jesus was sinless. Also, whereas the priests of Aaron could not make permanent atonement for sins, the Son, by the sacrifice of Himself on the cross, provided eternal redemption. Even though the Aaronic priests could serve only a limited period (due to the fact that they died), the risen Lord remained the believers’ High Priest for all eternity. The author of the epistle never came close to saying the old Levitical priesthood was worthless, for God Himself had given Moses the model for that priesthood as one part of the Mount Sinai covenant. Through Moses, God had carefully instructed the Israelites how they should live. He wanted Moses and the chosen people to follow precisely this divine model. That archetype, the Mount Sinai covenant, and its priesthood centered around the tabernacle and its successor, the Jerusalem temple. It made sense that the old God-given priesthood could be greatly modified only if the Mount Sinai covenant were also replaced. This is precisely what the Messiah accomplished. Not only was He a new and superior high priest, but also He was the mediator of a better covenant. From the dawn of creation, the Father intended the first covenant to be only temporary and that eventually it would be replaced by a superior covenant. Rather than being a compact written on stone tablets, God promised to write the principles of the new covenant on people’s hearts. Also, instead of God revealing Himself as a relatively remote figure, living behind an imposing curtain in the Jerusalem temple, under the new covenant, God’s interaction with the redeemed would become more personal and intimate. Whereas before, God’s people had struggled to know Him, within the new covenant, they would gain a much clearer understanding of their Lord. Though within the old covenant, the Father had made provision for the pardoning of the sins of His people, the new covenant sharpened their awareness of His eternal forgiveness in the Son. The Father would establish this new covenant forever, and it would never need replacement. All of these eternal realities were made possible through the Son’s atoning sacrifice at Calvary.

Life and Death in the New Testament

219

The writer of the epistle revealed that through God’s Spirit, all new covenant believers could know the Lord in a manner similar to, and even more personally than they knew one another. The author explained that in the days before the Son’s first advent, the nation of Israel collectively could know the Father; but, with rare exceptions, individuals tended to know about the Lord only through what they had heard. In contrast, under the new covenant, the Father had come to live not only with but also in His people. Moreover, through the incarnation of the Son and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, believers could know more about the Father. The writer noted that God offered forgiveness to Old Testament people, but the associated ritual of animal sacrifice dreadfully complicated the process. Now through the Son, believers had more direct access to the Father and His grace. Not only did they receive pardoning, but through the Spirit, they could receive assurance of that forgiveness and their resulting relationship with the Father. Moreover, the author clarified that during the period of the old covenant, the Israelites struggled to know God. As the prophets began to speak about a new day coming, their hearers might have rejoiced in what the Father was going to do, but generations died, not seeing that new day. They might have heard God’s promise of a new covenant, but they died under the old covenant. Because of the Son’s redemptive work, believers lived in the days of the Father’s new covenant; and since it was established through the Son, it would never change. A biblical and theological analysis of Revelation 20:1–22:21 indicates that what the Son inaugurated during His first advent would be brought to completion at His second advent. It was also then that He would bring final victory to all believers. He was the one who bore witness to the Father during His earthly ministry; and the Son did not compromise the Father’s truths even when the Son was executed on the cross. In turn, the Father raised the Son from the dead, so He would never die again. Furthermore, as the sovereign Lord, the Son was the exalted ruler over all. It was through His sacrificial death that He freed believers from their sins and made them a kingdom of priests to serve the Father. In order to usher in this plan, it was necessary for the divine warrior to return to earth as the all-powerful King and Lord and van-

220

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

quish His foes. His end-time program included the imprisonment and judgment of Satan and his demonic cohort, along with the judgment of the wicked dead. These events had to take place before the establishment of the new creation that awaited believers. The promised new heaven and new earth would only faintly resemble what existed now. For instance, none of the problems that were here now would be found in eternity. Believers would commune face-to-face with the triune God in a city that surpassed the beauty of everything the Creator had ever made. The eternal abode of the redeemed would be characterized by moral purity, unparalleled joy, and everlasting peace. The prospect of unending life, which the first human parents forfeited in the ancient Eden orchard, would finally become a reality in the eternal state. Also, the glory and beauty of the triune God would grace the redeemed in their cosmopolitan city. There would be no inactivity or tedium in the new creation, for God would give His people the authority and power to govern the cosmos as His sacerdotal vice-regents. If they endured and persevered in their faith, they had the sure and certain hope of being rewarded, that is, of being the recipients of God’s ultimate and fantastic promises. On the basis of these pledges and their assured fulfillment, God’s Spirit and His people extended an invitation for everyone to come to the Messiah in faith and experience the joys of the salvation He freely offered.

Chapter 6

Progressive Covenantalism as an Integrative Motif of Scripture

T

his study has explored a variety of creation themes that are pertinent to origins science. In the process, a “divine teleology of creation” (Gage 1984:27) has emerged, namely, a “broader basis of purposive history” in which the Lord is the “transcendent referent” (Brueggemann 1982:12) who alone gives “ultimate meaning” to the universe. Against this cosmological backdrop, one can discern that “creation is an act of commitment on God’s part” (Goldingay 2003:56). One can also recognize that because “creation is covenantally ordered” (Brueggemann 1997:157), so too the existence of God’s chosen people is “covenantally ordered”. These statements explain why, in the previous chapters, the biblical motif of God’s covenantal relationship with the faith community was often mentioned. In this regard, Anderson (1962:727–728) points out that the “relationship between the Creator and his creation is essentially that of the covenant”. Moreover, Anderson states that the “covenant, rather than a rational principle, is the ground of the unity of creation” (cf. Childs 1986:33, 43; Helyer 2008:256–257; Horton 2011:332; Irons and Kline 2001:253; Jacob 1958:137–138; Wright 2005:23–24, 39). In light of the preceding theological observations, and to help deepen and expand the discussion, the present chapter introduces and develops at length the concept of progressive covenantalism.* Succinctly put, progressive covenantalism is a working model for comprehending the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. The present goal is to articulate a consistent understanding of how to put together seem* What follows in this chapter is a revision of material in my journal article titled, “Progressive Covenantalism as an Integrative Motif of Scripture”, which appears in the March 2006 edition of Conspectus (cf. Lioy 2006b).

222

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

ingly heterogeneous portions of Scripture. This integrative motif asserts that God’s progressive revelation of His covenants is an extension of the kingdom blessings He first introduced in creation. Affiliated claims are that the various covenants revealed in Scripture are interrelated and build on one another, that the people of God throughout the history of salvation are united, and that they equally share in His eschatological promises. The initial interest in the subject began after watching the webcast, “What Is Progressive Covenantalism”, hosted by Michael Patton and Rhome Dyck of The Theology Program (Patton and Dyck 2005). In fact, this was the first time I heard the concept introduced and explained. Admittedly, the notion of “progressive dispensationalism” has been around for a number of years, as reflected in the publication Continuity and discontinuity (Feinberg 1988; cf. Blaising and Bock 1993; Willis and Master 1994); but the idea of “progressive covenantalism” seemed to be distinctive, especially as presented by individuals who did their graduate studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, an academic institution long known for its dispensational leanings. The intent of Patton and Dyck was to come up with a consistent understanding of how to put together seemingly heterogeneous portions of Scripture. Concededly, back in 2005, they did not give an elaborate explanation of what they meant by progressive covenantalism; nonetheless, the comments they made in their lecture provided a useful starting point for proposing a working model of how to understand the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. This endeavor mirrors the ongoing task of theology. As König (1994:182) explains, “theology is not merely repeating what is written in the Bible but rather rethinking the biblical material” so as to foster greater understanding (italics are the author’s). (As a disclaimer, the elaboration in this chapter of what Patton and Dyck proposed concerning progressive covenantalism reflects my own views, not necessarily theirs.) What is the reason for introducing another approach to explain the intertextuality between the testaments? It is centered in the shortcomings associated with the concept of “dispensations”. Patton and Dyck noted that over the past century, dispensationalism has focused on the discontinuity in the master plan of God (cf. Blaising 1992:23–39; Saucy

Progressive Covenantalism as an Integrative Motif of Scripture

223

1993:26–27). Indeed, the spotlight is on the separate ways in which the Lord has worked among His people in different periods of time. The lecturers observed that this emphasis is misplaced. Rather than accent distinctions within different portions of Scripture, it is more helpful to talk about the unity of the divine plan for the faith community throughout history. In this case, God’s covenant with His people is the basis for seeing more continuity than discontinuity between the testaments (regarding the fundamental homogeneity and continuity between the testaments, cf. Lioy 2005:15–16). When I first began to investigate this topic in 2005, I surfaced one instance in which progressive covenantalism was associated with theonomy or Christian reconstructionism. (Regrettably, the link to the website no longer exists.) In another instance, Moore (2000:23), a professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, used the phrase “progressive covenantalism” in reference to the views of Hoekema (a longtime professor at Calvin Theological Seminary) concerning the way in which the kingdom promises of the Old Testament would be fulfilled (cf. Hoekema 1979:274). These references, however, seemed to be more incidental and not representative of a broader, well-established view concerning progressive covenantalism. In light of the preceding observations, there continues to be merit in developing further the theological construct originally put forward by Patton and Dyck. That said, the goal of this chapter is not to present a wide-ranging summary of contemporary thought regarding the covenant. Instead, the biblical and theological analysis undertaken here reflects the conviction that while there is “great variety in the Bible” (König 1994:182), the Word of God is also characterized by “meaningful coherence” in which thematic trajectories can be discerned. With respect to the integrative motif proposed in the following sections, the major premise is that God’s progressive revelation of His covenants is an extension of the kingdom blessings He first introduced when He created the cosmos. Affiliated claims are that the various covenants revealed in Scripture are interrelated and build on one another, that the people of God throughout the history of salvation are united, and that they equally share in His eschatological promises. (For an overview of the development of the doctrine of the covenant in post-Reformation the-

224

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

ology, as well as twentieth-century trends of the interpretations of the doctrine of the covenant, cf. Kil Ho Lee 1993:4–21.) Theological Covenants This chapter affirms the view that the covenant concept is used as an organizing and controlling principle of Scripture. Through the Messiah, the covenant also links God’s various affirmations of His creative and salvific purposes toward humanity (cf. Akins 1995:249–250; Beckwith 1987:98–99; Jocz 1968:68, 225; König 1994:183; Shelton 2004:21, 34). Matthews (2000:vii) regards the covenant as one of four overarching themes that “comprise the literary and theological glue of the ancient Israelite writers”. The other three themes identified by the author are remnant, universalism, and wisdom (cf. Jacob 1958:136). Indeed, Matthews (2000:7) considers the covenant concept as “the single most overriding theme in the Old Testament” (cf. Freedman 1964:419; Nicholson 1986:209–210, 216; Payne 1962:73–74; Van Groningen 1990:59). As well, Williamson (2003:139) observes that the “divine-human covenants” are not only pivotal within the Hebrew sacred writings, but also are “foundational for the revelation that unfolds in the rest of the Bible” (cf. Kent 1985:289; Walton 1994:24–46). McKenzie (2000:8) adds that the covenant is the foremost biblical image “to express the relationship between God and humans” (cf. Dyrness 1977:113; Eichrodt 1961:1:36, 502–511; Fensham 1971:94; Simkins 1994:152). By acknowledgment, no consensus exists “over the precise number of divine covenants in Scripture” (Williamson 2000:420). Some affirm “only those divine-human relationships to which covenantal terminology is expressly applied”. In contrast, this chapter identifies “several additional covenants” (cf. the discussion presented by Walton 1994:47– 62). Even when the word “covenant” does not appear, the motif remains present throughout Scripture, whether explicitly or implicitly (cf. Bratcher 1987:24; Shelton 2004:24). To be specific, the history of salvation is understood within the framework of three central or dominant theological covenants: the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace (cf. Osterhaven 2001:301–303; Vos 2000:23; Waltke and Yu 2007:259, 287–288). These three are called “theological covenants” because, while not explicit, they are implicit in the Bible (for

Progressive Covenantalism as an Integrative Motif of Scripture

225

an examination of the covenant concept in reformed theology, cf. Murray 1953:3–32; VanGemeren 1988:37–62). The covenant of redemption is understood as being made in eternity past among the members of the Godhead (cf. Grudem 1995:518–519). An examination of the broad sweep of Scripture as well as the history of salvation indicates that it was the intent of the Father to appoint the Son to live a morally perfect life (cf. Heb 4:15; 7:26–27). In turn, He became an acceptable substitutionary sacrifice by dying an undeserved death at Calvary (cf. Rom 3:25–26). He did this on behalf of those who would trust in Him for salvation. In essence, the Messiah became the covenantal representative for the elect (cf. 1 Pet 1:17–21; also, cf. the extensive discussion offered by McComiskey 1985:179–192). The outworking of the covenant of redemption is seen in the covenant of works and the covenant of grace (cf. Pretorious 2006:47; Robertson 1980:55). In the ancient Eden orchard, the covenant of works (sometimes referred to as the covenant of creation) was made between God and Adam as the federal head of humanity (cf. Gen 1:28–30; 2:15–17; Hos 6:7; Sir 17:11–12; McComiskey 1985:213–221). Admittedly, this portion of Scripture does not specifically mention the Hebrew word for “covenant” (cf. Dumbrell 1984:43–46); yet as Matthews (2000:7–8) notes, it contains “elements of covenantal or treaty language” (cf. Grudem 1995:516–517; Horton 2011:415; Shelton 2005:45). Rendtorff (1989:386, 388, 393) argues that God’s covenant with His creation forms the macro-structure around which the primeval narrative of Genesis 1–11 is organized. Likewise, Brown (1996:289) notes that creation itself “provides a defining framework” and the “cosmic bedrock that supports the covenant” (cf. Robertson 1980:27, 44–45, 62; VanGemeren, 1990:86, 280). Additionally, McKenzie (2000:47) observes that chapters 1:1–2:3 “prepare the reader for the series of covenants to come”. This is done in two ways. First, the Genesis narrative verbalizes the divine blessing for humans to be fruitful and multiply, a notion that subsequent covenants reaffirm. Second, the passage explains “the origin of Sabbath, which will serve as the sign of the [Mosaic] covenant” (cf. Lioy 2004:40–46, 65–70; Lioy 2005:53–55; Ross 1988:95). As noted in chapter 2 of this study, the Lord created Adam in His image and gave Adam the covenantal responsibility of expanding the

226

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

vice-regency of the human race from Eden to the entire earth (cf. Lioy 2010:14; Van Groningen 1996a:125). This was to occur by the increase in numbers of the human race and their dominion over the planet. (With respect to the immediate context of Genesis 1:26–28 as it pertains to the mandate of human beings to serve as God’s vice-regents over the earth, cf. Lioy 2005:51–52.) In this special arrangement, Adam was required to pass the test of the forbidden fruit. If he succeeded, the human race would have completed its earthly history without sin and death. Because Adam failed the test, he brought the judgment of death to the entire human race (cf. Rom 5:18 and the corresponding discussion appearing in chapter 5 of this study). In light of the fact that Adam disobeyed God and broke the covenant of works, God established the covenant of grace (also known as the Edenic covenant) between Himself and humankind (cf. Gen 3:15; Isa 42:6; Grudem 1995:519; Payne 1962:96; Payne 1973:157–158). The Messiah, as the head of redeemed humanity, was pivotal to this special arrangement (cf. Rom 5:15–21). The Son received from the Father the promise of an elect people, whom the Messiah redeemed from the curse of the Fall through His atoning sacrifice at Calvary. Moreover, as noted in chapter 5 of this treatise, the second Adam fulfilled the obligations of human loyalty that the first Adam failed to heed. The Messiah alone was able to give eternal life to all who put their faith in Him. The basis for the covenant of grace was the promise of God to humankind in the garden of Eden, as recorded in Genesis 3:15 (cf. Dyrness 1977:116; Kaiser 1978:35–37, 78–79). As was noted in chapter 4 of this study, this verse has been called the protoevangelium, that is, the “first gospel” or “first account of the gospel of redemption” (Van Groningen 1990:110). Moreover, as chapter 4 of this treatise explained, the Lord declared that He would put continuous enmity between the serpent and the woman. There would also be ongoing hostility between the offspring of the serpent and the offspring of the woman. In due course, the offspring of Eve would crush the head of the serpent, while the serpent would strike her offspring’s heel. This summary reflects a historical-exegetical reading of the text. Because later biblical writers also interpreted the text in a theologicalcanonical manner, they came to see the serpent in the ancient Eden

Progressive Covenantalism as an Integrative Motif of Scripture

227

orchard as an incarnate archetype of Satan (cf. v. 1), the supreme adversary of God (cf. Rev 12:9; 20:2). Likewise, the devil’s offspring were those among humankind who followed him and his ways (cf. John 8:44; 1 John 3:8). In contrast, the woman’s offspring were those who were born of God and remained faithful to Him (cf. John 1:12–13; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6; 1 John 3:1–2). As the example of Cain and Abel shows (cf. Gen 4), there continues to be constant strife between these two divisions of humanity (cf. John 15:18–25). Scripture reveals that Satan is the “god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4) and that he has spiritually blinded those who choose to be his followers. Indeed, the entire world lies under the power of the evil one (cf. 1 John 5:19) and follow his debased ways (cf. Eph 2:2). They are at odds with the redeemed and persecute them for their identity with the Messiah (cf. 2 Cor 1:5–7; Col 1:24; 2 Tim 3:12). This is part of the divine plan for overcoming the evil one. As Genesis 3:15 promised, the victory of the redeemed was assured by the Savior. Ultimately, Jesus’ followers would triumph over the devil “by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony” (Rev 12:11). Scripture reveals that the Messiah’s atoning sacrifice on the cross overcame the forces of darkness (cf. Isa 53:12; Luke 24:26, 46; 1 Pet 1:10–11). Moreover, at Calvary, the Son disarmed Satan by taking away his power to accuse believers (cf. Rom 8:1–4, 31–39; Col 2:15; Heb 2:14–15). Furthermore, Paul noted that the “God of peace” (Rom 16:20) would “soon crush Satan” under the feet of the saints. In truth, Jesus is the divine warrior who triumphs on behalf of His people at His return (cf. 2 Thes 1:5–10; Rev 19:11–21). From a human standpoint, the delay seems long; but from the divine standpoint it is imminent, being one of the next series of events on the eschatological calendar (cf. 2 Pet 3:8). As was noted in chapter 2 of this study, the research done by Peacock (1995:2–3) indicates that the Eden narrative of Genesis 2:4–3:24 depicts “three realms of relationship” that were “broken as a direct consequence of sin”: (1) between God and humanity; (2) between individuals; and (3) between humanity and the creation. God works through the covenant to “restore the broken relationships”. In this paradigm, all the covenants recorded in the Old Testament are intertwined with the Eden narrative. Moreover, each covenant discloses how God used it to partially restore the “realms of relational existence broken by sin”. This ongoing redemp-

228

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

tive process is consummated in the new covenant inaugurated by the Messiah. Specifically, He establishes fellowship between God and His covenant people, enables the Church to experience community in all its fullness, and ensures that at the end of the age, all creation joins the redeemed in the glorious freedom of eternal perfection (cf. Peacock 1995:6– 7, 12, 51–64, 236–239; Shelton 2004:7–8, 21). Patton and Dyck liken God’s covenantal promise to Adam and Eve as a first installment on a long-term plan to fix what was broken when sin entered the human race (cf. Rom 5:12). Thereafter, each covenant in Scripture builds on the one made in the ancient Eden orchard. Similarly, each covenant increases the recipients of the divine plan of redemption. Together, these covenants are analogous to an ascending staircase that shows the direction in which God is leading His people. The inherent unity of the covenants is reinforced by the observation made by Smith (1993:149) that in the Hebrew sacred writings, “covenant ... never occurs in the plural”. The idea is that “there is only one ‘covenant’ with many manifestations”. Biblical Covenants The Edenic covenant is the basis for all the subsequent covenants in the Bible. Because these special arrangements are explicitly described in Scripture, they are called “biblical covenants”. Though they are distinct from one another, they are tightly interrelated. Indeed, all these covenants operate under the premise that the redeemed are to submit to God’s rule and live in accordance with His moral law (for example, as expressed in the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount; for a detailed analysis of the interrelationship between these two portions of Scripture, cf. Lioy 2004). Such a faith-stance is in response to God’s grace. It is never regarded as a way to earn God’s acceptance or merit His favor. As was previously mentioned, the Lord established the Edenic covenant with Adam and Eve, the biological progenitors of the entire human race (cf. Gen 3:15). The preceding compact is followed by the Noahic covenant, which pertains to Noah and his descendants (cf. 6:18–22; 9:8–17). In 8:21, the Lord declared that He would never again send a flood to destroy all life. Then in 9:8–17, He solemnly confirmed that decision with a covenant,

Progressive Covenantalism as an Integrative Motif of Scripture

229

the sign of which was the rainbow. In the ancient Near East, covenants often had a sign or seal to commemorate them (cf. Lioy 2010:18–19). One view is that until this period in history, there had never been a rainbow. Another more likely view is that rainbows had always been appearing near rain clouds, but that after the Flood, God invested this beautiful arch of color in the sky with a new and special theological meaning. According to the Genesis account, the rainbow would function as a reminder to God that He should limit the damage any rainstorm could do. He would not allow the water to continue to rise on the earth until all living things had perished. Furthermore, because of the Lord’s grace, Noah and his descendants were released from the ark to repopulate a stable creation. As they increased in number, they had the God-given opportunity to extend the vice-regency of humankind in all geographical directions and exercise responsible dominion wherever they resided. They also were required to heed God’s ethical requirements. Those who transgressed His moral law faced the dire prospect of everlasting separation from Him. Next in line is the Abrahamic covenant, which the Lord made with the patriarchs and their offspring (cf. Gen 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 15:1–20; 17:1–14; 22:15–18; 24:6–8; 26:23–24; 28:13–15; 35:11–12). The Lord first established this special agreement with Abraham, as the ancestor and head of Israel. Through the patriarch and his descendants, the vice-regency of the human race would be expanded further. Initially, this occurred through the Israelites’ increase in numbers and conquest of the land of Canaan. Ultimately, through the advent of the Messiah and the evangelistic efforts of His followers, the light of the gospel began spreading to all regions of the earth (cf. Matt 28:18–20; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8; Rom 10:18). Here, one discovers that Scripture is not just about theology. It also is a record of the triune God reaching out to humankind in love and grace. According to Genesis 17, when Abraham was 99 years old, the Lord appeared to him to reaffirm the covenant and confirm it with name changes and the sign of circumcision. As on previous occasions, the patriarch learned that he would have many descendants, who would possess Canaan. He was also told that he and all the males in his household were to be circumcised. Moreover, this practice was to be repeated on

230

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

all Abraham’s male descendants as well as others in the covenant community. Circumcision represented an oath affirming the covenant. It was similar to saying, “If I am untrue to the covenant, may I be cut off like my foreskin”. This reflected the literal meaning of the phrase for “to make a covenant”, which is “to cut a covenant”. The idea is that Abraham and his descendants were to live righteously. Those who violated God’s moral requirements would experience His judgment. Later, in the initial decades following Jesus’ resurrection, some legalists disrupted the Church by placing too much of an emphasis on the practice of circumcision (cf. Acts 15:1–2; Rom 2:25–29; Gal 5:2–6; Phil 3:1–3). Paul argued in Romans 4 that Abraham was the father of all who believed, whether circumcised or uncircumcised. The apostle also maintained that a person was a “Jew” (2:29) who was “one inwardly”. These observations were not meant to deny the existence of ethnic, national Israel. Such was affirmed, including God’s eschatological program for the converted, physical descendants of Abraham (cf. Zech 10:8–12; Rom 11:25–27; Compton 1986:161–180; Cranfield 1983:576–577; Edgar 1997:15–17; Nwachukwu 2002:241–243, 248; Pierce 1994:35–36; Schreiner 1998:614–623); nonetheless, it was important to stress that natural descent from Abraham did not automatically guarantee the inheritance of the divine promises. Embracing the covenant with saving faith was imperative (cf. Barker 1982:5). Galatians 6:16 makes reference to “the Israel of God”. Some understand the preceding connective in the biblical text (“and,” which renders the Greek word kai) as pointing to two distinct groups, that is, “all who follow this rule” as well as “the Israel of God” (cf. Saucy 1993:198–202). The alternate view is that in this verse, the connective is more properly rendered “even”. This means that “all who follow this rule” are also “the Israel of God”. Expressed differently, the latter are the newly constituted, messianic covenant community of believing Jews and Gentiles (cf. Pss 125:5; 128:6; Boice 1976:507; Bruce 1982:274–275; Guthrie 1981b:152; Hays 1994:11:345–346; Hendriksen 1995c:246–247; Holwerda 1995:169; Ridderbos 1984:227; Silva 1996:184). The seal of the Holy Spirit, rather than circumcision, was now the faith community’s identifying mark (cf. Eph 1:13–14). On the one hand, there was individuality and uniqueness among the members of Christ’s

