The flood, then, is a divine judgment in response to the evil of the human heart and the resultant corruption and violence.
\nIn contrast to his contemporaries, Noah was righteous in an age of social violence. Genesis 6:8 indicates that Noah was the object of divine favor. This was not an arbitrary result, since the next verse reveals that \u201cNoah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God\u201d (NIV). The expression \u201che walked with God\u201d clearly shows that Noah had a relationship with God long before God \u201cestablished\u201d his covenant with him. The term \u201crighteous\u201d (Heb. \u1e63add\u00eeq) is a word that speaks of Noah\u2019s conduct in his relationship with God. Noah\u2019s actions toward God and toward his fellow man were based on faithfulness and loyalty to his relationship with God. Since any relationship with the creator God of the Bible would involve moral standards, \u201crighteous\u201d means that Noah\u2019s conduct was based on conformity to God\u2019s way, driven by his commitment to God. In an important study, J. W. Olley defines righteousness as \u201cto bring about right and harmony for all, for individuals, related in the community and to the physical and spiritual realms.\u201d To this definition Bruce Waltke adds, \u201cThe righteous (\u1e63add\u00eeq) are willing to disadvantage themselves to advantage the community; the wicked are willing to disadvantage the community to advantage themselves.\u201d God decides, then, in this context, to confirm his covenant with Noah.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS
\nThe relationship of Genesis 6:1\u20134 to the flood story and the interpretation of these four verses is extremely problematic. Only a brief comment is possible in the scope of this work. Two main issues are significant: (1) the identity of the \u201csons of God\u201d who marry the daughters of the human race and have children by them (6:2, 4), and (2) the interpretation of the temporal expressions \u201cin those days\u201d and \u201cafterward\u201d in 6:4.
\nThree views predominate on the identity of the sons of God: (1) they represent the godly line of Seth (4:25\u20135:32) intermarrying with the ungodly line of Cain (4:17\u201324); (2) they represent powerful kings\/tyrants ruling at the time; and (3) they represent angels who married human women. The last view is a problem since one would then have to wonder if the flood was a judgment on angelic rather than human corruption and violence. The third option, however, should be seriously considered since the exact expression \u201csons of God\u201d refers consistently and exclusively to angelic beings in the Old Testament (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; cf. Ps. 29:1; Dan. 3:25) and is also supported by the New Testament (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6\u20137). Peter and Jude seek to bolster the faith of their readers by reference to events well known from the Old Testament. Their comments are structured in such a way as to refer in particular to two texts in Genesis (Genesis 6\u20139; 18\u201319). They speak of angels who sinned and were cast into a particular prison awaiting further judgment. According to Jude, both examples (i.e., angels and cities of the plain) involved gross immorality.
\nThe temporal expressions \u201cin those days\u201d and \u201cafterward\u201d both occur in Genesis 6:4. For purposes of this discussion, a literal translation of this verse is useful:
\nThe Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward when the sons of God had relations with human women and they bore children for them. They were the heroes who were from the ancient past, men of renown.
\nThe temporal expressions could be understood in two possible ways. If one interprets \u201cin those days\u201d to be the times described in 6:1\u20133, then what is distinguished are the times before the flood from the times after the flood. The relative clause introduced by \u201cafterward\u201d would seem to indicate that the cohabitation of angelic and human beings continued after the flood. One might conclude that the Nephilim were the product of such unions (cf. Num. 13:22, 28, 33).
\nYet a different interpretation is possible. The expression \u201cafterward\u201d (\u2019a\u1e25\u0103r\u00ea-k\u0113n) usually occurs in the second of two verbal sentences: the first sentence says that event X did or will happen, and the second says that subsequent to event X, event Y did or will happen. Here we must note that the expression \u2019a\u1e25\u0103r\u00ea-k\u0113n is modified by a relative clause that refers specifically to the event in Genesis 6:2. Therefore, one could assume that \u201cin those days\u201d means before divine beings cohabitated with humans. Verse 4 would then comment that the Nephilim were in the earth before the business of angelic and human beings cohabiting and also afterward and therefore had nothing to do with these unions.
\nThis latter interpretation is strengthened by considerations of discourse grammar. Genesis 6:4 consists of two clauses or sentences, the first verbal, the second verbless. Both are marked by asyndeton (i.e., no conjunction or connector at the beginning of the clause\/sentence). In the first, the verb is noninitial. This pattern marks a commentary or explanatory digression. The fact that the first sentence is subject initial indicates a new topic. The relative clause in 6:4 correlates this new topic with the events of 6:2. The verbless clause is a further comment on the Nephilim. They were the heroes from the distant past. This may mean the distant past with reference to the writer, or it may indicate a period long past in reference to the event of 6:2. Therefore, the writer would be demythologizing the Nephilim. These heroes of ancient times were there before and after the events of 6:2 and were not necessarily related to them at all. Thus, 6:1 describes an increase in female humans, 6:2 relates a cohabitation of angelic and human beings, 6:3 concludes that the result is still human and therefore under God\u2019s judgment, and 6:4 states that all this has nothing to do with the well-known Nephilim. Since the word Nephilim is not otherwise explained, these figures must have been well known to the ancient (first) readers of this text.
\nWhat this digression shows, then, is that if one assumes that Genesis 6:1\u20134 is referring to a union of angelic and human beings, this is not connected to the causes of the flood. In addition, according to 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, the judgment of the angels was separate