Progressive Covenantalism as an Integrative Motif of Scripture

231

body (cf. 1 Cor 12:4–6). On the other hand, there was also a mystical unity. Indeed, “all its many parts”(v. 12) formed “one body” through faith in the Messiah. The believers’ union with Him was made possible through the baptizing work of the Spirit (v. 13). Together, saved Jews and Gentiles formed one body, partook of the same Spirit, and shared one hope (Eph. 4:4). There was “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (vv. 5–6; cf. Rom 6:3–4; Col 2:12). After the Abrahamic covenant comes the Mosaic covenant (also known as the Sinaitic or old covenant). This special agreement was established through the mediation of Moses and has ethnic Israel as its immediate focus (cf. Exod 19–24). The nation’s redemption from slavery in Egypt forms the historical context for the issuance of God’s law, which Paul said was “holy” (Rom 7:12), and the divine commandments, which the apostle noted were “holy, righteous, and good”. The people of the covenant were required to observe its stipulations. Obedience would lead to blessing, while disobedience would result in defeat and exile from the promised land (cf. Lev 26; Deut 28). The Israelites—particularly those who had the faith of Abraham (cf. Rom 4:16)—served as God’s agents to extend the sacerdotal vice-regency of redeemed humanity (cf. Williamson 2003:154). In some ways, the progressive unfolding of divine revelation, as recorded in the Bible, is an exposition of the missionary intent of God. For instance, in the Old Testament, the Lord “called and elected” (Kaiser 1996:7) Israel for “service unto the nations of the earth”. This indicates that the nation was “chosen … as the means by which salvation could be extended to others throughout the earth” (Wright 2006:263). In point of fact, the “world of nations” (Peters 1982:21) was supposed to “come to Israel”. Thus, Israel was supposed to be the “mediator between God and the nations” (23). More specifically, Israel was to be the “priesthood of God among the nations to mediate God’s revelation, salvation, and purpose” (cf. Gen 12:1–3; Exod 19:6; Ps 67:1–2; Isa 2:1–4; 61:6; Mic 4:1–3). The eschatological office and function that once belonged to Israel (and its consecrated monarchs) is fulfilled in the Messiah. Guinan (1992:908) pointed out that “for Christians, the promise of the Mosaic

232

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

covenant has become a reality in Christ”. Indeed, as the last Adam, the Savior is the representative head of a new, redeemed humanity. Furthermore, the missionary function of Israel has been transferred, at least temporarily, to the Church. The body of Christ has become the witness, the priesthood, the servant, the salt, and the light of the risen Lord to a lost and dying world. Accordingly, Jesus’ disciples go out into the entire world heralding the gospel and bringing the lost to the Savior (cf. Lioy 2010:87–88). In this way of thinking, the Mosaic covenant is another link in God’s unbroken eschatological plan. This stands in contrast to the view of dispensationalists such as Merrill (1987:1–2), who claims that, rather than standing “within the broad stream of covenant tradition”, the Mosaic covenant is “made with Israel alone”. It is true that this special agreement originally had the physical descendants of Jacob as its focus; nonetheless, as Merrill concedes, the Lord wanted to use the Israelites to introduce His redemptive message to humanity. Indeed, an undeniable element of unity and continuity with the rest of the covenants is the basis for the Mosaic covenant being the foundation upon which the Israelites were able to “mediate the soteriological purposes of God” to the world. The case for continuity, rather than discontinuity, is also evident in Merrill’s statement that the Mosaic covenant “springs from” the “Genesis narratives” and is “informed by them” (1987:3). Keumyoung (1989:abstract), having evaluated the dispensational view of the Sinaitic covenant and the law, concluded that “it is foreign for the biblical writers to separate pure law from the Decalogue, to see the Sermon on the Mount as primarily applicable to the millennial kingdom, or to assume an antithetical relationship between law and grace” (cf. 373–375). The Davidic covenant follows the Mosaic covenant and has both Jews and Gentiles in its purview (cf. 2 Sam 7:5–16; Pss 89; 132). Second Samuel 7:11–13 records the establishment of God’s covenant with David, who was the head of Israel’s permanent, royal dynasty. Although the word covenant is not specifically stated in this passage, it is used elsewhere to describe this occasion (cf. 2 Sam 23:5; Ps 89:28, 34). Clearly, the issues of 2 Samuel 7 are of immense theological importance. They concern not only the first coming of the Messiah, but also the Savior’s

Progressive Covenantalism as an Integrative Motif of Scripture

233

eternal rule on the throne of David. The Hebrew noun rendered “house” (v. 11) lies at the heart of this passage. David saw his own house (or palace) and desired to build a house (or temple) for the Lord; but God declared that He would build a house (or dynasty) for David, and the king’s son would build a house (or temple) for the Lord. In His covenant with David, God promised that the king’s descendants would become a dynasty and always rule over Israel. Individual kings were subject to severe punishment (cf. Ps 89:30–32), but the Lord would never permanently reject the line of David from the throne (cf. vv. 33–37). The New Testament reveals that God’s promises to David were fulfilled in the Messiah through the new covenant, which encompassed the household of faith in both testaments (cf. Isa 54:10; Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 11:19; 18:31; 34:25; 36:26; Heb 8:7–13; 11:39–40; for an extensive discussion of the messianic meaning of the Davidic covenant, cf. Akins 1995:157–228). Although various passages in the Old Testament mention God’s establishment of an “everlasting covenant” (cf. Isa 24:5; 55:3; 61:8; Jer 32:40; 50:5; Ezek 16:60; 37:26), only Jeremiah 31:31 speaks of a “new covenant” (cf. Heb 8:8). The emphasis here is on the inauguration of a covenant that is both “new in time and renewed in nature” (Kaiser 1972:17; cf. the extensive discussion on the new covenant made by Kaiser 1978:231–235). Jesus established the new covenant through the shedding of His blood (cf. Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; Heb 10:29; 12:24; 13:20; Malone 1989:230; McKenzie 2000:6). Jesus also kept the conditions of the covenant perfectly (cf. Heb 4:15), served as the Mediator of the covenant (cf. 9:15), and promised to return as the covenant’s victorious King (cf. Matt 24:29–31). Through the Savior’s atoning sacrifice, He made redemption and forgiveness of sins possible. All were now invited to partake of what He had done. In short, those who put their faith in the Son were forgiven and received everlasting life (cf. John 3:16). Concerning Jeremiah 31:31–34, this arguably would have been the high point of Jeremiah’s prophetic ministry. By saying that a day would come, Jeremiah also indicated that the new covenant would be part of the future messianic age (cf. v. 31; Feinberg 1976:574–575). More than a century before (that is, in 722 B.C.E.), the Assyrians had defeated and removed the residents of Israel (cf. 2 Kings 17:5–6); however, even though

234

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

the northern kingdom no longer existed, Israel would be included along with Judah in the new covenant (cf. Jer 31:31). This indicated that it would to be for all God’s people. Indeed, “Israel” (v. 33) referred to the entire nation, which was divided into the house of Israel and Judah; also, the phrase “after that time” referred to the Jews’ return from exile and their repopulation of the promised land. As Thompson (1980:580) explains, the covenant the Lord inaugurated between Himself and the Israelites at Mount Sinai formed the backdrop to Jeremiah’s announcement (cf. Exod 19:1–24:11; Keown, Scalise, and Smothers 1995:133). The limitations associated with the old covenant accentuated the reason for the new covenant. In the former, which God originally made with the ancestors of the Jews, He “took them by the hand” (Jer 31:32; in a manner of speaking) in order to deliver them out of the land of Egypt. Even though the Lord was like a faithful and devoted husband to Israel, the people continually broke the Mosaic covenant. The new covenant would have to address the problem inherent in the old one. In particular, the new covenant would have to compensate for the inability of the people to perform up to God’s standards. It was never God’s intent that the Mosaic law be used as a means to obtain salvation; instead, forgiveness of sins had always been the Lord’s gracious gift to those who humbled themselves before Him in faith (cf. Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3). The law was God’s way of pointing out the pathway that believers should walk (Rom 7:7; Gal 3:19, 24; for a detailed discussion of the biblical concept of the law, cf. Lioy 2004:13–34). Thus, the problem with the covenant at Mount Sinai was not in God’s provision, but in Israel’s response. Only the Lord could change the hearts and minds of His people; thus, a new covenant was needed. In Jeremiah 31:33, the Lord pledged to do three things in the new covenant. First, He would put His law within His people; in other words, it would become a part of their innermost being. Second, God would write the law on their hearts; expressed differently, His will and Word would affect their thoughts, emotions, and decisions. Third, the Lord would be the God of the Jews, and they would be His chosen people. Jeremiah was echoing several Old Testament promises (cf. Gen 17:7; Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12); nonetheless, the life, death, and resurrection of the

Progressive Covenantalism as an Integrative Motif of Scripture

235

Messiah opened a new avenue for human beings to relate to their heavenly Father. Because of the salvation provided by the Redeemer, all believers could enter into God’s presence. Here was seen the essential difference between the old and new covenants. The new one would be primarily internal, while the old one was principally external. The new covenant represented a relationship, while the old covenant was more of a legal document. The old was written on tablets of stone, while the new would be written on human hearts (cf. 2 Cor 3:3). Once the law of God could be implanted within people’s hearts, their relationship with the Lord could be permanent (cf. Malone 1989:211–213). Such distinctions, however, should not be overstated (cf. Barker 1982:6), for there remained a fundamental unity between the old and new covenants. In point of fact, embedded within the concept of covenant was “continuity in the divine purpose in history” (Campbell 1993:182). This observation implied that the new covenant was “not new in essence, but new in fulfillment” (Thompson 1979:1:792; cf. Dumbrell 1984:175, 184–185, 199–200). In Romans 11:11–24, Paul revealed that the Lord has grafted Gentiles into the people of God (that is, the stem of Abraham), like wild olive shoots into the main trunk of an olive plant. Similarly, the new covenant was “part of the same tree” (McKenzie 2000:107) as the old covenant, not “an altogether new stock” (cf. Shelton 2005:49). McKenzie (2000:59) clarifies that both the old and new covenants involved the same parties, namely, the Lord and His people. In the time of Jeremiah, the latter would have been “the descendants of the exodus generation, who were the recipients of the original covenant”. Furthermore, both covenants had God’s moral code as their ethical foundation, with the Mosaic law being the chief historical expression of it. As Barker (1982:6) observes, the Old and New Testaments alike “speak with a united voice on the importance—indeed, the necessity—of adhering to the spirit of the law”. Moreover, the new covenant, like its predecessor, was rooted deeply in the sacred traditions, writings, and communal life of ancient Israel (cf. Kaiser 1978:233–234; McKenzie 2000:89). Jeremiah 31:34 declared that the people would no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know the Lord in an intimate and personal way. The reason was that under the new covenant, all of

236

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

them—from the least important to the most important—would truly know the Lord. What was the basis for God establishing such a profound covenant with His people? In short, it was God’s forgiveness of the people’s sins. God’s law could not be written on hearts tainted by sin. Thus, the people’s hearts had to be cleansed (by God’s grace) so they could experience all that was promised in the new covenant. Once the Lord had forgiven them, He could deliberately forget their sins. Through Jesus’ sacrifice, the sins of humankind had been dealt with once for all. For this reason, God did not remember them (cf. Ps 103:8–12). In Hebrews 8 can be found additional commentary on the interrelationship between the old and new covenants. An examination of this passage indicates that God’s progressive revelation of His covenants was the integrative motif (or the determining, controlling concept) between the testaments. As was noted in chapter 5 of this study, verses 1–5 reveal that because Jesus’ ministry is heavenly and unlimited, it is superior to that of the Levitical priests. The Savior, as the mediator between God and humanity (cf. 1 Tim 2:5), has inaugurated a new and better covenant than the old one based on the Mosaic law. The new covenant is better, precisely because it is “established on better promises” (Heb 8:6). As deSilva (2001:24) observed, “Jesus is the focal point, the lens through which the light of God’s favor and promises come into focus and shine out to humanity”. The writer of Hebrews argued that if the first covenant had sufficiently met the needs of people and had adequately provided for their salvation, then there would have been no need for a new covenant to replace it (v. 7); but the old covenant was insufficient and inadequate in bringing people to God, and therefore a new covenant had to be established. The nexus of the shortfall was not the covenant in and of itself, but those living under it. God had found fault with the Israelites, primarily because they did not continue in that covenant (v. 8). While God initiated the old covenant with His people, they also willingly agreed to it (cf. Josh 24). Thus, the covenant was a mutual obligation between God and the people; nonetheless, the people often failed to live up to their part of the obligation (cf. Neh 9; Dan 9:1–19). As a result, human failure rendered the old covenant inoperative (cf. Rom 7:7–25). The es-

Progressive Covenantalism as an Integrative Motif of Scripture

237

tablishment of a new covenant naturally implied that the old covenant was obsolete, needed to be replaced, and would eventually disappear from the scene altogether (Heb 8:13). In would be incorrect to conclude from the preceding remarks that the writer of Hebrews disparaged or maligned the old covenant. After all, as Newman (1997:248–249) points out, the contrast was not between an evil system (namely, the old covenant) and a good system (namely, the new covenant), but between what was good and what was better. This train of thought, which was common among the Jewish people in the first century A.C.E., is an “argument from the lesser to the greater”. It is comparable to the rationale offered by Paul in 2 Corinthians 3 on the subject of the greater glory of the new covenant compared to the old covenant. In the case of the Mosaic covenant, it was provisional in nature. With the advent of the Messiah, “a new day in salvation history has dawned” (cf. Jocz 1968:243–245; Malone 1989:211). The Unity of the Covenant People of God throughout Salvation History Connected with the progressive unfolding of the previously discussed, interrelated covenants is the advancement of God’s revelation to His people concerning His eschatological program (cf. König 1994:183–189). As was noted in chapter 3 of this study, Hebrews 1:1–2 reveals that during the era of the Old Testament, God spoke to His people through His prophets on a number of occasions, and He did so in various portions and in a variety of ways (for example, through visions, dreams, and riddles). The idea is that His revelation was fragmentary, partial, and incomplete; but now with the advent of the Son, the Father’s revelation to believers was ultimate, complete, and final. Kuyper (1967:13) likens the Old Testament to a “tapestry with many loose ends”. Moreover, the New Testament writers are similar to artisans who judiciously choose “many of the threads to weave them into a newly begun tapestry in which the picture of Christ appears”. The portrait of the Messiah is enhanced by the “color, substance, and background” obtained from the “Old Testament strands”. Furthermore, because the threads from the latter are “thoroughly interwoven into the new fabric”, it is impossible to separate the testaments. Together, they

238

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

form the Word of God and give profound “beauty and meaning” to the Son. There is both continuity and discontinuity present here, such as the distinction between a seed and a full-grown plant or a caterpillar and a butterfly. While the first gave way to the second, the necessity of the first and its tight interconnection with the second were neither denied nor minimized (cf. the related discussion in chapter 5 of this study concerning 1 Cor 15:37–38). Likewise, the progressive unfolding of God’s covenants with His people began in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve and culminated in the person and work of the risen Savior. In this construct, the present age occupied an important role in the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Likewise, the Church was not an afterthought in God’s eschatological program but stood in continuity with what was foretold in the Old Testament (cf. Saucy 1993:28; Ware 1992:96–97). The post-resurrection account recorded in Luke 24 attests to this tight integration between the biblical covenants progressively revealed in the Old and New Testaments. In verses 25–26, the risen Messiah censured two disciples (who were heading to a village called Emmaus) for being slow to believe all that the prophets had declared. In fact, Jesus’ reference to “Moses and all the Prophets” (v. 27) indicated that the messianic promises extended in a unifying way throughout all the Hebrew sacred writings. Later that day, Jesus enabled the rest of His followers to comprehend what these Scriptures prophetically revealed about the necessity of the Messiah’s suffering on the cross and resurrection from the dead (vv. 45–46; cf. Ps 22; Isa 52:13–53:12). The interlocking relationship between the covenants is discernible in Romans 3:21, where Paul referred to “the righteousness of God” that has been revealed “apart from the law”. There was no denying an aspect of discontinuity between the old system and the new one (cf. John 1:17), specifically in the “mode of administration” (Karlberg 1987:4); yet, such notwithstanding, the apostle also referred to this same “righteousness of God” to which “the Law and the Prophets testify”. The idea was that the doctrine of justification by faith was taught in the Old Testament (cf. Gen 15:6; Hab 2:4). Moreover, with the incarnation of the Son, this truth was unveiled with greater clarity than before (cf. John 1:14–18).

Progressive Covenantalism as an Integrative Motif of Scripture

239

In Ephesians 3, Paul used the phrase rendered “the mystery of Christ” (v. 4) to refer to the unity of the people of God as each covenant was successively disclosed and inaugurated. An element of discontinuity is evident by the apostle’s acknowledgment that the divine secret was not disclosed to people in former generations to the same extent that it has “now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets” (v. 5). The difference to which Paul referred was relative, not absolute. This observation in turn emphasizes the fundamental connection between the covenants of the two testaments, especially when one recognizes glimpses of the divine “mystery” present in the Old Testament (cf. Isa 19:25; 49:6; 1 Pet 1:10–12; Gerstner 2000:225–228; Saucy 1992:142–151; Saucy 1993:163–165). Historically speaking, Gentiles were once “separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise” (Eph 2:12). Through Jesus’ atoning sacrifice on the cross (cf. John 10:15–16), He joined believing Jews and Gentiles (cf. 17:20–21). In spiritual union with Him, the Gentiles “who were once far away have been brought near” (Eph 2:13). The truth of unity and equality between Jews and non-Jews was further seen in their becoming “members together of one body” (3:6), namely, the spiritual body of Christ (cf. Lioy 2010:97–100). In brief, the divine secret was that through the preaching of the gospel, kingdom promises that were once the exclusive domain of ethnic Israel (cf. Exod 19:6; Deut 7:6; Rom 9:4–5), were now enjoyed by both believing Jews and Gentiles (cf. Eph 3:6; also cf. the extensive analysis offered by Saucy 1992:127–155). As the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16), they jointly were “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, [and] God’s special possession” (1 Pet 2:9; cf. v. 10; Rev 1:6; Lioy 2010:103– 104). As Campbell (1997:205, 208) notes, this was not a circumstance “in which Israel’s privileges are transferred to Gentiles”. The inclusion of non-Jews was not by the exclusion or displacement of Israel and the abolishment of God’s promises to them; rather, it was by permitting saved Jews and Gentiles to jointly share in the Messiah’s eternal blessings (cf. Compton 1986:258–265). Hebrews 12:22–23 further reinforces what has been said (cf. Lioy 2010:84–85). In making reference to the unity of the covenant commu-

240

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

nity in both the Old and New Testaments, the author of the epistle stated that “Mount Zion” is the place where they resided with the Lord. This celestial abode was also called “the city of the living God” and “the heavenly Jerusalem”. Incalculable numbers of angels were found there, along with “the church of the firstborn”. This “church” was simply all Christians on earth. Jesus, the first to rise from the dead (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20; Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5), redeemed them from destruction and set them apart for service to God as His priests in His heavenly sanctuary (cf. Num 3:11–13; Eph 2:21–22; 1 Pet 2:4–5). The Messiah enabled them to be “heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17). According to Hebrews 12:23, those who shared in this eternal, glorious inheritance included “the spirits of the righteous made perfect”. Most likely, these were believers from the Old Testament era, such as the men and women mentioned in chapter 11 of the epistle. They had been “made perfect” (12:23) in the sense that their souls had been cleansed of sin through faith in the Son (cf. 11:40). As “the mediator of a new covenant” (12:24; cf. 8:6), Jesus brought forgiveness, joy, and confidence to the united, heavenly assembly of Old and New Testament saints. Here one could see with unmistakable clarity that believing Jews and Gentiles shared the same eternal destiny. While the ethnic provenance of the former was affirmed, both entities remained ontologically joined together as the covenant people of God (cf. Poythress 1994:123). The testimony of Scripture was that the new covenant brought to completion God’s eschatological plan for redeemed humanity and the rest of creation (cf. Rom 8:18–23). In the eternal state, “heaven and a renewed earth” (Van Groningen 1996a:131) would be “joined into regained and consummated Eden”. Conclusion This chapter has elaborated on the concept of progressive covenantalism, as broached by Patton and Dyck. It is a working model for comprehending the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. The goal has been to articulate a consistent understanding of how to put together seemingly heterogeneous portions of Scripture. This integrative motif asserts that God’s progressive revelation of His covenants is an extension of the kingdom blessings He first introduced when He created

Progressive Covenantalism as an Integrative Motif of Scripture

241

the cosmos. Affiliated claims are that the various covenants revealed in Scripture are interrelated and build on one another, that the people of God throughout the history of salvation are united, and that they equally share in His eschatological promises. As Patton and Dyck have noted, and as the findings of this chapter affirm, there are five advantages to progressive covenantalism: 1) it seeks to synthesize the valid points of all relevant positions; 2) it understands that converted, ethnic Israel has a future; 3) it understands that the establishment of the Church is an advancement of God’s kingdom program, just as the creation of the nation of Israel was an advancement of it; 4) it recognizes the historic and future unity of all the people of God; and 5) it focuses on the sovereignty and grace of God as expressed through His covenants. In this approach, the divine eschatological program is not akin to a ship with separate, watertight compartments; rather, it is like a flowing river in which there is coherence and fluidity.

Chapter 7

Epilogue

T

his study has undertaken a biblical and theological analysis of evolutionary creation, along with creation themes pertinent to origins science. A text-centered, inner-canonical, and integrative hermeneutic is used to advocate a doctrinally coherent and consistent understanding of what Scripture teaches. An underlying premise is that a fundamental congruity exists between what the Lord has revealed in nature (i.e. the book of God’s work) and in Scripture (i.e. the book of God’s Word). A corollary supposition is that the best persuasive scientific explanation for the origin and actualization of carbon-based life on earth, including Homo sapiens (i.e. modern humans), is offered by biological evolution (based on an analysis of the fossil record, genome evidence, morphological data, and so on). Furthermore, it is maintained that when a consideration of evolutionary creation is done in an objective, balanced, and informed manner, the view is wholly compatible with classical theological metaphysics (including Augustinian and Reformed doctrinal orthodoxy). Likewise, theistic evolution is supported by ecumenical, historically confessional Christians who affirm the divine inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and authority of Scripture. The above doctrinal orientation is upheld by the definition this study adopted for evolutionary creation: the triune God brought the “universe and life” (Lamoureux 2008:29) into existence by using an “ordained, sustained, and design-reflecting evolutionary process”. The preceding statement attests to the absolute fact of God’s existence, His transcendence over the cosmos, and His involvement within it. Furthermore, it maintains that dialogue with “science and technology” (Bielfeldt 2010) enhances the believers’ “recognition” that the Lord manifests His presence in the “natural order”. Against this theological backdrop, it is feasible to take seriously the scientific data (including

244

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

evidence from fields as varied as molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, and astronomy). It is also possible to engage Scripture in its historical, cultural, and sociological contexts. The central aim is to deliberate the findings of modern science within the context of a robust theistic framework. In so doing, the doctrinal clarity and harmony of God’s Word on these matters is attested. Ultimately, the person and work of the Lord Jesus is the basis for an accurate, responsible consideration of theistic evolution, especially since all existence is centered in Him (cf. John 1:1–4; Eph 1:3–14; Col 1:15–20; Heb 1:1–4; Rev 1:17–18; Lioy 2007b:50–61). With the preceding considerations and axioms in mind, chapter 2 put forward an evolutionary creationist process for the origin of humanity. This entailed considering the interplay between science and religion, in which critical realism formed the conceptual bridge linking the two domains of thought. That information was followed by a consideration of the creation account recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis (specifically, 1:1–2:3). Of prime concern was the realization that the biblical narrative should be seen as a highly stylized, literary depiction. While it is figurative and symbolic in content, it points to historical and theological truths. For instance, the rendition communicates that God created everything—spiritual beings, physical beings, matter, energy, time, and space. Also, the original universe that God brought into existence served as the prototype that looked ahead to future venues in which the Lord and the covenant community would enjoy fellowship together. The latter view differs from materialistic naturalism, which spurns the need for a supernatural, transcendent, and independent agency (such as God) to explain the origin of the cosmos and of human life. Having rejected this bankrupt mindset, the study affirmed the findings of science for the age of the universe (about 13.7 billion years old) and earth (around 4.5 billion years old). Additionally, it was maintained that God worked through a biological evolutionary process to bring about carbonbased life on earth. In particular, just as God presided over the creation of the entire cosmos, so too He superintended the incremental transformation of simpler life forms into more complex ones over vast eons of time (nearly 3.85 billion years). As well, what the Lord brought into existence was superbly suited for its God-ordained function and purpose.

Epilogue

245

Likewise, this study embraced the findings of science that Homo sapiens had a relatively recent origin (by some estimates, between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago) from a single location (most likely, east-central Africa). Furthermore, it was acknowledged that based on the evidence, Homo sapiens arose from an initially small population of humanlike hominids (possibly numbering no more than several thousand). In keeping with the theocentric orientation of this study, it was maintained that God brought Adam and Eve into existence by special, instantaneous, and separate creation (cf. Genesis 2:7, 21–22). This included God’s formation of the material (i.e. physical) and immaterial (i.e. spiritual) aspects of their being. It was also conceded that science offers an explanation for the genesis of the first human couple without reference to the supernatural intervention of God. In this case, though, the overruling authority of Scripture was given precedence. Accordingly, the claim of some was set aside that Adam and Eve never existed and so could not have been the sole biological progenitors of all humans. Instead, it was affirmed that they were a literal, historical couple who initially existed in a genetically pristine state as persons having moral integrity. Moreover, the study noted that because humans were made in the image of God, they were the pinnacle of His creation, having innate worth and significance. The tragedy of Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the ancient Eden orchard was considered, especially their experience of spiritual separation from God. It was recognized that as a consequence of their transgression, all their physical descendants were born into this world as mortal creatures who were separated in their relationship with their Creator-King as well as one another. As was noted in the Prologue to this study, chapter 2 raised a number of issues connected with the subject of evolutionary creation that merited fuller treatment. For instance, one key observation is that evolutionary science (both cosmic and biological) primarily deals with the mechanisms of existence at work throughout the cosmos. In contrast, Scripture is mainly concerned with the deep-rooted theological meaning of creation. That being the case, an overt effort was made in chapters 3 through 6 to draw upon observations, insights, and conclusions made in chapter 2. In turn, this helped to forge a strong conceptual link within and throughout the study. For example, the presentation of a God-or-

246

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

dained and superintended, evolutionary creation process for the origin of humanity brought up the subject of the historically-conditioned nature of the biblical texts. Chapter 3 sought to do justice to the above topic by analyzing the prescientific cosmology found in the Old and New Testaments. The underlying premise was that the covenant community, along with the other inhabitants of the Fertile Crescent, living in the third millennium B.C.E. through the first century A.C.E., shared the three-tiered concept of reality found in the Genesis creation account. Furthermore, this mindset influenced the way in which biblical writers thought about the spatiophysical world, both orally and in writing. The absolute, creative power of God was the backbone for this understanding of the origin and development of the universe. A corresponding affirmation was that the Savior operated as the underlying agent of creation. Life and death are two additional issues connected with the subject of evolutionary creation. For this reason, chapters 4 and 5 undertook a biblical and theological analysis of these matters. One motivation for doing so was that the reality of death was a key part of the way in which God’s people conceptualized the spatio-physical world in which they lived. A second incentive was that an awareness of this perspective helped to shed light on ways in which Christian belief was compatible with creation themes pertinent to origins science. Accordingly, chapter 4 examined a representative collection of Old Testament passages dealing with life and death (namely, Gen 2:4–17; 3:1–24; 5:1–29; Eccl 1:1–18; 3:1–22). Based on that inquiry, it was found that the members of the covenant community living during the Old Testament era maintained the following: that the permanency of death could be traced back to pivotal events occurring within the garden of Eden (cf. Gen 2:4–17; 3:1–24); that since then, death has subverted the human drive for life (cf. 5:1–29); that death is a stark reality which cannot be avoided (cf. Eccl 1:1–18); and that death’s finality is a truth which cannot be denied (cf. 3:1–21). In a comparable manner, chapter 5 focused on a selective set of New Testament passages (namely, Rom 5:1–21; 8:1–39; 1 Cor 15:1–58; Heb 2:5–18; 4:14–5:10; 7:1–28; 9:1–10:18; Rev 20:1–22:21). From that investigation, the following was determined: that physical and spiritual death

Epilogue

247

came through Adam, while new life came through the Messiah (cf. Rom 5:1–21); that present suffering would one day give way to future glory (cf. 8:1–39); that Jesus’ resurrection from the dead served as a pledge of the imperishable, glorious nature of the believer’s resurrection body (cf. 1 Cor 15:1–58); that Jesus made it possible for believers to share in His glory (cf. Heb 2:5–18); that Jesus was the believers’ compassionate High Priest (cf. Heb 4:14–5:10; 7:1–28; 9:1–10:18); and that at Jesus’ second coming, He would bring about final victory over Satan, sin, and death for believers (cf. Rev 20:1–22:21). In chapter 6, it was noted that the theological motif of God’s covenantal relationship with His people received frequent mention in this study. In light of that observation, the concept of progressive covenantalism was introduced and developed. Moreover, doing so helped to deepen and expand the discussion in the preceding chapters. This working model for comprehending the relationship between the Old and New Testaments articulated a consistent understanding of how to put together seemingly heterogeneous portions of Scripture. This integrative motif also asserted that God’s progressive revelation of His covenants was an extension of the kingdom blessings He first introduced when He created the cosmos. Affiliated claims were that the various covenants revealed in Scripture were interrelated and built on one another, that the people of God throughout the history of salvation were united, and that they equally shared in His eschatological promises. A case in point would be Abraham. This courageous saint looked forward to the end-time fulfillment of what the Creator had pledged, especially the prospect of living in the eternal celestial abode. Even when the patriarch arrived in Canaan—the land God promised to Abraham’s descendants—he had to live as a resident alien, not as the land’s owner (Heb 11:9). The reason the patriarch could accept this arrangement was that through his faith, he anticipated abiding in an everlasting city designed and built by God Himself (v. 10). This truth was all the more incredible when it is realized that Abraham, like other Old Testament luminaries before him, accepted God’s promise by faith, even though His pledge was not clearly visible. All of them recognized that the complete fulfillment of God’s promise was heavenly, not earthly. They saw themselves as “foreigners and strangers” (v. 13) whose ulti-

248

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

mate citizenship was in God’s hands. The author of Hebrews noted that these saints of old were looking for a celestial domicile of their own (v. 14). If they had been looking for an earthly country, they would have returned to their original homelands (v. 15). For example, Abraham could have gone back to Ur. Be that as it may, he and other likeminded spiritual refugees in this fallen world were not anticipating an earthly home; instead, they were looking for a heavenly residence, and with such people God was pleased. The Lord rewarded them for their faith in Him and His promise by preparing for them a sacred abode where they could dwell with Him forever (v. 16). Though the heroes of faith did not receive the fulfillment of God’s promise during their earthly lives, they did receive God’s commendation because they lived by faith (v. 39); and this was the reason God planned something better for them. Moreover, the author of Hebrews said that he and his readers would be included in the pledge the Lord made (v. 40). Also included in God’s promise are believers throughout every generation, who place their trust in the Creator and His pledge of eternal life. All believers are citizens of the same divine kingdom. In union with the Son, believers inherit the better things that even the ancient heroes of faith looked forward to, such as the new Jerusalem of the eternal state. In this regard, the words of C.S. Lewis (from Mere Christianity) provide a fitting conclusion to this treatise (2001:136–137): If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy, it that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage. I must keep alive in myself the desire for my true country, which I shall not find till after death; I must never let it get snowed under or turned aside; I must make it the main object of life to press on to that other country and to help others to do the same.

Bibliography Aalen S 1986. Glory. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 2:44–48. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Abba R 1962. Priests and Levites. In GA Buttrick (ed.). The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible, 3:876–889. Nashville: Abingdon. Abbott TK 1979. A critical and exegetical commentary on the epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Achtemeier PJ 1962. Righteousness in the NT. In GA Buttrick (ed.). The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible, 4:91–99. Nashville: Abingdon. Akins MT 1995. The theological significance of the Davidic covenant on the biblical understanding of the Messiah. Ph.D. dissertation. Fort Worth: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Albertz R 1997. hebel. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.). ME Biddle (trans.). Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:351–353. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Alexander DR 2001. Rebuilding the matrix: science and faith in the 21st century. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 2008. Creation or evolution: do we have to choose? Oxford: Monarch Books. ______ 2010. How does a Biologos model need to address the theological issues associated with an Adam who was not the sole genetic progenitor of humankind. BioLogos. 1–9. San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/ projects/alexander_white_paper.pdf. ______ 2011. Made in the image of God: the theological implications of human genomics—part 1. The Huffington post. Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drdenis-alexander/human-genomics-and-human-_b_802978.html. Alexander TD 2002. From paradise to the promised land: an introduction to the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 2008. From Eden to Jerusalem: an introduction to biblical theology. Grand Rapids: Kregel. Allison DC 1997. Melchizedek. In RP Martin and PH Davids (eds.). Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments, 729–731. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Anderson BW 1962. Creation. In GA Buttrick (ed.). The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible, 1:725–732. Nashville: Abingdon. ______ 1984. Introduction: mythopoeic and theological dimensions of biblical creation faith. In BW Anderson (ed.). Creation in the Old Testament, 1–24. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. ______ 1994. From creation to new creation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Anderson GA 1992. Sacrifices and offerings (OT). In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 5:870–886. New York: Doubleday. Anderson RS 1998. On being human: the spiritual saga of creaturely soul. In WS Brown, et al. (eds.), Whatever happened to the soul? Scientific and theological portraits of human nature, 175–194. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Anderson WHU 1998. The curse of work in Qoheleth: an exposé of Genesis 3:17–19 in

250

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Ecclesiastes. Evangelical quarterly. 70 (2) 99–113. Andrews SJ 2003. Melchizedek. In TA Alexander and DW Baker (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 562–564. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Arnold CE 1997. Satan, devil. In RP Martin and PH Davids (eds.). Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments, 1077–1082. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2002. Colossians. In CE Arnold (ed.), Zondervan illustrated Bible backgrounds commentary, 3:371–403. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Astour MC 1992. Melchizedek. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 4:684– 686. New York: Doubleday. Attfield R 2006. Creation, evolution and meaning. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing. Attridge HW 1989. The epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Ault WU 2009. Flood, Genesis. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 2:588–602. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Aune DE 1997. Revelation 1–5. Waco: Word Books. ______ 1998. Revelation 17–22. Waco: Word Books. Averbeck RE 1997. Offerings and sacrifices. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 4:996–1022. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 2003a. Sacrifices and offerings. In TA Alexander and DW Baker (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 706–733. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2003b. Tabernacle. In TA Alexander and DW Baker (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 807–826. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Ayala FJ, et al. 2008. Science, evolution, and creationism. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press. Badger S and Tenneson M 2010. Does the Spirit create through evolutionary processes? Pentecostals and biological evolution. In JKA Smith and A Yong (eds.). Science and the Spirit: a Pentecostal engagement with the sciences, 92–116. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Baker C and Miller JB 2006. The evolution dialogues: science, Christianity, and the quest for understanding. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Baker DW 2003. God, names of. In TA Alexander and DW Baker (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 359–368. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Balz H 1993. Paulos. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament, 3:59–62. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Barbour IG 1989. Creation and cosmology. In T Peters (ed.), Cosmos as creation: theology and science in consonance, 115–151. Nashville: Abingdon. ______ 2000. When science meets religion. San Francisco: Harper Collins. Barker KL 1982. False dichotomies between the testaments. Journal of the Evangelical theological society. 25 (1) 3–16. Barker KL, et al. (eds.) 2006. Zondervan TNIV study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Barr J 1993a. Biblical faith and natural theology: the Gifford lectures for 1991 delivered in the University of Edinburgh. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ______ 1993b. The garden of Eden and the hope of immortality. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Bibliography

251

Barrett CK 1962. From first Adam to last: a study in Pauline theology. London: Adam and Charles Black. ______ 1968. A commentary on the first epistle to the Corinthians. New York: Harper and Row. ______ 1994. Paul: an introduction to his thought. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Bartels KH 1986. prōtotokos. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 1:667–670. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Barth A 1968. The creation in light of modern science. L Oschry (trans.). Jerusalem: Amana. Barth K 1955. The doctrine of the word of God. Vol. 1: prolegomena to church dogmatics. GT Thompson (trans.). Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ______ 1956. Christ and Adam: man and humanity in Romans 5. TA Smail (trans.). Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Bartholomew CG 2007. The theology of place in Genesis 1–3. In JG McConville and K Möller (eds.). Reading the law: studies in honour of Gordon J. Wenham, 173–195. New York: T&T Clark. ______ 2009. Ecclesiastes. Baker. Bartlett DL 1998. The first letter of Peter: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 12:229–319. Nashville: Abingdon. Barumann G 1986. morphē. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 1:705–708. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Batto BF 1992. Creation theology in Genesis. In RJ Clifford and JJ Collins (eds.), Creation in the biblical traditions, 16–38. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America. Bauer DR 1992. Son of God. In JB Green and S McKnight (eds.). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 769–775. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Beale GK 1999. The book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2007. Colossians. In GK Beale and DA Carson (eds.). Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, 841–870. Grand Rapids: Baker. Beasley-Murray GR 1986. Baptism, wash. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 1:143–150. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Becker O 1986. engyos. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 1:372. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Beckwith IT 1967. The apocalypse of John. Studies in introduction with a critical and exegetical commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker. Beckwith RT 1987. The unity and diversity of God’s covenants. Tyndale bulletin. 34:93– 118. ______ 2000. Sacrifice. In TD Alexander and BS Rosner (eds.). New dictionary of biblical theology, 754–762. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Behm J 1999a. diathēkē. In G Kittel (ed.). GW Bromiley (trans.). Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 2:124–134. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1999b. morphē. In G Kittel (ed.). GW Bromiley (trans.). Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 4:742–752. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Beker JC 1987. Suffering and hope: the biblical vision and the human predicament. Philadel-

252

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

phia: Fortress Press. Bergrant D and Stuhlmueller C 1985. Creation according to the Old Testament. In E McMullin (ed.). Evolution and creation, 153–175. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Berry RJ 2001. God and evolution: creation, evolution and the Bible. Vancouver: Regent College Publishing. ______ 2007a. Creation and evolution not creation or evolution. Faraday papers, 12:1–4. Cambridge: The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. Website: http://graphite.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Papers.php. ______ 2007b. Eden and ecology: evolution and eschatology. Science and Christian belief. 19 (1) 15–35. ______ 2008. Sustaining diversity or developing sustainably? In WB Drees, H Meisinger, and TA Smedes (eds.). Creation’s diversity: voices from theology and science, 115–132. New York: T&T Clark. Best HM and Huttar D 2009. Music, musical instruments. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 4:343–356. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bielfeldt D 2010. The institute of Lutheran theology: mission and vision. Brookings: Institute of Lutheran Theology. Website: http://ilt.org/mission.html. Bietenhard H 1986a. Beginning. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 1:165–169. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1986b. ouranos. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 2:188–196. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Birch BC, et al. 2005. A theological introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon. Bishop RC 2011. Recovering the doctrine of creation: a theological view of science. BioLogos. 1–10. San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/bishop_white_paper.pdf. Blaising CA 1992. Dispensationalism: the search for definition. In CA Blaising and DL Bock (eds.), Dispensationalism, Israel and the church: the search for definition, 13–34. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Blaising CA and Bock DL 1993. Progressive dispensationalism: an up-to-date handbook of contemporary dispensational thought. Colorado Springs: Victor Books. Blocher H 1984. In the beginning. the opening chapters of Genesis. DG Preston (trans.). Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 1997. Original sin: illuminating the riddle. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Block DI 2005. God. In BT Arnold and HGM Williamson (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: historical books, 336–355. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Blum EA 1981. 1 Peter. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 12:209– 254. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Bock DL 1994. A theology of Paul’s prison epistles. In RB Zuck (ed.). A biblical theology of the New Testament, 299–367. Chicago: Moody Press. ______ 2002. Jesus according to Scripture: restoring the portrait from the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker. Boersema D 2005. American philosophy. In J Fieser and B Dowden (eds.), Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Martin: University of Tennessee. Website: http://

Bibliography

253

www.iep.utm.edu/american/. Boice JM 1976. Galatians. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 10:409– 508. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Bonhoeffer D 1997. Creation and fall; temptation: two biblical studies. JC Fletcher and K Downham (trans.). New York: Simon and Schuster. Bonnette D 2007. Origin of the human species. Naples: Sapientia Press. Bonting SL 1999. Chaos theology: a new approach to the science-theology dialogue. Zygon. 34 (2) 323–332. Borgen P 1987. Philo, John, and Paul: new perspectives on Judaism and early Christianity. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Boring ME 1989. Revelation. Louisville: John Knox Press. Bouma-Prediger S 2001. For the beauty of the earth: a Christian vision for creation care. Grand Rapids: Baker. Bouteneff PC 2008. Beginnings: ancient Christian readings of the biblical creation narratives. Grand Rapids: Baker. Bowler PJ 2007. Monkey trials and gorilla sermons: evolution and Christianity from Darwin to intelligent design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Braaten LJ 2003. May the glory of God endure forever! Biblical reflections on creation care. In KB Miller (ed.), Perspectives on an evolving creation, 414–434. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Branch RG 2003. Eve. In TA Alexander and DW Baker (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 240–244. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Bratcher DA 1987. The concepts of conditionality and apostasy in relation to the covenant. Philadelphia: Th.M. thesis. Westminster Theological Seminary. Braumann G 1986. Strength. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 3:716–718. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Bray GL 2000. Image of God. In TD Alexander and BS Rosner (eds.). New dictionary of biblical theology, 575–576. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Brighton LA 1999. Revelation. Saint Louis: Concordia. Brodie TL 2001. Genesis as dialogue: a literary, historical, and theological commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bromiley GW 1979. Baptism for the dead. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 1:426. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1982. Image of God. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 2:803–805. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1988. Sin. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 4:518–525. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2001a. Baptism for the dead. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of theology, 135–136. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 2001b. Foreknowledge. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of theology, 458– 459. Grand Rapids: Baker. Brown C 1986a. Resurrection. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 3:259–275. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1986b. Soul. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament the-

254

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

ology and exegesis, 3:676–689. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1986c. Tent, tabernacle. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 3:814–815. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Brown F, et al. 1985. The new Brown–Driver–Briggs–Gesenius Hebrew and English lexicon with an appendix containing the biblical Aramaic. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Brown WE 1996. Adoption. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, 11–12. Grand Rapids: Baker. Brown WP 1996. The character of covenant in the Old Testament: a theocentric probe. Annual of the society of Christian ethics, 283–293. St. Cloud: The Society of Christian Ethics. ______ 2006. Joy and the art of cosmic maintenance: an ecology of play in Psalm 104. In FJ Gaiser and MA Throntveit (eds.). “And God saw that it was good”: essays on creation and God in honor of Terence E. Fretheim, 23–41. Saint Paul: Luther Seminary. ______ 2010. The seven pillars of creation: the Bible, science, and the ecology of wonder. New York: Oxford University Press. Brown WS 2003. Evolution, cognitive neuroscience, and the soul. In KB Miller (ed.), Perspectives on an evolving creation, 502–523. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bruce FF 1971. 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1977. Paul: apostle of the heart set free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1982. The epistle to the Galatians: a commentary on the Greek text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1984. The epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1985. The epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Brueggemann W 1982. Genesis. Atlanta: John Knox Press. ______ 1997. Theology of the Old Testament: testimony, dispute, advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Brun RB 1994. Integrating evolution: a contribution to the Christian doctrine of creation. Zygon. 29 (3) 275–296. ______ 2002. Cosmology, cosmic evolution, and sacramental reality: a Christian contribution. Zygon. 37 (1) 175–192. Brunner E 1952. The Christian doctrine of creation and redemption. Dogmatics: vol. II. O Wyon (trans.). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Bube RH 1971. The human quest: a new look at science and the Christian faith. Waco: Word Books. Bullock CH 1996. Wisdom. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, 823–824. Grand Rapids: Baker. Burdick DW 1986. Melchizedek. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 3:312–313. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Burge GM 1992. Glory. In JB Green and S McKnight (eds.). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 268–270. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Caird GB 1999. The revelation of saint John. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Campbell WS 1993. Covenant and new covenant. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 179–183. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

Bibliography

255

Campbell WS 1997. Church as Israel, people of God. In RP Martin and PH Davids (eds.), Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments, 204–219. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Capes DB, et al. 2007. Rediscovering Paul: an introduction to his world, letters, and theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Carlson RF and Longman T 2010. Science, creation and the Bible: reconciling rival theories of origins. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Carpenter EE 1988. Adoption, sonship. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 4:260–273. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Carpenter EE and Grisanti MA 1997. reša‘/rāšā‘. In WA VanGemeren (ed.). The new international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 3:1201–1204. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Carson DA 1991. The gospel according to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2001. Summaries and conclusions. In DA Carson, et al. (eds.). Justification and variegated nomism. Volume 1: the complexities of Second Temple Judaism, 1:505–548. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 2007. 1 Peter. In GK Beale and DA Carson (eds.). Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, 1015–1045. Grand Rapids: Baker. Carter CW 2009. Cosmogony, cosmology. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 1:1035–1047. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Cassuto U 1961. A commentary on the book of Genesis. Part I: from Adam to Noah. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. Charlesworth JH 2010. The good and evil serpent: how a universal symbol became Christianized. New Haven: Yale University Press. Chia PP 1995. Wisdom, Yahwism, creation: in quest of Qoheleth’s theological thought. Jian Dao Xue kan. 3:1–32. Chia R 2005. Creation and eschatology. In B Barber and D Neville (eds.). Theodicy and eschatology, 173–191. Adelaide: ATF Press. Childs BS 1986. Old Testament theology in a canonical context. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Ciampa RE 2000. Adoption. In TD Alexander and BS Rosner (eds.). New dictionary of biblical theology, 376–378. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Ciampa RE and Rosner BS 2010. The first letter to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ciobotea D 2008. Rationality and mystery in the universe: the need for dialogue between science and religion. In WB Drees, H Meisinger, and TA Smedes (eds.), Creation’s diversity: voices from theology and science, 7–12. New York: T&T Clark. Clemens DM 1994. The law of sin and death: Ecclesiastes and Genesis 1–3. Themelios. 19:5–8. Clifford RJ 1988. Creation in the Hebrew Bible. In RJ Russell, et al. (eds.). Physics, philosophy, and theology: a common quest for understanding, 151–170. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory. ______ 1992. Creation in the Psalms. In RJ Clifford and JJ Collins (eds.), Creation in the biblical traditions, 57–69. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America. ______ 2001. The Hebrew Scriptures and the theology of creation. Theological studies. 46

256

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

(3) 507–523. Clifton S 2009. Preaching the “full gospel” in the context of global environmental crises. In A Yong (ed.). The Spirit renews the face of the earth: Pentecostal forays in science and theology of creation, 117–134. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Clines DJA 1993. Image of God. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 426–428. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Clouse RG 2001. Millennium, views of the. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of theology, 770–774. Grand Rapids: Baker. Cogliati C 2010. Introduction. In DB Burrell, et al. (eds.). Creation and the God of Abraham, 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen BS 1962. Adam. In GA Buttrick (ed.). The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible, 1:42– 44. Nashville: Abingdon. Cole RA 2009. Son of God. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:572–579. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Cole TJ 1991. Enoch, a man who walked with God. Bibliotheca sacra. 148 (591) 288–297. Colling RG 2004. Random designer: created from chaos to connect with the creator. Bourbonnais: Browning Press. Collins AY 2000. The book of Revelation. In JJ Collins (ed.). The encyclopedia of apocalypticism. Vol. 1. The origins of apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, 384–414. New York: Continuum. Collins CJ 2003. Science and faith: friends or foes? Wheaton: Crossway Books. ______ 2006a. Genesis 1–4: a linguistic, literary, and theological commentary. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing. ______ 2010. Adam and Eve as historical people, and why it matters. Perspectives on science and faith. 62 (3) 147–165. ______ 2011. Did Adam and Eve really exist? Who they were and why you should care. Wheaton: Crossway. Collins FS 2006b. The language of God: a scientist presents evidence for belief. New York: Free Press. Collins R 2003. Evolution and original sin. In KB Miller (ed.), Perspectives on an evolving creation, 469–501. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2007. The multiverse hypothesis: a theistic perspective. In B Carr (ed.). Universe or multiverse?, 459–480. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Compton RB 1986. An examination of the new covenant in the Old and New Testaments. Th.D. dissertation. Winona Lake: Grace Theological Seminary. Conzelmann H 1975. 1 Corinthians. JW Leitch (trans.). Philadelphia: Fortress. Corner M 1983. Evolution and the Christian view of the soul. Modern churchman. 25 (4) 10–22. Cosner L 2009. Christ as the last Adam: Paul’s use of the creation narrative in 1 Corinthians 15. Journal of creation. 23 (3) 70–75. Craddock FB 1998. The letter to the Hebrews: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 12:3–173. Nashville: Abingdon. Cranfield CEB 1975. The epistle to the Romans. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ______ 1983. The epistle to the Romans. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

Bibliography

257

Creegan NH 2007. A Christian theology of evolution and participation. Zygon. 42 (2) 499–518. Crenshaw JL 1987. Ecclesiastes: a commentary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. ______ 1992. Ecclesiastes, Book of. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 2:271–280. New York: Doubleday. Cundall AE 2009. Adam (person). In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 1:60–63. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Cunningham C 2010. Darwin’s pious idea: why the ultra-Darwinists and creationists both get it wrong. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Currid JD 2003. A study commentary on Genesis. Vol. 1: Genesis 1:1–25:18. Darlington: Evangelical Press. Daane J 1982. Fall, the. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 2:277–279. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Dahl NA 1964. Christ, creation, and the church. In WD Davies and D Daube (eds). The background of the New Testament and its eschatology in honour of CH Dodd, 422–443. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Daily TTW 2011. Chasing Methuselah. Christianity today. 55 (1). Website: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/january/6.18.html. Danker FW (ed.) 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Davids PH 1990. The first epistle of Peter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2001. Adoption. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of theology, 25–26. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 2002. 1 Peter. In CE Arnold (ed.), Zondervan illustrated Bible backgrounds commentary, 4:121–151. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Davidson G and Wolgemuth K 2010. Christian geologists on Noah’s flood: biblical and scientific shortcomings of flood geology. BioLogos. 1–11. San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/davidson_wolgemuth_ scholarly_essay.pdf. Davies GN 1997. Tabernacle, sanctuary. In RP Martin and PH Davids (eds.). Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments, 1154–1156. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Davies J 2008. Theodicy. In T Longman and P Enns (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament wisdom, poetry and writings, 808–817. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Davies WD 1980. Paul and rabbinic Judaism: some rabbinic elements in Pauline theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Day AE and Jordan GD 1988. Serpent. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 4:417–418. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Day AJ 2005. Adam, anthropology and the Genesis record: taking Genesis seriously in the light of contemporary science. ISCAST. 1:1–31. Huntingdale: ISCAST. Website: http://www.iscast.org/journal/articlespage/Day_A_2000-01_Adam_Anthropology. ______ 2009. Notes on science and Christian belief. Huntingdale: ISCAST. Website: http://www.iscast.org/notes_on_science_and_christian_belief.

258

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Dean-Otting M 1984. Heavenly journeys: a study of the motif in Hellenistic Jewish literature. New York: Peter Lang. de Boer MC 2000. Paul and apocalyptic eschatology. In JJ Collins (ed.). The encyclopedia of apocalypticism. Vol. 1. The origins of apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, 345– 383. New York: Continuum. Delio I 2009. Christ in evolution. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Delitzsch F 1982. Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. MG Easton (trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Delling G 1999. archē. In G Kittel (ed.). GW Bromiley (trans.). Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 1:479–484. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Demarest B 2001. Fall of the human race. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of theology, 434–436. Grand Rapids: Baker. Dempster SG 1996. Work. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, 831–835. Grand Rapids: Baker. DeSilva DA 2000. Perseverance in gratitude: a socio-rhetorical commentary on the epistle “to the Hebrews”. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2001. New Testament themes. St. Louis: Chalice Press. Diamond ARP 1997. ‘inyān. In WA VanGemeren (ed.). The new international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 3:452–453. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Dickson JP 2008. The genesis of everything: an historical account of the Bible’s opening chapter. ISCAST. 4:1–18. Website: http://www.iscast.org/journal/articlespage/ Dickson_J_2008-03_Genesis_Of_Everything. Diehl DW 2001. Righteousness. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of theology, 1033–1034. Grand Rapids: Baker. Dihle A 1999. Psychē. In G Kittel (ed.). GW Bromiley (trans.). Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 9:608–617. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Di Vito RA1992. The demarcation of divine and human relations in Genesis 2–11. In RJ Clifford and JJ Collins (eds.), Creation in the biblical traditions, 39–56. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America. Dodd BJ 1997. Millennium. In RP Martin and PH Davids (eds.). Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments, 738–741. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Domning DP and Hellwig MK 2006. Original selfishness: original sin and evil in the light of evolution. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing. Drane JW 1997. Son of God. In RP Martin and PH Davids (eds.). Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments, 1111–1115. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Drees WB 2008. Creation’s diversity: voices from theology and science. In WB Drees, H Meisinger, and TA Smedes (eds.), Creation’s diversity: voices from theology and science, 1–6. New York: T&T Clark. Driscoll M and Breshears G 2010. Doctrine: what Christians should believe. Wheaton: Crossway. Drumwright HL 2009a. Shekinah. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:461–466. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2009b. Wisdom. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:1088–1096. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bibliography

259

Duke RK 2003. Priests and priesthood. In TA Alexander and DW Baker (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 646–655. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Dumbrell WJ 1984. Covenant and creation: a theology of Old Testament covenants. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Duncan SJ, et al. 2007. Report of the creation study committee, 2302–2383. St. Louis: PCA Historical Center. Website: http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html. Dunn JDG 1992. Christology (NT). In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 1:979–991. New York: Doubleday. ______ 1998. The theology of Paul the apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Dyrness W 1977. Themes in Old Testament theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Edgar B 2002. Biblical anthropology and the intermediate state: part I. Evangelical quarterly. 74 (1) 27–45. Edgar TR 1997. Eschatology of Romans, 1–19. Portland: Theological Research Exchange Network. Edwards D 1999. The God of evolution: a trinitarian theology. New York: Paulist Press. Eichrodt W 1951. Man in the Old Testament. K Smith and RG Smith (trans.). Chicago: Alec R. Allenson, Inc. ______ 1961. Theology of the Old Testament. Volume 1. JA Baker (trans.). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. ______ 1967. Theology of the Old Testament. Volume 2. JA Baker (trans.). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Ellingworth P 2000. Priests. In TD Alexander and BS Rosner (eds.). New dictionary of biblical theology, 696–701. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Elwell WA 1993. Election and predestination. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 225–229. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Emmrich M 2001. The temptation narrative of Genesis 3:1–6: a prelude to the Pentateuch and the history of Israel. Evangelical quarterly. 73 (1) 3–20. Enns P 1997. mišpāt. In WA VanGemeren (ed.). The new international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 2:1142–1144. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 2005a. Faith. In BT Arnold and HGM Williamson (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament historical books, 296–300. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2005b. Inspiration and incarnation: Evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 2010. Evangelicals, evolution, and the Bible: moving toward a synthesis. BioLogos. 1–11. San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/enns_scholarly_essay.pdf. Erickson MJ 1998. Christian theology. Grand Rapids: Baker. Evans CA 2000. Son of God text (4Q246). In CA Evans and SE Porter (eds.). Dictionary of New Testament background, 1134–1137. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Ewart P 2009. The necessity of chance: randomness, purpose and the sovereignty of God. Science and Christian belief. 21 (2) 111–131. Falk DR 2004. Coming to peace with science: bridging the worlds between faith and biology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Falk DR and Gilberson K 2009. Statement of participants at Biologos workshop, ‘in

260

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

search of a theology of celebration’. BioLogos. 1–7. San Diego: BioLogos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Workshop_statement.pdf. Falk DR, et al. 2011. The BioLogos foundation’s theology of celebration II workshop: summary statement. BioLogos. San Diego: BioLogos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/blog/the-biologos-foundations-theology-of-celebration-iiworkshop/. Fanning BM 1994a. A theology of Hebrews. In RB Zuck (ed.). A biblical theology of the New Testament, 369–415. Chicago: Moody Press. ______ 1994b. A theology of Peter and Jude. In RB Zuck (ed.). A biblical theology of the New Testament, 437–471. Chicago: Moody Press. Fape MO 2000. Baptism. In TA Desmond and BS Rosner (eds.). New dictionary of biblical theology, 395–397. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Faulkner JA, et al. 1982. Justification. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 2:1168–1174. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Fee GD 1987. The first epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2007. Pauline Christology: an exegetical-theological study. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Feinberg CL 1976. Jeremiah. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 6:357– 910. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 2009a. Atonement, day of. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 1:441–445. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2009b. Priests and Levites (OT). In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 4:963–980. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2009c. Tabernacle. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:664–677. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Feinberg JS (ed.) 1988. Continuity and discontinuity: perspectives on the relationships between the Old and New Testaments. Essays in honor of S.L. Johnson. Wheaton: Crossway Books. Fensham FC 1971. The covenant as giving expression to the relationship between the Old and New Testament. Tyndale bulletin. 22:82–94. Finkenrath G 1986. mystērion. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 3:501–506. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Finlay G 2003. Homo divinus: the ape that bears God’s image. Science and Christian belief. 15 (1) 141–164. Website: http://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/articles/finlay.pdf. ______ 2006. Creation versus creationism. Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 58 (3) 236–239. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF906Finlay.pdf. ______ 2007. Human genomics and the image of God. Faraday Papers, 14:1–4. Cambridge: The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. Website: http://graphite.stedmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Papers.php. ______ 2008. Human evolution: how random process fulfills divine purpose. Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 60 (2) 103–114. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/ PSCF/2008/PSCF6-08Finlay.pdf.

Bibliography

261

Fischer D 1993. In search of the historical Adam: part 1. Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 45 (4) 241–251. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/ PSCF12-93Fischer.html. ______ 1994. In search of the historical Adam: part 2. Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 46 (1) 47–57. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1994/PSCF3-94Fischer.html. Fischer RJ 2008. Historical Genesis: from Adam to Abraham. Lanham: University Press of America. Fishbane M 1998. Biblical text and texture: a literary reading of selected texts. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. Fisher RB 1997. God did it, but how? Ispwich: ASA Press. Fitzmyer JA 1993. Romans. New York: Doubleday. ______ 2008. First Corinthians. New Haven: Yale University Press. Flender O 1986. eikōn. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 2:286–288. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Foerster W 1999. áxios. In G Kittel (ed.). GW Bromiley (trans.). Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 1:379–380. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ford JM 1992. Millennium. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 4:832– 835. New York: Doubleday. Forman CC 1960. Koheleth’s use of Genesis. Journal of semitic studies. 5 (3) 256–263. Forysth R 2006. ‘Then a miracle occurs’: the blessings and limitations of science. ISCAST. 2:1–19. Website: http://www.iscast.org/journal/articlespage/Forsyth_R_200611_Then_A_Miracle_Occurs. Fossum J 1992. Son of God. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 6:128– 137. New York: Doubleday. Foulkes F 1979. The epistle of Paul to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Fox MV 1987. Qohelet’s epistemology. Hebrew union college annual. 58:137–155. ______ 2004. The JPS Bible commentary: Ecclesiastes. The Jewish Publication Society. Frame J 2002. The doctrine of God. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing. Fredericks DC 1997. hebel. In WA VanGemeren (ed.). The new international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 1:1005–1006. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Freedman DN 1964. Divine commitment and human obligation, the covenant theme. Interpretation. 18 (4) 419–431. Fretheim TE 1994. The book of Genesis: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 1:321–674. Nashville: Abingdon. ______ 2005. God and world in the Old Testament: a relational theology of creation. Nashville: Abingdon. ______ 2010. Creation untamed: the Bible, God, and natural disasters. Grand Rapids: Baker. Friedrich G 1999. sálpinx. In G Kittel (ed.). GW Bromiley (trans.). Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 7:71–88. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Furnish VP 1999. The theology of the first letter to the Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Futato MD 1998. Because it had rained: a study of Gen 2:5–7 with implications for Gen 2:4–25 and Gen 1:1–2:3. Westminster theological journal. 60 (1) 1–21.

262

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Gaffin RB 1993. Glory, glorification. In GF Hawthrone and RP Martin (eds.). Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 348–350. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Gage WA 1984. The gospel of Genesis: studies in protology and eschatology. Winona Lake: Carpenter Books. Garland DE 2003. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker. Garrett DA 1993. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. Nashville: Broadman Press. ______ 1996. Feasts and festivals of Israel. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, 249–255. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 2009. Ecclesiastes. In JH Walton (ed.), Zondervan illustrated Bible backgrounds commentary, 5:504–517. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Gaster TH 1962a. Heaven. In GA Buttrick (ed.). The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible, 2:551–552. Nashville: Abingdon. ______ 1962b. Resurrection. In GA Buttrick (ed.). The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible, 4:39–43. Nashville: Abingdon. ______ 1962c. Sacrifices and offerings, OT. In GA Buttrick (ed.). The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible, 4:147–159. Nashville: Abingdon. Gerstner JH 2000. Wrongly dividing the word of truth: a critique of dispensationalism. Second Edition. Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria Publications. Gess J 1986. charaktēr. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 2:288–289. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Giberson KW and Collins FS 2011. The language of science and faith: straight answers to genuine questions. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Gilkey L 1959. Maker of heaven and earth: the Christian doctrine of creation in the light of modern knowledge. Lanham: University Press of America. Gill DW 2002. 1 Corinthians. In CE Arnold (ed.), Zondervan illustrated Bible backgrounds commentary, 3:101–193. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Gillman N 1997. The death of death: resurrection and immortality in Jewish thought. Woodstock: Jewish Lights Publishing. Gingerich O 2006. God’s universe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gingrich FW 1962. Justification. In GA Buttrick (ed.). The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible, 2:1027–1030. Nashville: Abingdon. Glenn DR 1982. Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2: a case study in biblical hermeneutics and biblical theology. In DK Campbell (ed.). Walvoord: a tribute, 39–51. Chicago: Moody. ______ 1985. Ecclesiastes. In The Bible knowledge commentary: Old Testament. Edited by JF Walvoord and RB Zuck, 975–1007. Colorado Springs: Victor Books. Godawa B 2010. Biblical creation and storytelling: cosmogony, combat and covenant. BioLogos. 1–13. San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/godawa_scholarly_paper.pdf. ______ 2011. Science and faith at the movies: “Contact”. BioLogos. 1–9. San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/science_faith_ at_the_movies.pdf. Godet FL 1955. Commentary on gospel of John. Vol I: John 1–5. T Dwight (trans.). Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1977. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Kregel.

Bibliography

263

______ 1979. Commentary on first Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Kregel. Goldingay J 2003. Old Testament theology: Israel’s gospel. Vol. 1. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2006. Old Testament theology: Israel’s faith. Vol. 2. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Gordis R 1968. Koheleth—the man and his world: a study of Ecclesiastes. New York: Schocken Books. Gordon MR 2009. Glory. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 2:770–776. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gordon RP 2007. The week that made the world: reflections on the first pages of the Bible. In JG McConville and K Möller (eds.). Reading the law: studies in honour of Gordon J. Wenham, 228–241. New York: T&T Clark. Gorman MJ 2004. Apostle of the crucified Lord: a theological introduction to Paul and his letters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gould SJ 1997. Nonoverlapping magisteria. Natural history. 106:16–22. Website: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html. Gray TM 2003. Biochemistry and evolution. In KB Miller (ed.), Perspectives on an evolving creation, 256–287. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Green JB 1998. ‘Bodies—that is, human lives’: a reexamination of human nature in the Bible. In WS Brown, et al. (eds.), Whatever happened to the soul? Scientific and theological portraits of human nature, 149–173. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. ______ 2008. Body, soul, and human life: the nature of humanity in the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker. Greenberg J 2003. An evolving creation and environmental issues. In KB Miller (ed.), Perspectives on an evolving creation, 393–413. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gregersen NH 2001. The cross of Christ in an evolutionary world. Dialog. 40 (3) 192– 207. Grogan GW 2009. Baptism for the dead. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 1:501–502. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Grosheide FW 1984. Commentary on the first epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gross H 1998. māšal II. In GJ Botterweck, H Ringgren, and H-J Fabry (eds.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 9:68–71. DE Green (trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Grudem W 1988. The first epistle of Peter: an introduction and commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1995. Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Gruenler RG 1986. The Trinity in the gospel of John: a thematic commentary on the fourth Gospel. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Guhrt J 1986a. Covenant. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 3:365–372. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1986b. Time. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 3:826–833. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Guinan MD 1992. Mosaic covenant. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 4:905–909. New York: Doubleday.

264

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Guinness O 2008. An evangelical manifesto: a declaration of evangelical identity and public commitment. Washington: Evangelical Manifesto Steering Committee. Website: http://www.evangelicalmanifesto.com/manifesto.php. Guthrie D 1981a. New Testament theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 1981b. The new century Bible commentary: Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Guthrie GH 2002. Hebrews. In CE Arnold (ed.), Zondervan illustrated Bible backgrounds commentary, 4:3–85. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 2007. Hebrews. In GK Beale and DA Carson (eds.). Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, 919–995. Grand Rapids: Baker. Haarsma LD 2003. Does science exclude God? Natural law, chance, miracles, and scientific practice. In KB Miller (ed.), Perspectives on an evolving creation, 72–94. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Haarsma DB and Haarsma LD 2007. Origins: a reformed look at creation, design, and evolution. Grand Rapids: Faith Alive. Hafemann SJ (ed.) 1993. Paul and his interpreters. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 666–679. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Hahn HC 1986. Conscience. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 1:348–351. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Hamilton FE and Harris RL 2009. Providence. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 4:1050–1054. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hamilton VP 1990. The book of Genesis 1–17. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hanby M 2006. Reclaiming creation in a Darwinian world. Theology today. 62 (4) 476– 483 Harbin MA 1997. Theistic evolution: deism revisited? Journal of the Evangelical theological society. 40 (4) 639–651. Harlow DC 2008. Creation according to Genesis: literary genre, cultural context, theological truth. Christian scholar’s review. 37 (2) 163–198. ______ 2010. After Adam: reading Genesis in an age of evolutionary science. Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 62 (3) 179–195. Harris MJ 1976. 2 Corinthians. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 10:301–406. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1986. Trumpet. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 3:873–874. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Harrison EF 1976. Romans. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 10:3– 171. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1982. Glory. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 2:477–483. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2001. World. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of theology, 1297–1298. Grand Rapids: Baker. Harrison RK 1979. Cain. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 1:571. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1982. Earth. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 2:3–4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bibliography

265

Hartley JE 2003. Atonement, day of. In TA Alexander and DW Baker (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 54–61. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Haught JF 2000. God after Darwin: a theology of evolution. Boulder: Westview Press. ______ 2010. Making sense of evolution: Darwin, God, and the drama of life. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Hayman AP 1991. Qohelet and the book of creation. Journal for the study of the Old Testament. 50:93–111. Hays RB 1992. Justification. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 3:1129– 1133. New York: Doubleday. ______ 1994. The letter to the Galatians. In LE Keck (ed.). The new interpreter’s Bible, 11:183–348. Nashville: Abingdon. Hawking SW and Mlodinow L 2010. The grand design. New York: Bantam Books. Hawthorne GF 1983. Philippians. Waco: Word Books. Hefner P 1989. The evolution of the created co-creator. In T Peters (ed.), Cosmos as creation: theology and science in consonance, 211–233. Nashville: Abingdon. Held A and Rüst P 1999. Genesis reconsidered. Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 51 (4) 231–243.Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF1299Held.html. Helyer LR 2008. The witness of Jesus, Paul and John: an exploration in biblical theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Hendriksen W 1995a. Exposition of Colossians and Philemon. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 1995b. Exposition of Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 1995c. Exposition of Galatians. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 1995d. Exposition of Philippians. Grand Rapids: Baker. Hermisson HJ 1984. Observations on the creation theology in wisdom. In BW Anderson (ed.). Creation in the Old Testament, 118–134. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Hess RS 2003. Adam. In TA Alexander and DW Baker (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 18–21. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Hewlett M and Peters T 2006. Why Darwin’s theory of evolution deserves theological support. Theology and science. 4 (2) 171–182. Hiebert DE 2009. Satan. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:332–338. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hiebert RJV 1996. Create, creation. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, 132–136. Grand Rapids: Baker. Hill CE 1988. Paul’s understanding of Christ’s kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:20–28. Novum testamentum. 30 (4) 297–320. Hill CA 2007. A third alternative to concordism and divine accommodation: the worldview approach. Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 59 (2) 129–134. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Hill.pdf. Hoehner HW 2002. Ephesians: an exegetical commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker. Hoekema AA 1979. The Bible and the future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hofius O 1993. apaúgasma. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament, 1:117–118. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Holder RD 2007. Is the universe designed? Faraday papers, 10:1–4. Cambridge: The Fara-

266

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

day Institute for Science and Religion. Website: http://graphite.stedmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Papers.php. Holtz T 1993. aiōn. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament, 1:44–46. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Holwerda DE 1995. Jesus and Israel: one covenant or two? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hooker MD 1994. The letter to the Philippians: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 11:469–549. Nashville: Abingdon. Horne CM 2009. Salvation. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:265–280. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hornell DG 2000. An introduction to the study of Paul. London: Continuum. Horton M 2011. The Christian faith: a systematic theology for pilgrims on the way. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Howe FR 1982. Creation and evolution: the continuing confrontation. In DK Campbell (ed.). Walvoord: a tribute, 145–156. Chicago: Moody. Hubbard M 2002. 2 Corinthians. In CE Arnold (ed.), Zondervan illustrated Bible backgrounds commentary, 3:195–263. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Huffman DS 1992. Genealogy. In JB Green and S McKnight (eds.). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 253–259. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Hughes PE 1962. Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1977. A commentary on the epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hughes PH 1955. Evolutionary dogma. Westminster theological journal. 18 (1) 34–47. Hulsbosch A 1965. God in creation and evolution. M Versfeld (trans.). New York: Sheed and Ward. Humphreys C 2004. Can scientists believe in miracles? Faraday Lectures, 1–14. Cambridge: The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. Website: http://www.stedmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/humphreys/pdf/Humphreys_lecture.pdf. Hurd JP 2003. Hominids in the garden? In KB Miller (ed.), Perspectives on an evolving creation, 208–233. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hurtado LW 1993. Pre-existence. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 743–746. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2003. Lord Jesus Christ: devotion to Jesus in earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hyers C 1984. The meaning of creation: Genesis and modern science. Atlanta: John Knox Press. ______ 2003. Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins. In KB Miller (ed.), Perspectives on an evolving creation, 19–33. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ingram DJE 1965. Plan and purpose in the universe. In DM MacKay (ed.). Christianity in a mechanistic universe and other essays, 73–105. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Irons L and Kline MG 2001. The framework view. In DG Hagopian (ed.). The Genesis debate: three views on the days of creation, 217–256. Mission Viejo: Crux Press. Isaac R 2010. Science and the question of God. BioLogos. 1–11. San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/isaac_scholarly_essay.pdf. Jackelén A 2006. Emergence theory—what is it’s promise? Zygon. 41 (3) 623–632. Jacob E 1958. Theology of the Old Testament. AW Heathcote and PJ Allcock (trans.). New

Bibliography

267

York: Harper and Brothers Publishers. Janzen W 1992. Earth. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 2:245–248. New York: Doubleday. Jeeves MA 1969. The scientific enterprise and Christian faith. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Jenni E 1997. yôm. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 2:526–539. ME Biddle (trans.). Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Jewett P 2009. Eschatology. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 2:371–390. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Jocz J 1968. The covenant: a theology of human destiny. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Johnson A 1981. Revelation. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 12:399–603. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Johnson B 1998. mišpāt. In GJ Botterweck, H Ringgren, and HJ Fabry (eds.). DE Green (trans.). Theological dictionary of Old Testament theology, 9:86–98. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Johnston PS 2000a. Heaven. In TD Alexander and BS Rosner (eds.). New dictionary of biblical theology, 540–542. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2000b. Humanity. In TD Alexander and BS Rosner (eds.). New dictionary of biblical theology, 564–567. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2003. Life, disease and death. In TA Alexander and DW Baker (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 532–536. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Jones IH 1992. Music and musical instruments. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 4:930–939. New York: Doubleday. Kaiser WC 1972. The old promise and the new covenant. Journal of the Evangelical theological society. 15:11–23. ______ 1978. Toward an old testament theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1979. Ecclesiastes: Total Life. Chicago: Moody Press. ______ 1996. The great commission in the Old Testament. International journal of frontier missions. 13 (1) 3–7. ______ 2008. The promise-plan of God: a biblical theology of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Karlberg MW 1987. Legitimate discontinuities between the testaments, 1–22. Portland: Theological Research Exchange Network. Kasch W 1999. synístēmi. In G Kittel (ed.). GW Bromiley (trans.). Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 7:896–898. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kass LR 2003. The beginning of wisdom: reading Genesis. New York: Free Press. Kaufman M 2011. First contact: scientific breakthroughs in the hunt for life beyond earth. New York: Simon and Schuster. Kaufmann Y 1960. The religion of Israel from its beginnings to the Babylonian exile. M Greenberg (trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Keefer LL 1996. Firstborn. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, 258. Grand Rapids: Baker. Keener CS 2003. The gospel of John: a commentary. Vol. 1. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Keil CF and Delitzsch F 1981. Commentary on the Old Testament. Vol. 1: The Pentateuch. J

268

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Martin (trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kelber G 1999. charaktēr. In G Kittel (ed.). GW Bromiley (trans.). Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 9:418–423. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Keller T 2009. Creation, evolution, and Christian laypeople. BioLogos. 1–14. San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_ white_paper.pdf. Kelly RA 1988. Righteousness. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 4:192–195. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kelsey D 1985. The doctrine of creation from nothing. In E McMullin (ed.). Evolution and creation, 176–196. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Kennard DW 2008. Messiah Jesus: Christology in his day and ours. New York: Peter Lang. Kent HA 1972. The epistle to the Hebrews: a commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 1978. Philippians. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 11:95– 159. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1985. The new covenant and the church. Grace theological journal. 6 (2) 289–298. Keown GL, Scalise PJ, and Smothers, TG 1995. Jeremiah 26–52. Dallas: Word Publishers. Keumyoung A 1989. The Sinaitic covenant and law in the theology of dispensationalism. Ph.D. dissertation. Berrien Springs: Andrews University. Kidner D 1967. Genesis: an introduction and commentary. Downers Grover: InterVarsity. Kil Ho Lee HR 1993. A comparative study of covenant theology in the thought of John Calvin and the Westminster confession. Th.M. thesis. Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary. Kim S 2002. Paul and the new perspective: second thoughts on the origin of Paul’s gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kistemaker SJ 1995a. Exposition of the epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 1995b. Exposition of the epistles of Peter and of the epistle of Jude. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 1997. Exposition of the second epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker. Kittel G 1999a. apaúgasma. In G Kittel (ed.). GW Bromiley (trans.). Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 1:508. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1999b. eikōn. In G Kittel (ed.). GW Bromiley (trans.). Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 2:392–397. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Klapwijk J 2008. Purpose in the living world? Creation and emergent evolution. H Cook (trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Klein RG 1992. The archeology of modern human origins. Evolutionary anthropology. 1 (1) 5–14. Klenck JD 2009. Major terrestrial animal taxonomic classifications as defined by God. Journal of creation. 23 (2) 118–123. Kline MG 1958. Because it had not rained. Westminster theological journal. 20 (2) 146–157. ______ 1996. Space and time in the Genesis cosmogony. In Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 48:2–15. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF396Kline.html. Kline RG 1992. The archeology of modern human origins. Evolutionary anthropology. 1 (1) 5–14.

Bibliography

269

Klingbeil GA 2005. Priests and Levites. In BT Arnold and HGM Williamson (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: historical books, 811–819. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Knobloch FW 1992. Adoption. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 1:76– 79. New York: Doubleday. Koch KG. 1997. sdq. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.). ME Biddle (trans.). Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 2:1046–1062. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Koehler L and Baumgartner W 2001. The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament. Vols. 1 and 2. MEJ Richardson (trans.). Leiden: Brill. Koester CR 2001. Hebrews: a new translation with introduction and commentary. New York: Doubleday. König A 1994. An outline of a contemporary covenant theology. Calvin theological journal. 29 180–189. Korsmeyer JD 1998. Evolution and Eden: balancing original sin and contemporary science. New York: Paulist Press. Köstengerger AJ 2004. John. Grand Rapids: Baker. Krämer H 1993. mystērion. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament, 2:446–449. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kreitzer LJ 1993a. Adam and Christ. In GF Hawthrone and RP Martin (eds.). Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 9–15. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 1993b. Body. In GF Hawthrone and RP Martin (eds.). Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 71–76. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 1993c. Resurrection. In GF Hawthrone and RP Martin (eds.). Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 805–812. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Kretzer A 1993. synistēmi. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament, 3:308. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Krüger T 1997. Die rezeption der Tora im buch Kohelet. In L Schwienhorst-Schönberger (ed.). Das buch Kohelet: studien zur struktur, geschichte, rezeption und theologie, 303– 325. New York: Walter de Gruyter. ______ 2004. Qoheleth: a commentary. OC Dean (trans.). Fortress Press. Kuhn H 2009. Human nature. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 3:237–249. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kuhn RL 2007. Why this universe? Toward a taxonomy of possible explanations. Skeptic. 13 (2) 28–39. Küng H 2007. The beginning of all things: science and religion. J Bowden (trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kuyper LJ 1967. Old Testament used by New Testament writers. The Reformed review. 21:2–13. Ladd GE 1997. A theology of the New Testament. DA Hagner (ed.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Lake DM 2009. Soul. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.), The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:585–588. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Lam J 2010. The biblical creation in its ancient Near Eastern context. BioLogos. 1–6. San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/ lam_scholarly_essay.pdf.

270

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Lamont A 2011. Genesis: the roots of the gospel. Creation Ministries International. Website: http://creation.com/genesis-root-of-the-gospel. Lamoureux DO 2008. Evolutionary creation: a Christian approach to evolution. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Landes GM 1984. Creation and liberation. In BW Anderson (ed.). Creation in the Old Testament, 135–151. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Lane DH 1994a. Special creation or evolution: no middle ground. Bibliotheca sacra. 151 (601) 11–31. ______ 1994b. Theological problems with theistic evolution. Bibliotheca sacra. 151 (602) 155–174. Lane WL 1991a. Hebrews 1–8. Waco: Word Books. ______ 1991b. Hebrews 9–13. Waco: Word Books. Langkammer H 1993. pantokratōr. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament, 3:11–12. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. LaSor WS, Hubbard DA, and Bush FW 1996. Old Testament survey: the message, form, and background of the Old Testament. Second edition. Eerdmans. Lee EP 2005. The vitality of enjoyment in Qohelet’s theological discourse. Walter de Gruyter. Leitch AH 2009a. Adoption. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 1:70–72. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2009b. Righteousness. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:129–147. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Lett D and Vardy M 2007. Religion, science, and origins: on the metaphysics of intelligent design and Darwinian evolutionism. Illumine. 6 (1) 7–15. Leslie J 1998. Cosmology and theology. In N Zalta (ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Standford: Stanford University. Website: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ fall1998/entries/cosmology-theology/. Levenson JD 1988. Creation and the persistence of evil: the Jewish drama of divine omnipotence. San Francisco: Harper and Row. Levertoff P 1982. First fruits. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 2:307–308. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Levison JR 1988. Portraits of Adam in early Judaism: from Sirach to 2 Baruch. Sheffield: JSOT Press. ______ 1993. Creation and new creation. In GF Hawthrone and RP Martin (eds.). Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 189–190. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Lewis CS 2001. Mere Christianity. San Francisco: HarperCollins. Lewis JP 1989. The days of creation: an historical survey of interpretation. Journal of the Evangelical theological society. 32 (4) 433–455. ______ 1992. Flood. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 2:798–803. New York: Doubleday. ______ 2009. Firstfruits. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 2:578. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Liedke G 1997. špt. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.). ME Biddle (trans.). Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 3:1392–1399. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Liefeld W 2009. Mystery. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia

Bibliography

271

of the Bible, 4:359–363. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Lightfoot JB 1976. Saint Paul’s epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______1981. Saint Paul’s epistle to the Philippians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Lincoln AT 1981. Paradise now and not yet: studies in the role of the heavenly dimension in Paul’s thought with special reference to his eschatology. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 1990. Ephesians. Waco: Word Books. ______1994. The letter to the Colossians: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 11:553–669. Nashville: Abingdon. Lindars B 1986. The gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Lioy D 2003. The book of Revelation in Christological focus. New York: Peter Lang. ______ 2004. The Decalogue in the Sermon on the Mount. New York: Peter Lang. ______ 2005. The search for ultimate reality: intertextuality between the Genesis and Johannine prologues. New York: Peter Lang. ______ 2006a. Checkmating the human drive for life: A biblical-theological examination of Genesis 5, Ecclesiastes 1, and 1 Corinthians 15:50–58. Conspectus. 2:1–22. Website: http://www.satsonline.org/content/theological-research-conspectus. ______ 2006b. Progressive covenantalism as an integrative motif of Scripture. Conspectus. 1:81–107. Website: http://www.satsonline.org/content/theological-research-conspectus. ______ 2007a. Jesus as Torah in John 1–12. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. ______ 2007b. The heart of the prosperity gospel: self or the Savior? Conspectus.4:41–64. Website: http://www.satsonline.org/content/theological-research-conspectus. ______ 2007c. The moral law in Christ-centered perspective. Conspectus. 3:54–89. Website: http://www.satsonline.org/content/theological-research-conspectus. ______ 2008. The divine sabotage: an exegetical and theological study of Ecclesiastes 3. Conspectus. 5:115–135. Website: http://www.satsonline.org/content/theologicalresearch-conspectus. ______ 2010. Axis of glory: a biblical and theological analysis of the temple motif in Scripture. New York: Peter Lang. ______ 2011a. An evolutionary creation process for the origin of humanity. Conspectus. 11:115–165. Website: http://www.satsonline.org/content/theological-researchconspectus. ______ 2011b. Jesus’ resurrection and the nature of the believer’s resurrection body (1 Cor 15:1–58). Conspectus. 12. Website: http://www.satsonline.org/content/theological-research-conspectus. Lohfink N 2003. Qoheleth: a continental commentary. S McEvenue (trans.). Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Longenecker BW 2002. The narrative approach to Paul: an early retrospective. Currents in biblical research. 1 (1) 88–11. Longman T 1998. The book of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Louis A 2010. Miracles and science: the long shadow of David Hume. BioLogos. 1–13. San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/ louis_scholarly_essay.pdf.

272

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

______ 2011. How does the Biologos model need to address concerns Christians have about the implications of science? BioLogos. 1–19. San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/louis_white_paper.pdf. Louw JP and Nida EA (eds.) 1989. Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament based on semantic domains. Vol. 1: introduction and domains. New York: United Bible Societies. Lowery DK 1994. A theology of Paul’s missionary epistles. In RB Zuck (ed.). A biblical theology of the New Testament, 243–297. Chicago: Moody Press. Lucas EC 1989. Genesis today. London: Scripture Union. ______ 2003. Cosmology. In TA Alexander and DW Baker (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 130–139. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2004. Science and the Bible: are they incompatible? The creation story as a test case. Faraday Lectures, 1–18. Cambridge: The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. Website: http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/lucas/ index.html. ______ 2007. Interpreting Genesis in the 21st century. Faraday papers, 11:1–4. Cambridge: The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. Website: http://graphite.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Papers.php. Lüdemann G 1993. syneidēsis. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament, 3:301–303. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Maass F 1974. ’ādhām. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 1:75–87. JT Willis (trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Mabie FJ 2008. Chaos and death. In T Longman and P Enns (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament wisdom, poetry and writings, 41–54. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. MacArthur J 2002. Creation: believe or not. Master’s seminary journal. 13 (1) 5–32. Macdonald PA 2009. God incarnate and the defeat of evil. Modern theology. 25 (2) 159– 185. MacKay DM 1965. Man as a mechanism. In DM MacKay (ed.). Christianity in a mechanistic universe and other essays, 51–69. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 1974. “Complementarity” in scientific and theological thinking. Zygon. 9 (3) 225– 244. Maile JF 1993. Heaven, heavenlies, paradise. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 381–383. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Malone FA 1989. A critical evaluation of the use of Jeremiah 31:31–34 in the letter to the Hebrews. Ph.D. dissertation. Fort Worth: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Mann R 2009. The puzzle of existence. Perspectives on Science and Christian faith. 61 (3) 139–150. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2009/PSCF909Complete.pdf. Mare WH 1976. 1 Corinthians. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 10:175–297. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1996. Firstfruits. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, 258– 259. Grand Rapids: Baker. Marks JH 1962. Flood (Genesis). In GA Buttrick (ed.). The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible, 2:278–284. Nashville: Abingdon. Markus A 2004. Beyond finitude: God’s transcendence and the meaning of life. New York:

Bibliography

273

Peter Lang. Marshall IH 1991. 1 Peter. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2004. New Testament theology: many witnesses, one gospel. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Martin JW 2010. The prism and the rainbow: a Christian explains why evolution is not a threat. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. Martin RP 1973. Colossians and Philemon. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1982. Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1986a. apaúgasma. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 2:289–290. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1986b. 2 Corinthians. Waco: Word Books. Martin-Achard R 1992. Resurrection (OT). In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 5:680–684. New York: Doubleday. Matera FJ 2007. New Testament theology: exploring diversity and unity. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. ______ 2010. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker. Matthews VH 2000. Old Testament themes. St. Louis: Chalice Press. McCarthy DJ 1984. “Creation” motifs in ancient Hebrew poetry. In BW Anderson (ed.). Creation in the Old Testament, 74–89. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. McCartney DG 1994. Ecce homo: the coming of the kingdom as the restoration of human viceregency. Westminster theological journal. 56 (1) 1–21. Website: http://www. wts.edu/uploads/pdf/articles/mccartney-vicegerency.pdf. McComiskey TE 1985. The covenants of promise: a theology of the Old Testament covenants. Grand Rapids: Baker. McCready WO 1986. Priests and Levites. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 3:965–970. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. McDonough SM 2009. Christ as creator: origins of a New Testament doctrine. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McFall L 2000. Serpent. In TD Alexander and BS Rosner (eds.). New dictionary of biblical theology, 773–775. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. McGrath AE 1993. Justification. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 517–523. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2001. A scientific theology. Vol. 1: nature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2009. A fine-tuned universe: the quest for God in science and theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. ______ 2010a. Science and faith at Odds? Q words. Website: http://www.qideas.org/essays/science-and-faith-at-odds.aspx. ______ 2010b. Science and religion: a new introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. McGrath GB 1997. Soteriology: Adam and the fall. Perspectives on science and faith. 49 (4) 252–263. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97 McGrath.html. McKenzie SL 2000. Covenant. St. Louis: Chalice Press. McKim DK 2001. Creation, the doctrine of. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of theology, 304–306. Grand Rapids: Baker.

274

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

McMullin E 1993. Evolution and special creation. Zygon. 28 (3) 299–335. ______ 2010. Creation ex nihilo: early history. In DB Burrell, et al. (eds.). Creation and the God of Abraham, 11–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McRay J 2003. Paul: his life and teaching. Grand Rapids: Baker. Merrill EH 1987. The Mosaic covenant: a proposal for its theological significance, 1–14. Portland: Theological Research Exchange Network. ______ 1991. A theology of the Pentateuch. In RB Zuck (ed.). A biblical theology of the Old Testament, 7–87. Chicago: Moody Press. ______ 1997. Fall of humankind. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 4:638–639. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 2003. Chronology. In TA Alexander and DW Baker (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 113–122. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Michaelis W 1999. skēnē. In G Kittel (ed.). GW Bromiley (trans.). Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 7:368–381. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Michel O and Marshall IH 1986. pais Theou. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 3:607–613. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Miller KB 2003. Common descent, transitional forms, and the fossil record. In KB Miller (ed.), Perspectives on an evolving creation, 152–181. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2011. “And God saw that it was good”: death and pain in the created order. Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 63 (2) 85–94. Mills M 2010. Reading the Bible after Darwin. Scripture bulletin. 60 (1) 2–9. Moberly RWL 1992. From Eden to Golgotha: essays in biblical theology. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ______ 2009a. How should one read the early chapters of Genesis? In SC Barton and D Wilkinson (eds.), Reading Genesis after Darwin, 5–21. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ______ 2009b. The theology of the book of Genesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Möller W and Payne JB 1979. Atonement, day of. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 1:360–362. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Moltmann J 1985. God in creation: an ecological doctrine of creation. M Kohl (trans.). London: SCM Press Ltd. Montgomery JW 1986. Millennium. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 3:356–361. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Moo DJ 1996. The epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2002. Romans. In CE Arnold (ed.), Zondervan illustrated Bible backgrounds commentary, 3:3–99. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Moody D 1962. Shekinah. In GA Buttrick (ed.). The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible, 4:317–319. Nashville: Abingdon. Moore RD 2000. From the house of Jacob to the Iowa caucuses: is there a place for Israel in an evangelical public theology?, 1–27. Portland: Theological Research Exchange Network. Moreland JP and Reynolds (eds.) 1999. Three views on creation and evolution. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Morris HM 1995. Reasons for opposing evolution. In RB Zuck (ed.). Vital apologetic issues:

Bibliography

275

examining reason and revelation in biblical perspective, 82–95. Grand Rapids: Kregel. Morris L 1981. Hebrews. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 12:3– 158. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1985. The first epistle of the Paul to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1988. The epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1990. New Testament theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1993. Sin, guilt. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 877–881. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 1995. The gospel according to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2001a. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2001b. What do we mean by “evangelical”? Richmond: World Evangelical Alliance. Website: http://www.worldevangelicals.org/aboutwea/evangelical.htm. ______ 1996. Justification. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, 441–443. Grand Rapids: Baker. Mosert C 2005. Theodicy and eschatology. In B Barber and D Neville (eds.). Theodicy and eschatology, 97–120. Adelaide: ATF Press. Motyer JA 2001. Atonement, day of. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of theology, 114. Grand Rapids: Baker. Moule CFD 1980. The epistles to the Colossians and Philemon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mounce RH 1998. The book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Müller H 1986. ektrōma. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 1:182–183. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Müller JJ 1984. The epistle of Paul to the Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Muller RA 1988. Resurrection. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 4:145–150. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Munday JC 2003. Animal pain: beyond the threshold? In KB Miller (ed.), Perspectives on an evolving creation, 435–468. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Murphy GL 2001. Chiasmic cosmology and creation’s functional integrity. Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 53 (1) 7–13. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/ PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Murphy.html. ______ 2003. Christology, evolution, and the cross. In KB Miller (ed.), Perspectives on an evolving creation, 370–389. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2010. Human evolution in theological context. BioLogos. 1–9. San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/murphy_scholarly_ essay.pdf. Murphy RE 1992. Wisdom in the OT. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 6:920–931. New York: Doubleday. Murray J 1953. The covenant of grace: a biblico-theological study. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing. ______ 1979. Historicity of Adam. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 1:50. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1984. The epistle to the Romans. Vol. 1. Chapters 1 to 8. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2009a. Election. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of

276

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

the Bible, 2:293–298. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2009b. Fall, the. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 2:530–533. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2009c. Foreknow. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 2:632–636. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Nel PJ 1997. mšl II. In WA VanGemeren (ed.). The new international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 2:1136–1137. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Newman CC 1997a. Covenant, New Covenant. In RP Martin and PH Davids (eds.). Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments, 245–250. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 1997b. Glory. In RP Martin and PH Davids (eds.). Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments, 394–400. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Newman RC 2003. Some problems for theistic evolution. Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 53 (2) 117–129. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF603Newman.pdf. Nicholson EW 1986. God and his people: covenant and theology in the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Niehaus JJ 2008. Ancient near eastern themes in biblical theology. Grand Rapids: Kregal. Noll M 2010. Science, religion, and A.D. White: seeking peace in the “warfare between science and theology”. BioLogos. 1–12. San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/noll_scholarly_essay2.pdf. North CR 1962. World, the. In GA Buttrick (ed.). The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible, 4:873–878. Nashville: Abingdon. Nwachukwu MSC 2002. Creation-covenant scheme and justification by faith: a canonical study of the God-human drama in the Pentateuch and the letter to the Romans. Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana. O’Brien G 2007. A theology of purpose: creation, evolution and the understanding of purpose. Science and Christian belief. 19 (1) 59–74. ______ 2009. Perfecting not perfect: Christology and Pneumatology within an imperfect yet purposeful creation. Theology and science. 7 (2) 407–419. O’Brien PT 1982. Colossians, Philemon. Waco: Word Books. ______ 1993a. Firstborn. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 301–303. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 1993b. Mystery. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 621–623. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2010. The letter to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. O’Connor JB 2008. St. John Damascene. In The Catholic encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Website: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08459b.htm. O’Connor T and Wong HY 2006. Emergent properties. In N Zalta (ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Standford: Stanford University. Website: http://plato.stanford. edu/entries/properties-emergent/. O’Day GR 1995. The gospel of John: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 9:493–865. Nashville: Abingdon. Oden RA 1992. Cosmogony, cosmology. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible diction-

Bibliography

277

ary, 1:1162–1171. New York: Doubleday. O’Dowd R 2008. Creation imagery. In T Longman and P Enns (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament wisdom, poetry and writings, 60–63. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Oepke A 1999. báptō. In G Kittel (ed.). GW Bromiley (trans.). Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 1:529–546. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ogden GS 2007. Qoheleth. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press. Onesti KL and Brauch MT 1993. Righteousness, righteousness of God. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 827– 837. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Orr WF and Walther JA 1976. 1 Corinthians. New York: Doubleday. Ortlund RC 2000. Man and woman. In TD Alexander and BS Rosner (eds.). New dictionary of biblical theology, 650–654. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Osborne GR 2002. Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 2004. Romans. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Osborn LH 2000. Creation. In TD Alexander and BS Rosner (eds.). New dictionary of biblical theology, 429–435. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Osterhaven ME 2001. Covenant theology. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of theology, 301–303. Grand Rapids: Baker. Ostling RN 2011. The search for the historical Adam. Christianity today. 55 (6) 22–27. Website: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/june/historicaladam.html. Oswalt JN 2003. Theology of the Pentateuch. In TA Alexander and DW Baker (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 845–859. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2009. The Bible among the myths: unique revelation or just ancient literature. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Packer JI 2001. Justification. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of theology, 643– 646. Grand Rapids: Baker. Painter J 1992. World. In JB Green and S McKnight (eds.). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 887–891. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 1993. World, cosmology. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 979–982. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 1997. Creation, cosmology. In RP Martin and PH Davids (eds.). Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments, 250–255. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Pannenberg W 1989. The doctrine of creation and modern science. In T Peters (ed.), Cosmos as creation: theology and science in consonance, 152–176. Nashville: Abingdon. ______ 1991. An introduction to systematic theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2002. The concept of miracle. Zygon. 37 (3) 759–762. ______ 2006. Problems between science and theology in the course of their modern history. Zygon. 41 (1) 105–112. Parker SB 1994. The ancient Near Eastern literary background of the Old Testament. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 1:228–243. Nashville: Abingdon. Pass S 2003. Creation and judgment: creation texts in some eighth century prophets. M Kohl (trans.). London: SCM Press Ltd. Paterson JH 2009. Sea. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:370–372. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

278

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Patton M and Dyck R 2005. What is progressive covenantalism. Video recording. Dallas: Biblical Studies Foundation. Website: http://www.bible.org/. Paul MJ 1997a. Adam and Eve. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 4:359–362. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1997b. Melchizedek. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 4:934–936. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Payne JB 1962. The theology of the older testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1965. Theistic evolution and the Hebrew of Genesis 1–2. Bulletin of the Evangelical theological society. 8 (2) 85–90. ______ 1973. Encyclopedia of biblical prophecy. San Francisco: Harper & Row. ______ 2009a. Covenant (NT). In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 1:1063–1069. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2009b. Covenant, the new. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 1:1071–1076. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Peacock KC 1995. The covenant promises in their canonical relationship to the Eden narrative. Ph.D. dissertation. Southtwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Peacocke AR 1979. Creation and the world of science: the Bampton lectures, 1978. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ______ 2001. Paths from science towards God: the end of all our exploring. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. Pearce EKV 1976. Who was Adam? Exeter: The Paternoster Press. Pendergast RJ 2009. Evil, original sin, and evolution. Heythrop journal. 50 (5) 833–845. Pennock RT (ed.) 2001. Intelligent design creationism and its critics: philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press. Perkins P 1994. The letter to the Ephesians: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 11:351–466. Nashville: Abingdon. Peters GW 1982. A biblical theology of missions. Chicago: Moody Press. Peters KE 2007. Toward an evolutionary Christian theology. Zygon. 42 (1) 49–63. Peters T 1988. On creating the cosmos. In RJ Russell, et al. (eds.). Physics, philosophy, and theology: a common quest for understanding, 273–296. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory. ______ 1989. Cosmos as creation. In T Peters (ed.), Cosmos as creation: theology and science in consonance, 45–113. Nashville: Abingdon. Peters T and Hewlett M 2006. Can you believe in God and evolution? A guide for the perplexed. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Petersen LM 2009. Justification. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 3:869–879. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Peterson ML 2010. C.S. Lewis on evolution and intelligent design. Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 62 (4) 253–286. Peterson DG 2000. Melchizedek. In TD Alexander and BS Rosner (eds.). New dictionary of biblical theology, 658–660. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Pierard R V and Elwell WA 2001. Evangelicalism. In WA Elwell (ed.), Evangelical dictionary of theology, 405–410. Grand Rapids: Baker. Pierce RW 1994. Covenant conditionality and a future for Israel. Journal of the Evangelical

Bibliography

279

theological society. 37:27–38. Pigliucci M 2002. Denying evolution: creationism, scientism, and the nature of science. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates. Plantinga A 1991. When faith and reason clash: evolution and the Bible. Christian scholar’s review. 21 (1) 8–33. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faithreason/CRS9-91Plantinga1.html. ______ 2000. Warranted Christian belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Plummer A 1978. A critical and exegetical commentary on the second epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Pöhlmann W 1993. morphē. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament, 2:442–443. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Pokrifka J 2008. Life, imagery of. In T Longman and P Enns (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament wisdom, poetry and writings, 431–437. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Polhill JB 1999. Paul and his letters. Nashville: Broadman and Holman. Polkinghorne JC 2005. Exploring reality: the intertwining of science and religion. New Haven: Yale University Press. ______ 2007a. The anthropic principle and the science and religion debate. Faraday papers, 4:1–4. Cambridge: The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. Website: http://graphite.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Papers.php. ______ 2007b. The science and religion debate – an introduction. Faraday papers, 1:1–4. Cambridge: The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. Website: http://graphite.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Papers.php. ______ 2009a. Scripture and an evolving creation. Science and Christian belief. 21 (2) 163– 173. ______ 2009b. Theology in the context of science. New Haven: Yale University Press. Powell SM 2003. Participating in God: creation and Trinity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Poythress VS 1994. Understanding dispensationalists. Second edition. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing. Preisker H 1999. engyos. In G Kittel (ed.). GW Bromiley (trans.). Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 2:329. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Prenter R 1967. Creation and redemption. TI Jensen (trans.). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Preston A 2006. Analytic philosophy. In J Fieser and B Dowden (eds.), Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Martin: University of Tennessee. Website: http://www. iep.utm.edu/analytic/. Pretorious M 2006. Justification as it relates to Adam and Christ in the new covenant. Conspectus. 1:43–64. Website: http://www.satsonline.org/userfiles/JustificationasitrelatestoAdamandChrist.pdf. ______ 2007. Understanding reality: exploring the interaction between theology and science, with special reference to a theistic presupposition to certain worldviews. Ph.D. dissertation. Pretoria: University of Pretoria. Preuss HD 1995. Old Testament theology. Vol. 1. LG Perdue (trans.). Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. ______ 1996. Old Testament theology. Vol. 2. LG Perdue (trans.). Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

280

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Prior D 1985. The message of 1 Corinthians: life in the local church. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Rainey AF 2009. Sacrifice and offerings. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:233–252. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ramm B 1985. Offense to reason: a theology of sin. Vancouver: Regent College Publishing. Rana F and Ross H 2005. Who was Adam: a creation model approach to the origin of man. Colorado Springs: NavPress. Rees T 1979. Adoption, sonship. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 1:53–55. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Reeves M 2009. Adam and Eve. In NC Nevin (ed.). Should Christians embrace evolution? Biblical and scientific responses, 43–56. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Rehm MD 1992. Levites and priests. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 4:297–310. New York: Doubleday. Reid WS 1986. Predestination. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 3:945–946. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Reimer DJ 1997. sdq. In WA VanGemeren (ed.). The new international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 3:744–769. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Reinhartz A 1992. The word in the world: the cosmological tale in the fourth gospel. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Rendtorff R 1989. “Covenant” as a structuring concept in Genesis and Exodus. Journal of biblical literature. 108 (3) 385–393. Reumann J 1992. Righteousness (NT). In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 5:745–773. New York: Doubleday. Rhodes FHT 1965. Christianity in a mechanistic universe. In DM MacKay (ed.). Christianity in a mechanistic universe and other essays, 11–48. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Ridderbos HN 1984. The epistle of Paul to the churches of Galatia. H Zylstra (trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1997a. Paul: an outline of his theology. JR De Witt (trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1997b. The gospel according to John: a theological commentary. J Vriend (trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ringgren H 2004. rāša‘. In GJ Botterweck, H Ringgren, and HJ Fabry (eds.). DW Stott (trans.). Theological dictionary of Old Testament theology, 14:1–9. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ringgren H and Johnson B 2003. sādaq. In GJ Botterweck, H Ringgren, and HJ Fabry (eds.). DW Stott (trans.). Theological dictionary of Old Testament theology, 12:239–264. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Rigsby RO 2003. Firstfruits. In TA Alexander and DW Baker (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 313–315. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Robeck CM 1988. Soul. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 4:587–589. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Robertson OP 1980. The Christ of the covenants. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing. Robinson JA 1979. Commentary on Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Kregel. Rowland CC 1998. The book of Revelation: introduction, commentary, and reflections.

Bibliography

281

In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 12:503–743. Nashville: Abingdon. Roloff J 1993. The revelation of John. Minneapolis: Fortress. Roop EF 1987. Genesis. Scottdale: Herald Press. Rose M 1992. Names of God in the OT. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 4:1001–1011. New York: Doubleday. Ross AP 1988. Creation and blessing: a guide to the study and exposition of the book of Genesis. Grand Rapids: Baker. Ross JF 1985. Christians get the best of evolution. In E McMullin (ed.). Evolution and creation, 223–251. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Rosscup JE 2009. Firstborn. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 2:577–578. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ruse M 2005. The evolution-creation struggle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Russell RJ 2000. Theology and science: current issues and future directions. Berkeley: The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences. Website: http://www.ctns.org/russell_article.html. ______ 2003. Special providence and genetic mutation: a new defense of theistic evolution. In KB Miller (ed.), Perspectives on an evolving creation, 335–369. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Rust EC 1962. Creation and evolution. Review and expositor. 59 (2) 181–199. ______ 1966. The Holy Spirit, nature, and man. Review and expositor. 63 (2) 157–176. Rüst P 2007. Early humans, Adam, and inspiration. Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 59 (3) 182–193. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF907Ruest.pdf. Ryken L, et al. (eds.) 1998. Dictionary of biblical imagery. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Rylaarsdam JC 1962. Atonement, day of. In GA Buttrick (ed.). The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible, 1:313–316. Nashville: Abingdon. Ryrie CC 1967. The Bible and evolution. Bibliotheca sacra. 124 (493) 66–78. Saebø M 1990. yôm. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 6:12–32. DE Green (trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Sailhamer JH 1990. Genesis. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 2:3– 284. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1992. The Pentateuch as narrative: a biblical-theological commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Saint John of Damascus 1958. On the Trinity. In FH Chase (trans.). Writings of saint John of Damascus. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press. Website: http://www.balamand.edu.lb/theology/JoWrit_trinity.htm. Sampley JP 2000. The second letter to the Corinthians: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 11:3–180. Nashville: Abingdon. ______ 2002. The first letter to the Corinthians: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 10:773–1003. Nashville: Abingdon. Samuelson NM 1992. The first seven days: a philosophical commentary on the creation of Genesis. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

282

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

______ 1994. Judaism and the doctrine of creation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ______ 2002. Creation and the symbiosis of science. Zygon. 37 (1) 137–142. Sand A 1993. Psychē. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament, 3:500–503. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Sanders EP 1992. Sin, sinners (NT). In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 6:40–47. New York: Doubleday. Sasse H 1999. aiōn. In G Kittel (ed.). GW Bromiley (trans.). Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 1:197–208. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Saucy RL 1992. The church as the mystery of God. In CA Blaising and DL Bock (eds.). Dispensationalism, Israel and the church: the search for definition, 127–155. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1993. The case for progressive dispensationalism: the interface between dispensational and non-dispensational theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Schaab GL 2008. Evolutionary theory and theology: a mutually illuminative dialogue. Zygon. 43 (1) 9–18. Schaeffer FA 1972. Genesis in space and time: the flow of biblical history. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Schafersman SD 1997. An introduction to science: scientific thinking and the scientific method. Oxford: Miami University. Website: http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html. Schep JA 2009. Resurrection. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:88–94. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Schifferdecker K 2008. Creation theology. In T Longman and P Enns (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament wisdom, poetry and writings, 63–71. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Schippers R 1986. Seal. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 3:497–501. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Schmithals W 1986. Death. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 1:430–441. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Schnabel EJ 2000. Wisdom. In TD Alexander and BS Rosner (eds.). New dictionary of biblical theology, 843–848. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Schneider JR 2010. Recent genetic science and Christian theology on human origins. Perspectives on science and faith. 62 (3) 196–212. Schnelle U 2009. Theology of the New Testament. ME Boring (trans.). Grand Rapids: Baker. Schoenborn U 1993. ouranos. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament, 12:543–547. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Schönborn CC 2007a. Chance or purpose? Creation, evolution, and a rational faith. HP Weber (ed.). H Taylor (trans.). San Francisco: Ignatius Press. ______ 2007b. Fides, ratio, scientia: the debate about evolution. In SO Horn and S Wiedenhofer (eds.). MJ Miller (trans.). Creation and evolution: a conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo, 84–106. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Schramm T 1993. Sphragis. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament, 3:316–317. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Schreiner TR 1998. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 2008. New Testament theology: magnifying God in Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Bibliography

283

Shulam J and Le Cornu H 1998. A commentary on the Jewish roots of Romans. Baltimore: The Lederer Foundation. Schwöbel C 1992. God: action and revelation. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House. Scott EC 2009. Evolution vs. creationism: an introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press. Scott JM 1993. Adoption, sonship. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 15–18. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Scroggs R 1966. The last Adam: a study in Pauline anthropology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Scullion JJ 1992. Genesis, the narrative of. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 2:941–956. New York: Doubleday. Seebass H 1986. Adam. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 1:84–87. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Segal AF 1990. Paul the convert: the apostolate and apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press. Seifrid MA 2000. Righteousness, justice and justification. In TD Alexander and BS Rosner (eds.). New dictionary of biblical theology, 740–745. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2007. Romans. In GK Beale and DA Carson (eds.). Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, 607–694. Grand Rapids: Baker. Selwyn EG 1983. The first epistle of St. Peter. Grand Rapids: Baker. Seybold K 1997. hebhel. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.). JT Willis, GW Bromiley, and DE Green (trans.). Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 3:313–320. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Seow CL 1997. Ecclesiastes: a new translation with introduction and commentary. New York: Doubleday. Shank HC 1994. Qoheleth’s world and life view as seen in his recurring phrases. In RB Zuck (ed.). Reflecting with Solomon: selected studies on the book of Ecclesiastes, 67–80. Grand Rapids: Baker. Sharpe K and Walgate J 2002. The anthropic principle: life in the universe. Zygon. 37 (4) 925–939. Shead AG 2000. Sabbath. In TD Alexander and BS Rosner (eds.). New dictionary of biblical theology, 745–750. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Shelton RL 2004. Covenant atonement as a Wesleyan integrating motif. Aldersgate papers. 5:7–36. ______ 2005. Divine expectations: retelling the redemption story for the twenty-first century. Bletchley: Paternoster. Sheppard GT 1988. Wisdom. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 4:1074–1082. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Shogren GS 1992. Election: New Testament. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 2:441–444. New York: Doubleday. Silva M 1996. Explorations in exegetical method: Galatians as a test case. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 2007. Philippians. In GK Beale and DA Carson (eds.). Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, 835–839. Grand Rapids: Baker.

284

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Simkins RA 1994. Creator and creation. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Sloane A 2005. Phenomenal cosmic power, itty-bitty living space? Reflections on the incarnation in an Einsteinian universe. ISCAST. 1:1–14. Website: http://www. iscast.org/journal/articlespage/Sloane_A_2005-10_Phenomenal_ Cosmic_Power. Smick EB 1988. Tree of knowledge, tree of life. In GW Bromiley (ed.). The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 4:901–903. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Smith H 2001. Why religion matters: the fate of the human spirit in an age of disbelief. New York: HarperCollins. Smith RL 1993. Old Testament theology: its history, method, and message. Nashville: Broadman and Holman. Smith WM 2009. Heaven. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 3:73–78. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Snoke D 2004. Why were dangerous animals created? Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 56 (2) 117–125. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2004/PSCF604Snoke.pdf. Snow RE 1990. A critique of the creation science movement. In HJ Van Till (ed.), Portraits of creation: biblical and scientific perspectives of the world’s formation, 166–202. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Soggin JA 1997. mšl. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 2:689–691. ME Biddle (trans.). Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Southgate C 2008. The groaning of creation: God, evolution, and the problem of evil. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Spanner DC 1987. Biblical creation and the theory of evolution. Exeter: The Paternoster Press. Speiser EA 1990. Genesis. New York: Doubleday. Spencer N and Alexander DR 2009. Rescuing Darwin: God and evolution in Britain today. London: Theos. Website: http://campaigndirector.moodia.com/Client/Theos/ Files/RescuingDarwin.pdf. Spicq C 1994. Theological lexicon of the New Testament. Vol. 1. JD Ernest (trans.). Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Sprinkle M 2010. Metaphor, mystery and paradox at the confluence of science and faith. BioLogos. 1–11. San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/sprinkle_scholarly_essay.pdf. Sponheim P 2007. Against anthropocentrism: a Jobian appeal to science on theology’s behalf. Dialog. 46 (3) 255–262. Stadelmann LIJ 1970. The Hebrew conception of the world: a philological and literary study. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Steenburg D 1990. The worship of Adam and Christ as the image of God. Journal for the study of the New Testament. 39:95–109. Stefanovic R 2002. Revelation of Jesus Christ. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press. Stek JH 1990. What says the scripture? In HJ Van Till (ed.), Portraits of creation: biblical and scientific perspectives of the world’s formation, 203–265. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Stendebach FJ 2001. ānâ. In GJ Botterweck, H Ringgren, and HJ Fabry (eds.). DE Green (trans.). Theological dictionary of Old Testament theology, 11:215–230. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bibliography

285

Stenmark M 2004. How to relate science and religion: a multidimensional model. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Stibbs AM and Walls AF 1983. The first epistle general of Peter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Stoeger WR 2007. Are anthropic arguments, involving multiverses and beyond, legitimate? In B Carr (ed.). Universe or multiverse?, 445–457. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strimple RB 2005. Was Adam an historical person? And what difference does it make? Westminster writings. Escondido: Westminster Seminary California. Website: http://wscal.edu/faculty/wscwritings/wasadamhistorical.php. Theokritoff G 2002. Genesis and creation: towards a debate. St. Vladimir’s theological quarterly. 46 (4) 365–390. Thielicke H 1961. How the world began: man in the first chapters of the Bible. JW Doberstein (trans.). Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press. Thielman FS 1995. Philippians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 2005. Theology of the New Testament: a canonical and synthetic approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 2007. Ephesians. In GK Beale and DA Carson (eds.). Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, 813–833. Grand Rapids: Baker. Thiselton AC 2000. The first epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Thomas RL 1992. Revelation 1–7: an exegetical commentary. Chicago: Moody. ______ 1995. Revelation 8–22: an exegetical commentary. Chicago: Moody. Thompson JA 1979. Covenant (OT). In GW Bromiley (ed.). International standard Bible encyclopedia, 1:790–793. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1980. The book of Jeremiah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2005. Genesis 1–3: science? history? theology? ISCAST. 1:1–24. Website: http://www.iscast.org/journal/articlespage/Thompson_J_1996-09_Genesis_13_Science_History_Theology. Tiedtke E 1986. áxios. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis, 3:348–349. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Titus PJ 2011. The second story of creation (Gen 2:4–3:24). A prologue to the concept of Enneateuch? New York: Peter Lang. Tobin TH 2004. Paul’s rhetoric in its contexts: the argument of Romans. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Toon P 1996. Righteousness. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, 687–689. Grand Rapids: Baker. Towner WS 1997. The Book of Ecclesiastes. In L.E. Keck (ed.). The new interpreter’s Bible, 5:267–360. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Tracy TF 2008. Evolutionary theologies and divine action. Theology and science. 6 (1) 107– 116. Trader A 2010. A meeting of the minds: Aaron Beck’s cognitive therapy and ancient Christian wisdom. Boston: Regina Orthodox Press. Traub H 1999. ouranós. In G Kittel (ed.). GW Bromiley (trans.). Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 5:509–536. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Trummer P 1993. áxios. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.). Exegetical dictionary of the New

286

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Testament, 1:113. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Turnbaugh WA, et al. (eds.) 2002. Understanding physical anthropology and archeology. Belmont: Wadsworth Thomson Learning. Turner DL 1996. Image of God. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, 365–367. Grand Rapids: Baker. VanDrunen DM (ed.) 2006. Report on justification presented to the seventy-third general assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Willow Grove: Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Website: http://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdf. VanGemeren WA 1988. Systems of Continuity. In JS Feinberg (ed.). Continuity and discontinuity: perspectives on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, 37–62. Wheaton: Crossway Books. ______ 1990. Interpreting the prophetic word: an introduction to the prophetic literature of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 2001. Offerings and sacrifices in Bible times. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of theology, 854–858. Grand Rapids: Baker. Van Groningen G 1990. Messianic revelation in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 1996a. Covenant. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, 124– 132. Grand Rapids: Baker. ______ 1996b. Fall, the. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, 240– 241. Grand Rapids: Baker. van Huyssteen JW 2003. Fallen angels or rising beasts? Theological perspectives on human uniqueness. Theology and science. 1 (2) 161–178. ______ 2006. Emergence and human uniqueness: limiting or delimiting evolutionary explanation. Zygon. 41 (3) 649–664. Van Leeuwen RC 1997a. Form, image. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 4:643–648. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 1997b. rš‘. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.). ME Biddle (trans.). Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 3:1261–1265. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Van Till HJ 1990. The scientific investigation of cosmic history. In HJ Van Till (ed.), Portraits of creation: biblical and scientific perspectives of the world’s formation, 82–125. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1995. Special creationism in designer clothing: a response to the creation hypothesis. Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 47 (2) 123–146. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1995/PSCF6-95VanTill.html. ______ 1998. The creation: intelligently designed or optimally equipped? Theology today. 53 (3) 344–364. ______ 1999. The fully gifted creation. In JP Moreland JP and JM Reynolds (eds.), Three views on creation and evolution, 161–218. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Vaughan C 1978. Colossians. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 11:163–226. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Verheij AJC 1991. Paradise retried: on Qohelet 2:4–6. Journal for the study of the Old Testament. 50:113–115. Verhoef PA 1997. yôm. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 2:419–424. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Bibliography

287

von Rad G 1962. Old Testament theology. Vol. 1: the theology of Israel’s historical traditions. DMG Stalker (trans.). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. ______ 1972. Genesis: a commentary. JH Banks (trans.). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. ______ 1984. The theological problem of the Old Testament doctrine of creation. In BW Anderson (ed.). Creation in the Old Testament, 53–64. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Vos G 1972. The Pauline eschatology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2000. Biblical theology: Old and New Testaments. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. Waddell R 2009. Revelation and the (new creation): a prolegomenon on the Apocalypse, science, and creation. In A Yong (ed.). The Spirit renews the face of the earth: Pentecostal forays in science and theology of creation, 30–50. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Wallace HN 1992a. Adam. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 1:62–64. New York: Doubleday. ______ 1992b. Tree of knowledge and tree of life. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 6:656–660. New York: Doubleday. Waltke BK 2009a. Barriers to accepting the possibility of creation by means of an evolutionary process. BioLogos. 1–13. San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Waltke_scholarly_essay.pdf. ______ 2009b. Melchizedek. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 4:192–194. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Waltke BK and Fredricks CJ 2001. Genesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Waltke BK and Yu C 2007. An Old Testament theology: an exegetical, canonical, and thematic approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Walton JH 1994. Covenant: God’s purpose, God’s plan. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 2003. Creation. In TA Alexander and DW Baker (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 155–168. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2009a. Genesis. In JH Walton (ed.), Zondervan illustrated Bible backgrounds commentary, 1:2–159. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ______ 2009b. The lost world of Genesis one. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Walvoord JF 2009. Millennium. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 4:254. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ward K 2008. The big questions in science and religion. West Conshohocken: Templeton Foundation Press. Ware BA 1992. The new covenant and the people(s) of God. In CA Blaising and DL Bock (eds.). Dispensationalism, Israel and the church: the search for definition, 68–97. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Weiss K 1993. archē. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament, 1:161–163. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Wenham D 1995. Paul: follower of Jesus or founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Werner E 1962. Musical instruments. In GA Buttrick (ed.). The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible, 3:469–476. Nashville: Abingdon. Westcott BF 1980. The epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

288

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

______ 1981. The gospel according to St. John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Westermann C 1974. Creation. JJ Scullion (trans.). London: SPCK. ______ 1982. Elements of Old Testament theology. DW Scott (trans.). Atlanta: John Knox Press. ______ 1997. ’adam. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:31–42. ME Biddle (trans.). Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. White REO 1996. Baptism for the dead. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, 49. Grand Rapids: Baker. White RS 2007. The age of the earth. Faraday papers, 4:1–4. Cambridge: The Faraday institute for science and religion. Website: http://graphite.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/ faraday/Papers.php. Wilcox DL 2003. Finding Adam: the genetics of human origins. In KB Miller (ed.), Perspectives on an evolving creation, 234–253. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 2004. God and evolution: a faith-based understanding. Valley Forge: Judson Press. Wiley T 2009. Creationism and the conflict over evolution. Eugene: Cascade Books. Wilkinson D 2002. The message of creation: encountering the Lord of the universe. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Williamson PR 2000. Covenant. In TA Desmond and BS Rosner (eds.). New dictionary of biblical theology, 419–429. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2003. Covenant. In TA Alexander and DW Baker (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 139–155. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Willis WR and Master JR 1994. Issues in dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press. Wilson GH 1997. Wisdom. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 4:1276–1285. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Wilson M 2002. Revelation. In CE Arnold (ed.), Zondervan illustrated Bible backgrounds commentary, 4:245–383. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Wilson MR 1989. Our father Abraham: Jewish roots of the Christian faith. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Witherington B 1992. Birth of Jesus. In JB Green and S McKnight (eds.). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 60–74. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 1998. The Paul quest: the renewed search for the Jew of Tarsus. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2009. The indelible image: the theological and ethical thought world of the New Testament. Vol. 1: the individual witnesses. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. ______ 2010. The indelible image: the theological and ethical thought world of the New Testament. Vol. 2: the collective witness. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Witherington B and Hyatt D 2004. Paul’s letter to the Romans: a socio-rhetorical commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Wolf HM 1996. Foreknowledge. In WA Elwell (ed.). Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, 266–267. Grand Rapids: Baker. Woloschak GE 1996. Beauty and unity in creation: the evolution of life. Minneapolis: Light and Life Publishing. Wood AS 1978. Ephesians. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 11:13– 92. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Bibliography

289

Wood TC 2001. The human genome: a creationist overview. Impact. 334: i–iv. Worthing MW 2009. Divine action and the problem of miracles. ISCAST. 1:1–16. Website: h t t p : / / w w w. i s c a s t . o r g / j o u r n a l / a r t i c l e s / Wo r t h i n g _ M _ 2 0 0 9 - 0 7 _ Divine_Action_and_Miracles. Wright CJH 2006. The mission of God: unlocking the Bible’s grand narrative. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Wright DP 1992. Day of atonement. In DN Freedman (ed.). The Anchor Bible dictionary, 2:72–76. New York: Doubleday. Wright NT 2002. The letter to the Romans: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 10:395–770. Nashville: Abingdon. ______ 2005. Paul in fresh perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Wright JS 1991. Ecclesiastes. In The expositor’s Bible commentary. Edited FE Gaebelein, et al., 5:1137–1197. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Young BH 1997. Paul the Jewish theologian: a Pharisee among Christians, Jews, and Gentiles. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Young DA 1990. Where are we? Perceived tensions between biblical and scientific cosmologies. In HJ Van Till (ed.), Portraits of creation: biblical and scientific perspectives of the world’s formation, 1–12. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ______ 1995. The antiquity and unity of the human race revisited. In Christian scholar’s review. 24 (4) 380–396. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/Resources/CSRYoung.html. Youngblood R (ed.) 1999. The Genesis debate: persistent questions about creation and the flood. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Ysteboe T 2009. We believe: commentary on the statement of faith. Fergus Falls: Faith and Fellowship Press. Zimmerli W 1978. Old Testament theology in outline. DE Green (trans.). Atlanta: John Knox Press. Zuck RB 1994. God and man in Ecclesiastes. In RB Zuck (ed.). Reflecting with Solomon: selected studies on the book of Ecclesiastes, 213–222. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Subject Index abnormally born (éktrōma)    155 access (prosagōgé)    132 account    87 Adam–Christ analogy    32–33, 54, 55–56, 63, 73–75, 127–128, 129, 132, 136–142, 157–158, 164–166, 180–181, 213–214, 226, 232, 246–247 Adam, federal head        31, 136–140, 158, 213, 225, 228 Adam, historicity    27–33, 89–92, 94, 127, 137, 158, 164, 228, 245 Adam and Eve, special creation    27–28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 39, 85, 86, 88–89, 91–92, 169, 177, 245 adoption    146 age of the universe    17, 19, 23, 39, 244 almighty, all–powerful, omnipotent (pantokrátōr)    207 anthropic principle    24, 26 astrology    151 baptism    80–81, 160 baptism for the dead    160 beginning (archē)    57 biblical creation texts, theological message    3–4, 6 blessed (barak)    105 burden (‘inyān)    117 charge (egkaléō)    150 cherubim    104 compatibility of origins and science and Christian belief 4–5 conscience (syneidēsis)    81, 112, 139, 188, 189 cosmogonies, ancient Near Eastern    19, 21, 22, 41, 47–48, 59, 66, 83 covenants, biblical    228–240 covenants, theological    224–228 creation and redemption    3–4, 6, 36–37, 64, 140–141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 192, 203, 205, 212, 214, 227–228, 240 creation days    3, 13, 14–19, 23, 38, 47–48 creation, goodness    19, 37 creation, fertility and infertility    36–37,

102, 144–146, 214, 228, 244 creation, functional integrity    13, 15–16, 19–20, 26, 35, 44, 46, 47, 48, 68, 162, 163 creation mandate    104–105, 216–217, 220, 225–226, 231–232 creation of humankind    18, 31, 86–93 creation of the world    3, 4, 13–23, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60, 83, 84, 85–87, 148 creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo)    21, 43–44, 49 creation versus evolution debate    2–3 cravings (epithymía)    98 critical realism    12–13, 38 curse, judgment oracle (‘arar)    100–103, 123, 138, 145, 208 day (yôm)    17 death, physical and spiritual        35–36, 39–40, 77, 85–86, 93, 94, 95–97, 99–100, 102–103, 123, 129, 137–138, 140, 141, 143, 158, 167, 169, 170, 172, 189, 192, 200–201, 202, 204, 209, 213, 215, 217, 245–246 destroy, render inoperative (kartargéō)    172 dispensationalism    222–223, 232 eager expectation (apokaradokía)    144–145 Eden, garden of    16, 33, 35, 36, 86–104, 123, 128, 137, 138–139, 140, 157, 174, 208, 210, 212, 225, 226–227, 228, 238, 246 eternity (‘ôlām)    118 Eve (living one, life–giver)    103 Eve, historicity    27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 39, 89– 92, 94, 127 evolutionary creation / theistic evolution defined    12, 243 evolutionary monogenism    27 evolutionary science (cosmic and biological)    2, 3, 10, 25, 137, 243, 245 evolutionism    23 exact representation (charaktēr)    56 faith    20, 22, 39, 141, 247–248 fall, original sin    30, 31, 32, 35–36, 39–40, 46, 63, 64, 73, 83, 89–91, 94, 96–104,

292

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

112, 123, 127, 128, 129, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 139–140, 141, 142, 148, 157– 158, 165, 168, 169, 170, 174, 177, 192, 204, 208, 209, 213, 215, 216–217, 220, 225, 226, 245, 246–247 fearing God    96, 108, 118, 119, 125, 149 firstfruits    146–147, 158 flesh, sinful state (sárx)    143, 214 firstborn (prōtotokos)    51, 55, 148 flood    60, 66, 79–80, 84, 87, 106, 175, 228– 229 foreknowledge, predestination    148–149 form, very nature (morphē)    75 formed or fashioned (yatsar)    89 glory, divine (shekinah)    133, 143–151, 162, 170, 174, 205–207, 210, 220 God (Elohim)    87–88 God, covenantal relationship with His people    7, 16, 18, 19, 30, 36, 40, 70, 77, 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 97, 98, 99–100, 106, 123, 136, 138, 145, 150, 164, 173, 174, 175, 182, 183, 189, 192, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206–208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 218, 219, 220, 221–222, 224, 227–228, 229, 234–235, 239–240, 244, 247, 248 God, Creator    5, 9, 10, 12, 14–16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 34, 38, 39, 42–50, 53, 56, 58, 60, 61, 62, 65–66, 67–68, 69, 70, 77, 83, 84, 85–86, 88, 98–99, 110, 118, 127, 146, 162–163, 164, 170, 189, 191, 221, 223, 225, 240–241, 243, 244, 246, 247 God, triune existence    5, 12, 22, 42–43, 56, 57, 58, 75, 84, 158–159, 177, 209, 220, 225 God’s rest    13, 15–16, 19, 46, 225 gospel tradition    153–156 ground (‘adamah)    88 grace    72 guarantor, surety (éngyos)    183 heart    80–81, 234–236 heirship    143–144 hold together (synístēmi)    53 Holy Spirit    42–43, 52, 75, 78, 79, 80, 134,

143–151, 159, 187, 189, 194, 196, 197, 205, 206, 209, 212, 214, 219, 220, 230– 231 house (bayit)    233 humanity, evolutionary origin of    6, 9–39, 243, 244–246 image (eikōn)    50 image of God (imago Dei)    27, 33, 39, 62, 63, 64, 68, 73, 76, 86–87, 89, 90, 91, 105, 112, 118, 133, 148, 149, 164, 165–166, 169, 225–226, 245 intelligent design (ID)    10–11 Jesus, atoning sacrifice    4, 37, 63, 78, 81, 100, 129, 130, 132, 135, 136, 140, 141– 142, 150, 154, 158, 165, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 179, 180, 184, 185, 188, 189, 190, 191–193, 194–196, 213, 215, 217, 218, 219, 225, 226, 227, 233, 238, 239 Jesus, divinity    43, 50–51, 52, 53–54, 56, 57, 58, 63, 73, 75–78, 83, 84, 168, 170, 184, 185, 189, 194, 204, 206, 208, 209, 211, 219–220 Jesus, incarnation and humanity    29, 50– 51, 52, 56, 57, 59, 63, 73, 74, 75–77, 78– 79, 81, 135, 136, 149, 156, 158, 164, 170–173, 177–180, 182, 188, 189, 194, 216–217, 219, 238 Jesus, high priesthood    172–173, 174, 176, 177, 178–179, 180–181, 182–183, 184, 185, 188, 192, 193, 195, 213, 217–218, 233, 235, 247 Jesus, resurrection    4, 29, 40, 71, 73, 77, 78, 79–80, 81, 84, 101, 122, 129, 133, 136, 150, 152–168, 176, 179, 180, 182, 184, 188, 193, 204, 209, 213, 215–216, 219, 234–235, 238, 240, 247 Jesus, second advent    37, 101, 145, 146, 157, 158, 159, 166, 167, 168, 169, 192, 197, 198, 204, 210, 211, 212, 213, 215– 216, 219–220, 227, 233, 247 Jesus, temptation    173, 177–178, 180 judgment (mishpāt)    120 justice (tesdeq)    120

Subject Index justification, justified    130–133, 135, 136, 140, 141–142, 148, 150, 195, 213–214, 215, 238 lake of fire    201, 202 life and death, New Testament    7, 127– 220, 246–247 life and death, Old Testament    7, 85–125, 246 life, evolutionary origin and development    9, 10, 12, 13, 24, 25–35, 38, 39, 85–86, 89–92, 163 Lord (Yahweh)    88 man (‘adam)    88 maranathá (Lord, come)    212 materialistic naturalism    23–25, 38–39 meaningless, futile, fleeting, absurd (hebel)    107–108 Melchizedek    179, 181–182, 185, 217–218 millennial kingdom, messianic age    159– 160, 192, 198, 199–201, 215, 219, 232, 233 miracles    30, 169 Mosaic covenant and law    57, 81, 82, 130– 132, 139–140, 142, 143, 152, 168, 171, 174–176, 178, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187–188, 189, 190, 193, 194, 195, 196, 213–214, 218, 219, 231–232, 234, 235, 236–237, 238 mystery (mystérion)    166, 239 new covenant    70, 174, 183, 186, 187–188, 189, 193, 194, 196, 218–219, 228, 233– 237, 238 new heaven, new earth    4, 16, 49, 146, 169, 201, 202, 203, 204, 220, 240 new Jerusalem    100, 202, 203, 204, 205– 208, 212, 220, 240, 247–248 new perspective on Paul (NPP)    130–132 Noah (to rest, comfort)    106 ontological holism    28 pattern (typós)    140 Paul, eschatological views    128–129, 152 Paulus (the little one)    155 Pentecost, festival of weeks    146–147 perfect (teleióō)    171, 180

293 philosophy defined    11 poured out (ekchéō)    134 powerless (asthenéō)    135 progressive covenantalism    7, 221–241, 247 priesthood, Aaronic and Levitical    172, 175–176, 178, 180–181, 182–183, 184– 185, 186, 187, 188–189, 191, 192, 193, 195, 217–218, 236 protoevangelium (first good news)        101, 227, 228 radiance (apaúgasma)    56 rapture    159, 167 reconciliation    136 realm of the dead, underworld (sheol or hades)    14, 42, 64, 73, 79–80, 84, 121, 152, 202 resurrection, believers    32, 37, 80, 121– 122, 128, 133, 144, 145, 147, 152–168, 200–201, 202, 209, 213, 215–216, 247 resurrection body    161–167, 215–216, 247 Revelation, interpretive approaches    198– 200, 201, 203 righteous (tsaddîq)    120 righteousness    130–133, 141, 142 ruler (māšal II)    64 sacrificial system, Old Testament    78, 172, 174–176, 178, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188–189, 190, 191, 192, 193–194, 217– 218, 219 scripture, coherence, integrity, reliability    4, 10, 11, 16, 21–22, 39, 44, 54, 87, 92, 93–94, 137, 162–163, 196, 204, 210, 212, 223, 237–238 scripture, prescientific cosmology    6–7, 13–14, 41–84, 59–83, 71, 83–84, 85, 122, 162–163, 166, 176–177, 213, 243, 246 science and scripture, congruity    6, 9, 10, 11, 25, 37–38, 43–44, 213, 243–244 science defined    11–12 science versus religion debate    2–3, 9, 10, 11–13, 24–25 science and religion in dialogue    4–6, 9, 12–13, 24–25, 37–38, 137, 243, 244

294

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

scientific method    20, 23–24 scroll    82 seals    146 seizing the day (carpe diem)    118 serpent, Satan, devil    33, 73, 94–97, 99– 101, 123, 145, 149, 150, 157, 159, 170, 172, 173, 198, 199–200, 201, 202, 207, 215–216, 216–217, 220, 226–227, 247 shadow, image, archetype (skiá)    193 Son of God (messianic title)    177, 181, 217 soul    27–28, 39, 88, 89, 91, 92, 137, 152, 205, 245 sufferings (thlípsis)    134 tabernacle and temple, earthly    186–187, 191, 192, 193, 195, 206, 218 tabernacle and temple, heavenly        174, 185–186, 188, 191, 193, 206, 218, 240 temple–creation motif    16, 38, 92–93, 174 tempted, tested, enticed to sin (peirázō)    173 text-centered, inner–canonical, and integrative hermeneutic 4, 29, 39, 90–91, 243

theodicy    34–37, 85–86, 120–122, 129, 133– 134, 142–151, 195, 197, 198, 199–204, 207, 208–209, 210, 211, 213, 214–215, 219–220, 227, 247 theology defined    11 tree of the knowledge of good and evil    93, 99–100, 123 tree of life    93, 99–100, 104, 123, 208, 212 trumpets, last trumpet    166–167 Trinity    42–43, 52, 56, 57, 58, 78, 158–159, 206, 209 universalism    141 universe (aiōn)    56 virginal conception    29, 194 wicked (rāshā’)    120 will, testament, covenant (diathékē)    190 wisdom (sakal)    96, 113, 114, 123 wisdom and Torah traditions of Judaism    51–53, 54, 57, 58, 60, 69–70 Word (lógos)    57 world (kósmos)    97–98, 211, 227 worthy (áxios)    82–83 wrath (orgé)    136

References Index Old Testament Genesis 1 3, 57, 58, 93, 169 1–3 73, 99, 112 1–11 225 1:1 14, 21, 43, 44, 54, 57, 7 1:1–2 14 1:1–2:3 13, 14, 22, 38, 39, 86, 87, 88, 123, 225, 244 1:2 14, 43 1:3 57–58 1:3–5 15 1:3–31 14 1:4 19 1:5 17 1:6–8 15 1:9–13 15 1:10 19 1:12 19 1:14–18 209 1:14–19 15 1:18 19 1:20–23 15 1:21 19 1:24 89 1:24–31 15 1:25 19 1:26 43 1:26–27 33, 54, 63, 73, 86, 105, 118, 177 1:26–28 226 1:26–30 18 1:27 31 1:28 56, 105, 169 1:28–30 225 1:29 99 1:31 19 2 32, 93, 128 2–3 91 2:1–3 14 2:3 21 2:4 17, 46, 86, 87 2:4ff. 87, 88, 123

2:4–17 7, 85, 86–93, 123, 246 2:4–3:24 36, 227 2:5 88 2:6 88 2:7 27, 32, 29, 88, 89, 103, 128, 164, 245 2:8 86, 92 2:9 92, 93, 99, 208 2:9–14 92 2:10 207 2:15 92, 102, 174 2:15–17 225 2:16 93 2:16–17 95, 100 2:17 93, 123, 140 2:19 89 2:21–22 27, 39, 245 2:24 31, 102 3 93, 112, 123 3:1 94, 95, 100, 227 3:1–7 209 3:1–24 7, 85, 86, 93–104, 123, 177, 246 3:2 95 3:3 95 3:4 96 3:4–5 102 3:5 73, 96 3:6 96, 140 3:7 97, 103 3:8 98, 100, 209 3:9 99 3:9–13 100 3:10 99 3:11 99 3:12 99 3:13 99 3:14 100 3:14–19 100, 208 3:15 101, 199, 226, 227, 228 3:16 102, 103 3:16–19 31 3:17 100, 102, 209 3:17–18 36, 102, 145 3:17–19 109 3:18 102

296

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

3:19 36, 102, 121 3:20 32, 103 3:21 103 3:22 43, 93, 100, 103, 208 3:22–24 36 3:23 104 3:24 93, 100, 104 4 227 4:3 174 4:4 174 4:13–17 28–29 4:25 30 5 105, 106, 107, 111 5:1 30, 166 5:1–2 105 5:1–3 33, 86 5:1–29 7, 85, 104–106, 123, 246 5:3–5 30 5:5–31 209 5:8 105 5:11 105 5:14 105 5:17 105 5:20 105 5:22 106 5:24 77, 106 5:27 105 5:28 106 5:29 106 5:31 105 6–8 66 6:1–4 29 6:2 79 6:4 79 6:5 97 6:5–13 139 6:10 79 6:17 103 6:18–22 228 7:7 79 7:11 60 7:11–12 59–60, 84 7:12 60 7:13 60

8:2 60 8:3 60 8:20 175 8:21 97, 106, 228 9:6 33, 86, 166 9:8–17 228 11:1–9 29 12:1–3 229, 231 12:7 174 12:7–8 175 13:14–17 229 13:18 175 14:7–20 181 15:1–20 229 15:6 234, 238 17 229 17:1–14 229 17:7 234 18:11 49 21:16 209 22:9 175 22:15–18 229 24:6–8 229 26:23–24 229 26:25 175 27:34 209 27:38 209 28:13–15 229 33:20 175 35:1 175 35:3 175 35:7 175 35:11–12 229 37:29 116 Exodus 3:1–15 88 3:13–15 77 4:16 63 4:22 148 6:7 234 7:1 63 16:7 133

References Index 16:10 133 18:11 63 19–20 174, 205 19–24 174, 231 19:1–24:11 234 19:6 231, 239 20:4 60–61, 83 20:8–11 16, 17 20:9–11 17 20:11 19, 83 20:18 98 21:5–6 194 22:29 157 23:16 146 23:19 146, 157 24:3–9 190 25:40 186 28:1 178 28:17–21 206 31:13 19 31:17 19 33:18 133 34:26 157 39:8–14 206 Leviticus 1:1–7:21 175 5:7 78 6:23 78 14:4–7 190 14:51–52 190 16 189 16:11 178 16:16–19 191 17:11 191 19:2 88 23:9–14 146, 157 24:11 77 24:16 77 26 231 26:11–12 203 26:12 234

297 Numbers 3:7–8 92 3:11–13 240 8:25–26 92 10:10 166 15:18–21 157 18:5–6 92 19 189 19:6 190 28:1–8 185 Deuteronomy 1:10–11 199 4:1–2 212 4:6 51 5:8 60–61 5:12–15 16 5:13–14 17 5:24 133 6:3 98 6:4 42, 77 6:25–27 209 7:6 239 7:9 199 10:14 61, 71 10:18 121 12:5 77 12:11 77 12:32 212 15:16–17 194 18:4 157 21:22–23 100 23:18 212 28 231 29:19–20 212 30:12–13 83 32:30 199 33:13 61 33:14 61 33:15 61 33:16 61 34:1–4 205

298

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Joshua

19:15

7:1 137 7:11 137 11:4 201 10:24 158 23:10 199 24 236

1 Chronicles

Judges

2 Chronicles

7:12

201

1 Samuel 2:8 62 13:5 201 15:22 194 17:43 212 2 Samuel 7 232 7:5–16 232 7:11 233 7:11–13 232 7:13 77 13:31 116 17:28 89 22:1–20 62, 64 22:8 61, 62, 64 23:5 232 1 Kings 8:27 8:46

61, 71 97

2 Kings 3:19 116 3:25 116 17:5–6 233 19:14 61

61

1:1 30 15:17 48 15:19 48 16:15 199

2:6 61, 71 6:18 61, 71 6:36 97 16:7 62 16:30 62 23:32 92 Nehemiah 9 236 9:6 43, 61, 71 10:35 146 Job 1:6 79 4:17–21 97 9:3 199 9:5 62 9:6 62 9:13 48 10:8–12 27, 31 10:9 121 10:21–22 152 11:7 60 11:8 60 14:14 152 15:7 30 24:23 98 25:4 97 26:11 62 26:12 48 27:6 81

References Index 28:23–28 51 28:28 96 31:15 27 31:33 30, 97 33:4 27 33:23 199 34:14–15 103, 137 34:15 121 38:4–6 62 38:39 35, 86 38:41 35, 86 39:3 35, 86 39:16–17 35, 86 39:25 35, 86 39:30 35, 86 41:14 35, 86 Psalms 2 54 2:7 179 2:7–8 55 2:7–9 148 4:6 209 8 62 8:1 63 8:3 63 8:3–8 54 8:4 63 8:4–6 64, 169 8:5 63, 86 8:5–8 55 8:6 64, 158–159 8:6–8 64 8:7 64 8:8 64 10 54 14:1 110 16:8–11 154 16:9–11 122 16:10 152 18:1 64 18:1–19 62, 64 18:2 64

299 18:3 64 18:4 64 18:5 64 18:6 64 18:7 65 18:8 65 18:9 65 18:10 65 18:11 65 18:12 65 18:13 65 18:14 65 18:15 65 18:16 65 18:17 65 18:18 65 18:19 65 18:20–24 65 19:1 14, 46–47 19:1–6 54 20:1 17 22 154, 171, 238 22:22 171 22:22–24 179 24:1 65–66 29:1 66 29:2 66 29:3 66 29:4 66 29:5 66 29:6 66 29:7 66 29:8 66 29:9 66 29:10 66 31:15 114 31:16 209 33:6 22, 43, 51, 60 33:7 60 33:9 22 33:13–15 98 4:22 150 40:6 194 40:6–8 193, 194

300 44:25 101 45:6–7 43 48:2 205 49:12 103 49:15 122, 152 49:12–13 121 49:20 103 50:8–11 194 50:10 199 51:5 31, 97 59:6 212 59:14 212 65:6 47 65:7 47 67:1 209 67:1–2 231 68:4 67 68:17 199 68:18 72 68:33 71 72:9 101 73:23–26 122 73:24 152 74:13 47 74:14 47 74:16 16, 47–48 74:17 48 75:3 66 78:23 66 78:23 66 78:38 97 80:3 209 80:7 209 80:19 209 82:1 63 82:3–4 121 82:6 63 84:10 199 89 232 89:8 48 89:9 48 89:10 48 89:11 48 89:12 48

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective 89:27 148 89:27–29 51 89:28 232 89:30–32 233 89:33–37 233 89:34 232 89:36 51 90:3 121 90:4 199 93:1 66–67 95:6–7 51 96:5 63 96:10 66 100:3 51 102:25–26 202 102:25 21, 43, 45–46 103:8–12 236 103:10 97 103:14 103 104:1 67 104:2 67 104:2–6 43 104:3 67 104:5 67 104:6 67 104:7 67 104:8 67 104:9 67–68 104:13 68 104:19–21 35, 86 104:29 121 104:29–30 103, 137 104:32 68 104:37 36, 145 105:8 199 106:31 139 110:1 43, 73, 81, 158, 182, 195 110:1–2 55 110:4 179, 181, 182 111:10 96 116:1–8 179 115:3 68 115:15 49 115:16 68

References Index 119:73 27, 31 119:105 51 119:135 209 122:5 200 125:5 230 128:6 230 130:3 97 132 232 135:5 68 135:16 68 136:4 68 136:5 68 136:7 68 136:8 68 136:9 68 139:1–16 98 139:13 27 139:14 31 139:16 82 143:2 97 144:4 108 144:5 68 146:6 46, 83 147:4 46 147:5 98 147:8 46 147:9 35, 86 147:15 46, 51 147:16 46 147:17 46 147:18 46, 51 148:1 48 148:2 48 148:3 48 148:4 48 148:5 22, 48 148:6 48 148:7 48 148:8 49 148:9 49 148:10 49 148:11 49 148:12 49 148:13 48

301 Proverbs 1:7 96 3:18 93 3:19 70 3:19–20 16 3:20 70 6:23 51 8:2–31 54 8:22–31 16, 52, 56 8:27 60 8:28 60 8:29 60 9:10 96 10:19 116 11:4 17 11:30 93 13:3 117 13:12 93 15:3 98 15:4 93 15:23 117 15:33 96 16:1–9 114 16:24 117 20:9 97 21:6 108 21:23 117 21:31 17 22:2 27 24:10 17 25:11 117 25:13 17 26:19 122 30:4 68 Ecclesiastes 1 106, 107 1:1–2 107 1:1–18 7, 85, 106–113, 123, 124, 246 1:2 107 1:3 109 1:3–11 107, 108

302

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

1:3–18 107 1:4 109 1:5 109 1:6 109 1:7 109–110 1:8 110 1:9 110 1:10 110–111 1:11 110–111 1:12 111 1:12–18 107, 111 1:13 111–112 1:14 112 1:15 100, 113 1:16 113 1:17 113 1:18 113 2 114 2:1–3 114 2:4–11 114 2:11 114 2:12–16 114 2:17–23 114 2:24 114 2:24–26 108, 118 3 114, 125 3:1 114, 121 3:1–7 114 3:1–8 117 3:1–22 7, 85, 114–122, 123, 124, 246 3:2 115 3:2–8 114, 115 3:3 115 3:4 115, 116 3:5 116 3:6 116 3:7 116 3:8 117 3:9 117 3:10 117 3:11 100, 118 3:12 118 3:13 119 3:14 119

3:14–15 100 3:15 119–120 3:16 120 3:16–22 120 3:17 120 3:18 121 3:19 103, 121 3:20 103, 121 3:20–21 137 3:21 121, 122 3:22 118 4:12 125 5:18–20 118 6:6 199 7:4 17 7:13 100 7:20 97, 139 7:28 199 7:29 36, 165 8:15 118 8:16–17 100 9:1 121 9:7–10 118, 122 10:20 81 11:5 16 11:9 121 11:9–10 108 12:13 96, 119, 125 12:13–14 108 12:14 121 Song of Solomon 4:4

199

Isaiah 1:10–13 194 1:17 121 2:1–4 231 2:2 55, 207 2:2–3 205 2:5 207 4:2–5 205

References Index 5:2 116 6:1–5 88 7:14 43 7:23 199 8:17–18 172 9:6–7 43 11:1 212 11:10 68–69 11:12 69 13:13 69 14:30 51 19:25 239 22:13 161 24:5 233 24:5–13 36, 145 24:23 207 25:6–26:2 205 25:8 158, 167, 204 26:19 158, 200 27:1 47, 94, 199 27:13 167 29:11 82 29:16 89, 152 30:17 199 31:3 35, 86 32:15 134 34:4 202 35:6–9 208 35:10 204 40:5 133 40:10 211 40:12–14 113 40:12–31 69 40:22 69 41:4 77 41:17–20 208 41:25 89 42:6 226 43:7 27 43:10 77 43:18–20 208 43:19 204 44:24 16, 43, 69 45:6–7 35, 86

303 45:9 89 45:18 16, 43, 46, 77 45:23 78 46:4 77 48:16 43 49:6 239 49:10 205 49:23 101 50:8 149 51:6 69, 202, 203 51:9 48 51:11 204 51:13 69 51:16 69 52:1 203 52:13–53:12 154, 238 53:3 179 53:9 36 53:10 78, 233 53:11–12 78, 140 53:12 227 54:11–12 206 55:1–3 205 55:3 233 55:11 51 56:12 161, 192 57:13 108 57:20 202 58:8 205 59:1–8 139 60:1–2 205 60:3 207 60:5 207 60:11 207 60:19 205 60:19–20 207 60:22 199 61:1 43 61:2 17 61:6 231 61:8 233 61:10 203 62:5 203 62:11 211

304

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

64:8 89 65:17 37, 145, 202, 203 65:19 203 65:20–25 204 65:25 101 66:1 69 66:20 207 66:22 37, 145, 203 Jeremiah 1:5 89 4:23 69 4:24 69 4:25 69 4:26 69 4:27 69 4:28 69 7:21–24 194 10 69 10:12 43, 70 10:13 70 10:16 16 16:17 98 17:9 36, 97, 139, 165 18:1–6 89 27:5 18, 43 31:12–14 37, 145 31:31 233, 234 31:31–34 183, 196, 233 31:31–36 70 31:32 234 31:33 234 31:34 235 31:35–40 70 31:37 70 32:40 233 33 37, 145 36:1–25 82 49:23 202 50:5 233 51:16 70

Lamentations 3:38

35, 86

Ezekiel 1:26–28 201 2:9–3:3 82 11:19 233 16:60 233 18:31 233 28:12–15 97 34:25 233 36:25–37 208 36:26 233 36:27 43 37:1–14 200 37:26 233 37:26–28 203 38–39 201 39:29 134 40–48 206 40:1–2 205 43:4 174 43:5 205 43:7 203 43:21–25 78 47:1–9 207 47:12 100, 208 Daniel 7:9 201 7:9–27 200 7:10 139, 199, 201 7:13–14 54 7:17–27 144 8:26 82, 210 9:1–9 236 10:14 55 10:21 82 12:1–2 201 12:2 122, 152, 200 12:4 82, 210

References Index 12:9 210 12:10 211 44:14 92

305 Habakkuk 1:13 37 2:4 238

Hosea Zephaniah 3:5 55 6:2 154 6:6 194 6:7 30–31, 97, 225 13:14 158, 167 Joel

Amos 88 46 199 67

70 70

Zechariah 2:10–11 203 5:1–3 82 9:14 167 10:2 108 10:8–12 230 12–14 201 12:1 69 12:10 134 14:8 207, 208 14:16–19 207 Malachi 2:10 27 3:5 211 3:16–4:3 121

Jonah 1:17

167

Haggai 2:6 2:7

2:1 167 2:10 70, 202 2:11 70 2:15 167 2:28 43 2:28–29 134 3:15 70 3:16 70 3:18 208

4:2 5:8 5:3 9:6

1:14–16 3 201

154 Old Testament Apocrypha

Micah Baruch 4:1 55 4:1–2 205 4:1–3 231 7:17 101

3:37 54 3:9–4:1 52 3:9–4:4 51

306

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

1 Maccabees 2:52

139

2 Maccabees 3:24 53 7 144 7:8–36 200 7:28 21, 44–45 11:6 179 3 Maccabees 1:6 179 5:7 179 5:25 179 4 Maccabees 1:16–17 52 7:19 200 13:17 200 16:25 200 17:12 200 17:18 200 18:23 200 Sirach 1:1 52 1:4 52 6:37 51 14:17 36, 165 15:1 52 15:1–10 51 15:14 36, 165 15:14–20 137 17:3 86 17:11–12 225 17:25–18:14 97 18:1 44 19:20 52 24:1–12 54

24:1–29 51 24:8–12 52 24:23 52 25:24 36, 97, 129, 137, 165 33:10–13 97 39:1 52 39:16 19 40:1 32, 88 40:1–11 97 40:11 121 42:15 44 42:18 81 43:26 51 Tobit 8:3 199 8:6 32, 88, 97 13:16–17 206 14:6–7 207 Wisdom of Solomon 1:6–7 51, 52 1:12–14 172 1:13 129 2–5 144 2:5–6 161 2:23 86, 123 2:23–24 36, 97, 137, 165, 172 2:24 95 3:1–8 200 6:22 52 7:1 32, 88 7:9 51 7:11 51 7:12 54 7:14 51 7:17 52 7:22 52, 54, 56 7:22–27 51 7:25–26 54, 56 7:25–29 51 7:26 52

References Index 7:27 56 8:1 51, 56 8:4 54 8:5 51 8:18 51 9:1 44 9:1–2 51, 52 9:2 51, 56 9:4 54 9:9 51, 52, 56 9:9–10 52 10:1 52, 97 10:1–2 32, 51, 88 11:17 44 13:1 47 13:2 47 13:3 47 13:5 47 13:1–9 14 15:8 97 15:11 27, 97, 164 17:11 81 18:15 51 34:8 52 New Testament Matthew 1:20 194 1:20–21 29 3:7 136 3:16–17 43 4:1 173 4:2 173 5:11–12 134 7:15–20 211 7:21–23 205 11:2–5 30 12:25–30 172 15:26–27 212 15:33 155 16:16 177 16:28 233

307 17:2 133 19:4–6 31 19:28 37, 145, 200 20:28 140 22:23 152 24:29–31 233 24:31 167 24:36–25:13 211 26:41 78 26:36–39 179 27:52–53 80 28:1–10 29, 154 28:16–17 154 28:18 77 28:18–20 229 28:19 43 Mark 1:10–11 43 1:12–13 173 6:3 155 7:27 212 10:6–7 31 10:45 140 12:18 152 12:29 42 13:32–37 211 14:24 233 14:38 78 14:32–36 179 16:1–8 29, 154 16:19 77, 81 Luke 1:35 29, 177, 194 2:52 76 3:21–22 43 3:38 31 4:1–13 173 7:20–22 29 10:18 172 12:19 161

308

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

14:14 200 20:27 152 20:35–38 200 21:26 71 22:20 233 22:39–44 179 24 238 24:31 36 24:1–12 154 24:1–49 29 24:24 154 24:25–26 154, 238 24:26 227 24:27 229, 238 24:36–43 154 24:44 55 24:44–46 154 24:45–46 238 24:46 227 24:49 43 24:51 81 John 1 57 1:1 52, 56–57, 58, 59, 76 1:1–3 14, 56 1:1–4 244 1:1–18 59 1:2 21, 58 1:3 16, 58 1:3–4 43 1:12 141, 170 1:12–13 227 1:14 57, 59, 76, 133, 149 1:14–18 238 1:17 238 1:17–18 51, 57 1:18 59, 149 3:5 208 3:6 78 3:13 72 3:16 173, 233 3:19 59

3:36 43 4:7–14 208 4:24 209 5:18 58, 76, 177 5:22 150 5:24 136 5:24–25 200 5:24–29 122 5:27 150 5:28–29 200 5:29 200 5:31 81 6:37 172 6:33 59 6:39–40 200 6:40 177 6:44 200 6:54 200 6:63 78 7:18 177 7:33–34 59 8:3 76 8:12 59 8:44 96, 227 8:46 36, 177 8:58 52, 58, 59, 76 9:39 59 10:10 43 10:15–16 239 10:17–18 76, 78, 135 10:27–29 172 10:30 58, 177 10:36 59, 177 11:23–24 152 11:25 43 11:25–27 168 12:31 81, 172, 199 12:46 59 13:1 59 14:2–3 204 14:6 43 14:13 177 14:16–17 43 14:26 43

References Index 14:30 81 15:1–5 43 15:18–25 227 15:26 43 16:7 43 16:10 59 16:11 81 16:28 59 17:1 177 17:5 59 17:6 172 17:11 58, 59 17:20–21 239 17:24 59, 76 20:1–10 154 20:17 59 20:19–29 154 20:30–31 30 20–21 29 21:1–25 154 Acts 1:1–9 154 1:3 29, 81 1:7 211 1:8 43, 229 1:9 81 1:14 155 2:1–4 43 2:16–17 55 2:17 134 2:22 30 2:24 29 2:31–32 29 2:32 78 2:32–35 73 2:33 77, 134 2:34–35 81 2:36 77 3:15 43, 170 4:2 29 4:21–23 49 4:24 21, 49

309 4:25–26 179 4:30 30 4:33 29 5:30–32 29 5:31 77, 81, 170 5:41 77 9:3–6 155 9:15–16 72 10:44–48 80 11:25–26 71 13:30 179 13:33–34 179 15:1–2 230 15:13 155 16:29–33 80 17:18 29 17:24 21, 43, 49 17:26 32, 88 17:31 150 17:31–32 29 21:18 155 22:6–10 155 23:8 152 24:15 200 26:13–18 155 26:23 29 27 160 Romans 1:3–4 78 1:4 29, 81, 179, 180 1:8–3:23 97 1:18 136 1:18–3:20 132 1:20 14, 49, 54, 141 2:5 136 2:8 136 2:12 141 2:14–15 81, 139 2:16 139 2:17 174 2:25–29 230 2:29 229

310

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

3:21–4:25 130, 132 3:21 238 3:23 36, 133, 135, 139, 165 3:23–26 189 3:25 135, 173 3:25–26 225 4 229 4:1 174 4:3 234 4:15 139 4:16 231 4:17 21, 45, 49 5 130, 132, 133 5:1 132, 136 5:1–11 129, 130 5:1–21 7, 127, 128–142, 213–214, 246, 247 5:2 132, 133 5:3 134 5:3–5 133 5:4 134 5:5 134 5:6 134, 135 5:7 135 5:8 135, 150 5:9 136 5:9–11 135 5:10 136 5:11 136 5:12 32, 127, 137, 138, 139, 168, 177, 228 5:12–14 31 5:12–21 32, 97, 127, 129, 157 5:13 139, 141 5:13–17 139 5:14 32, 127, 140 5:14–17 141 5:15 140 5:15–21 226 5:16 140 5:17 140–141 5:17–18 43 5:18 139, 141, 226 5:19 141, 142, 181 5:20 142 5:21 35, 142

6 143 6:3–4 80, 231 6:5 29 6:10 78 6:19–21 142 6:23 35, 36, 138, 165 7 143 7:4–6 43 7:5 36, 142, 165 7:7 234 7:7–11 142, 168 7:7–25 236 7:10–11 35 7:12 231 7:13 36, 138, 165 8 133 8:1–4 227 8:1–17 43, 143 8:1–39 7, 127, 142–151, 213, 214–215, 246, 247 8:2 143 8:3 143 8:3–4 81 8:4–6 78 8:5 143 8:6 35, 143 8:7–8 143 8:9 143 8:11 43 8:13 143 8:15 146, 227 8:16 143 8:17 143, 240 8:17–18 72 8:18 144 8:18ff. 34 8:18–23 240 8:18–39 143 8:19 144–145 8:19–23 144 8:20 209 8:20–22 36 8:21 145, 209 8:22 146

References Index 8:23 43, 145, 146 8:24 147 8:25 145, 147 8:26 147 8:26–27 43 8:27 147 8:28 148 8:29 148, 149 8:30 148 8:31 149 8:31–39 227 8:32 149 8:33 150 8:34 77, 150 8:35 150 8:35–39 75 8:36 150 8:37 150 8:38 151 8:38–39 81, 150 8:39 151 9:3 174 9:4 239 9:5 58, 239 9:20–21 89 10:9 77 10:18 229 11:11–24 235 11:25–27 230 11:33–36 113 12:3–8 72 16:20 101, 227 1 Corinthians 1:4 2 1:18 141 1:30 51 2:10–13 43 3:10–23 144 5:5 78 6:2–3 200 8:4–6 42 8:6 43, 45, 77

311 11:7 33, 86 11:25 233 12 152 12:3 77 12:4–6 43, 231 12:4–11 72 12:12 209, 231 12:13 80, 231 12:28–30 72 13 75 13:12 209 14 152 15 32, 128, 152 15:1 153 15:1–58 7, 127, 152–168, 213, 215–216, 246, 247 15:2 153–154 15:3 154 15:3–5 154 15:3–7 29 15:4 154 15:5 154 15:6 154 15:7 155 15:8 155 15:10 155 15:11 155 15:12 156 15:12–19 154 15:13 156 15:14 156 15:15 156 15:16 156 15:17 156 15:18 156 15:19 157 15:20 157, 240 15:21 158 15:21–22 31, 97 15:22 32, 128, 158 15:23 158, 159 15:23–28 159 15:24 151, 158, 159, 160 15:24–27 81

312

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

15:25 158, 159, 195 15:26 158, 159 15:27 158 15:28 159 15:29 160 15:30 160 15:31 161 15:32 161 15:33 161 15:34 161 15:35 162 15:35–57 133 15:36 162 15:36–44 164 15:37 162 15:37–38 238 15:38 162, 163 15:39 162 15:40 162 15:41 162 15:42 164 15:42–44 163 15:44 164 15:45 32, 128, 164, 165 15:46 165 15:47 165 15:48 165 15:49 149, 165 15:50 166 15:51 166 15:51–57 200 15:52 166, 167 15:53 167 15:54 167 15:55 167 15:56 168 15:57 168 15:58 168 16:22 212 2 Corinthians 1:5–7 227 3 237

3:3 235 3:8 148 3:18 149 4:4 73, 76, 227 4:6 73 4:17 144 5:1–5 138 5:8 200 5:20–21 136 5:21 36, 142, 177 6:16 203 6:18 207 8:9 77 11:3 33, 94, 97 11:5 71 11:14 94 11:23–33 160 11:23–28 150 12:1 71, 72 12:2 71 12:3 72 12:4 71, 72 12:7 71 12:11 71 13:14 43 Galatians 1:1 78 1:19 155 2:9 155 3:13 100 3:19 142, 234 3:24 234 3:29 172 4:4 76, 135 4:5 146 4:6 227 4:7 144 5:2–6 230 5:16–25 78 5:22–23 43 6:16 230, 239

References Index Ephesians 1:3–14 244 1:5 146 1:13 144, 146 1:13–14 231 1:14 146 1:19–23 51 1:20 78, 81 1:20–22 77, 81 1:21 77, 151 1:22 50 2:1–3 36, 139, 165 2:2 227 2:10 27 2:12 239 2:13 239 2:14 132 2:18 132 2:21–22 240 3:4 239 3:5 239 3:6 239 3:12 132 4:1–6 72 4:4 231 4:5–6 231 4:7 72 4:7–10 72 4:8 72 4:9 73 4:9–10 73 4:10 71, 73 5:25–32 203 6:12 151, 191 Philippians 1:23 200 2:6 58, 73, 75, 76 2:5–11 170 2:6–11 73, 75, 78 2:7 76 2:8 77

313 2:9 77 2:9–11 81 2:10 77 2:11 78 3:1–3 230 3:2 212 3:10 29,149 3:20–21 133, 149 Colossians 1:15 50, 51, 53, 73, 76, 148 1:15–17 50–54 1:15–20 75, 244 1:16 14, 16, 21, 53, 58, 71 1:16–17 43, 53 1:17 34, 50, 53, 205 1:18 53, 148, 240 1:20 53, 71 1:21–22 132 1:22 76 1:24 144, 227 2:2–3 51 2:6 77 2:9 58, 76 2:12 80, 231 2:15 81, 101, 199, 227 3:1 81 3:10 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10 211 1:10 136 2:18 199 4:13–18 200 4:16 167 5:9 136 2 Thessalonians 1:5–10 227 1:8–9 141

314

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

1 Timothy 2:4 97 2:5 236 2:13–14 33 3:16 75, 78, 81 4:4 19 6:16 133 2 Timothy 1:10 43, 122 2:12 141, 144 3:12 227 4:8 211 Titus 2:13

211

Hebrews 1:1 54, 55 1:1–2 237 1:1–3 168 1:1–4 174, 244 1:1–14 216 1:2 16, 21, 55, 56, 58 1:3 14, 34, 43, 50, 53, 56, 58, 63, 73, 77, 81, 17, 179, 205 1:4 77, 170 1:5 179 1:6 148 1:14 190 2:1–4 169 2:4 30 2:5–18 7, 64, 127, 168–173, 213, 216–217, 246, 247 2:6–8 64, 169 2:7 169 2:8 169 2:9 63, 154, 170 2:10 44, 170, 171 2:11 170, 171

2:12 171 2:13 172 2:14 154, 170, 172 2:14–15 170, 227 2:15 172 2:16 172 2:17 76, 170, 172–173, 176 2:18 173 3:1 176 3:7 196 4:13 98 4:14 176, 177 4:14–5:10 7, 127, 174–181, 213, 217–218, 246, 247 4:15 36, 76, 177, 225, 233 4:16 178 5:1 178 5:2 178 5:3 178 5:4 178 5:5 178–179 5:6 179, 182 5:7 179 5:7–8 76 5:7–9 78 5:8 180 5:9 180, 181 5:10 181 6:17 183, 190 7:1 181 7:1–28 7, 127, 174, 181–185, 213, 217– 218, 246, 247 7:2 181 7:3 181 7:4–7 181 7:8–10 181 7:9–10 138 7:11 182 7:11–15 182 7:16 182 7:17 182 7:18 182 7:19 182 7:20 182

References Index 7:21 182 7:22 183 7:23 184 7:23–28 180 7:24 184 7:25 184 7:26 36, 177, 184, 225 7:26–28 78 7:27 78, 185, 225 7:28 185 8 236 8:1–5 236 8:2 186 8:5 186 8:6 236, 240 8:7 236 8:7–13 233 8:8 233 8:8–12 183, 196 8:13 237 9:1–5 186 9:1–11 191 9:1–10:18 7, 127, 174, 180, 185–196, 213, 218–219, 246, 247 9:6 187 9:7 185, 187 9:8 187 9:9 187, 188 9:10 187 9:11 188 9:11–12 193 9:12 78, 188 9:13 188, 189 9:14 81, 189 9:15 189, 190, 192, 233 9:16 190 9:17 190 9:18 190 9:18–21 190 9:22 190 9:23 191 9:23–28 191 9:24 191, 192 9:25 185, 191

315 9:26 78, 192 9:27 79, 111, 192 9:28 78, 192 10:1 185, 193 10:1–4 193 10:2 78 10:3 196 10:5 194 10:5–6 193, 194 10:8 194 10:9 194 10:10 194–195 10:10–14 78 10:11 195 10:11–18 195 10:12 81, 195 10:13 195 10:14 195 10:15 196 10:16 196 10:16–17 183, 196 10:17 196 10:18 196 10:22 81 10:29 233 11 240 11:1 21 11:3 21, 22, 43, 45, 110 11:5 77, 106 11:6 22, 110 11:9 247 11:10 49, 169, 247 11:13 247 11:13–16 169 11:14 248 11:15 248 11:16 248 11:39 248 11:39–40 233 11:40 240, 248 12:2 77, 81, 170 12:22–23 239 12:22–24 169 12:23 240

316

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

12:24 13:20

233, 240 180, 233

James 3:9 4:4 5:3

33, 86, 166 97 55

3:3 55 3:5 71 3:7 71, 202 3:8 227 3:10 71 3:10–13 37, 145, 202 3:12–13 71 1 John

1 Peter 1:3 29 1:10–11 227 1:10–12 239 1:17–21 225 1:19 36, 177 1:20 55 2:4–5 240 2:9 189, 239 2:10 239 2:19 81 2:22 177 2:22–24 36 2:24 100 3:16 81 3:17 78 3:18 43, 78, 79 3:18–22 78 3:19 79 3:20 79 3:21 29, 80 3:22 81, 151 4:6 78 4:10–11 72 4:13 144 4:19 27 5:8 199 5:10 144

1:1–2 43 1:6–7 211 1:8–9 139 2:1–2 191 2:2 173 2:15 97 2:15–17 97 2:16 98 2:17 98 2:18 55 2:28 212 3:1 148 3:1–2 227 3:2 209 3:5 36, 177 3:8 94, 172, 227 4:2–3 76 4:9 149 4:9–10 173 4:10 175 5:7–10 208 5:11–12 43 5:19 227 2 John 1:7

76

3 John 2 Peter 1:7 1:1 2:4 2:5

58 79, 199 80

77

References Index Jude 1:6 79, 199 1:14 33 1:18 55 Revelation 1:1 196 1:1–8 198 1:2 210 1:3 210 1:4 197 1:5 240 1:5–8 197 1:6 189, 239 1:8 207 1:9 197 1:9–20 198 1:11 197 1:16 133 1:17 204 1:17–18 244 2:1–3:22 198 2:7 93 3:21 200 4:1–5:14 198 4:1–22:5 198 4:2 201 4:4 200 4:8 207 4:11 21, 45, 49 5 81 5:1 82 5:2 82 5:3 83 5:7 201 5:13 83 5:14 83 6:1–8:1 198 6:9 200 6:16–17 136 7:15 203 7:16–17 204

317 7:17 209 8:2 167 8:2–11:19 198 8:6 167 8:13 167 10:1 82 10:1–4 82 11:15 167 11:16 200 11:17 207 11:18 136 12:1–14:20 198 12:7–10 172 12:7–12 199 12:9 94 12:10 150 12:11 227 13:1 202 14:8 207 15:1–16:21 198 15:3 207 16:1 205 16:7 207 16:14 201, 207 16:19 207 17:1 205 17:1–18:24 198 17:5 207 18:21 82 19 198 19:1–5 198 19:1–21 198 19:6 207 19:6–9 203 19:6–10 198 19:7–10 198 19:10 53 19:11–21 198, 227 19:15 207 19:19 201 20–22 198 20:1 199 20:1–3 198 20:1–10 198, 199

318

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

20:1–15 198 20:1–22:21 7, 83, 127, 196–212, 213, 219– 220, 246, 247 20:2 94, 199 20:3 199 20:4 200 20:4–6 50, 159, 198 20:5 200 20:6 200 20:7 201 20:7–10 159 20:8 201 20:9 201 20:10 201 20:11 201 20:11–15 79 20:12 139, 201, 202 20:13 202 20:13–14 158 20:14 159, 201, 202 20:15 202 21:1 37, 145, 202, 209 21:1–3 169 21:1–22:5 198 21:2 203 21:3 203, 209 21:4 204, 209 21:5 204, 209 21:6 204, 205 21:7 205 21:8 205, 209 21:9 205 21:10 205 21:10–21 203 21:10–27 169 21:11 205 21:12 206 21:13 206 21:14 206 21:15–16 206 21:17 206 21:18 206 21:19–20 206 21:21 206

21:22 206, 207 21:23 206, 209 21:24 207 21:25 207 21:26 207 21:27 207, 209 22:1 207, 208, 209 22:2 93, 100, 208, 209 22:3 208, 209 22:4 209 22:5 141, 209, 210 22:6 210 22:6–21 198 22:7 210 22:8 210 22:9 210 22:10 82, 211 22:11 211 22:11–12 121 22:12 211 22:13 204, 211 22:14 93, 211 22:15 208, 209, 211 22:16 212 22:17 209 22:19 93 22:17 208, 212 22:18 212 22:19 212 22:20 212 22:21 196 Rabbinic Works Babylonian Talmud Yoma 75a

101

Genesis Rabbah 1:2 51 8:6 169 12:6 36, 145 17:5 52

References Index 20:5 23:6 28:6 31:5 44:17

101 145 145 52 52

Leviticus Rabbah 11:3 52 19:1 52 Ecclesiastes Rabbah 10:11

101

Targum Pseudo–Jonathan 3:14

101 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

Apocalypse of Abraham 19:5–6

71

319 7:8 71 7:13 71 7:17–28 71 7:32–37 71 8:1 71 8:7–9 71 8:12 71 8:15–16 71 8:19 71 8:21 71 8:25 71 9:1 71 9:4 71 9:6 71 9:18–19 71 9:23 71 10:1 71 10:5 71 10:8–9 71 10:11–12 71 10:14 71 10:17 71 10:19–27 71 11:24–32 71 11:40 71

Apocalypse of Moses 2 Baruch 7:1 94, 174 7:1ff. 97 14:2 137 15:1–3 92 16:4 95 17:4 95 35:2 71 37:5 71 40:2 71 Ascension of Isaiah 3:13 3:18 4:14 4:16 6:13

71 71 71 71 71

4:3 36, 97, 165 15:8 36, 144, 145 17:2–3 102 17:2–4 36, 165 17:3 97 18:2 97 19:8 97, 139 21:4 44 21:9 200 21:23–24 200 23:4 36, 97, 129, 139, 145, 165 24:1 139, 201 29 160 30:1–3 200 32:1–6 203 42:8 200

320

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

43:2 36, 165 44:12 202 48:42 102, 137 48:42–43 36, 97, 139 48:42–44 129 48:46 36, 165 48:47 97 49:2 162 50:2–4 152 51:1 97 51:3 97 54:14 97 54:15 36, 97, 102, 139, 165 54:15–19 129, 137 54:19 31, 36, 97, 139, 165 54:21 97 56:5–6 36, 97, 165 56:6 102 56:12–13 79 57:2 203 70:9 177 73 160 74 160 85:11–12 200 3 Baruch 11:1–2

25:3 205 27:1–10 202 42:1–2 54 45:4–5 203 47:3 82 48:1 205 51:1 152 51:1–5 200 51:4–5 37, 145 53:3–4 199 54:3–6 199 61:10 53 62:14–16 152 69:6 95 72:1 202 81:1–3 82 88:1–3 199 91:16 202 93:1–3 82 102–104 144 103:2 82 103:7–8 202 104:7 139 104:11 212 106:19 82 107:1 82 108:7 82

71 2 Enoch

1 Enoch 10:4–13 79 10:4–16 199 10:12–13 202 10:13 172 16:3 79 18:3 150 18:8 205 18:11 150 18:11–19:3 199 21:6 79 21:10 79 24:1–3 205 24:4 93

7:1–3 79 8:1 71 8:3 93 8:5 93 8:8 93 9:1 93 20:1 71 20–22 53 30:17 97 31:1 92 31:1–2 71 33:8 82

References Index 3 Enoch 5:10 17:1 48:1

169 71 71

4 Ezra 2:18 208 3:4 44 3:4–7 102 3:7 36, 129, 165 3:7–10 97 3:7–11 139 3:21–22 36, 129, 137, 165 3:21–26 97 3:26–27 36, 165 4:30 36, 97, 165 4:30–32 137 6:20 82 6:23 167 6:25 50 6:53–59 169 7:11–12 36, 102, 145 7:26–30 160 7:28–29 177 7:29–30 145 7:32 200 7:32–33 142 7:75 203 7:75–101 200 7:97–98 210 7:113 50 7:116–118 137 7:116–119 129 7:116–126 36, 102, 145 7:118 36, 97, 139, 165 7:122–131 97 8:11 145 8:52 93 11:39–46 50 12:34 50 12:37–38 211 13:29–50 160

321 13:32 177 13:37 177 13:52 177 14:5–6 211 14:9 177 14:35 200 14:45–46 211 Jubilees 1:17 203 1:29 203 3 97 3:15–16 92 3:23 101 5:6–14 199 4:26 203, 205 4:29–30 93 4:30 199 5:6 79 5:13 82 23:27 199 23:27–31 200 23:32 82 30:17 139 30:20 199 48:9–19 199 Life of Adam and Eve 20:2

133

Odes of Solomon 23:5–22

82

Psalms of Solomon 14:10 144 17:14–20 179 17:26–29 212

322

Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Sibylline Oracles 1:59–64 101 2:289 199 3:63–74 172 3:75–90 202 4:173–175 167 4:179–182 200 Testament of Abraham 20:9–15

200

Testament of Benjamin 10:6–8 152 11:4 139 Testament of Dan 5:10

200

Testament of Judah 25:3 25:4

Testament of Moses 1:12–14

94, 174

Testament of Nephtali 3:5

79

Testament of Zebulon 9:8

210

172

Testament of Isaac 7:1

3 53 3:1 71 4:2 179 18:2 172 18:5–6 71 18:10–14 145 18:12 199

Greek Works Antiquities of the Jews 1.42, 50

101

Didache

172 152

10:6

Testament of Levi

Thais

2:7

fragment 187 (218)

71

212

161

Studies in Biblical Literature This series invites manuscripts from scholars in any area of biblical literature. Both established and innovative methodologies, covering general and particular areas in biblical study, are welcome. The series seeks to make available studies that will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. Scholars who have interests in gender and sociocultural hermeneutics are particularly encouraged to consider this series. For further information about the series and for the submission of manuscripts, contact: Peter Lang Publishing Acquisitions Department P.O. Box 1246 Bel Air, Maryland 21014-1246 To order other books in this series, please contact our Customer Service Department: (800) 770-LANG (within the U.S.) (212) 647-7706 (outside the U.S.) (212) 647-7707 FAX or browse online by series at: WWW.PETERLANG.COM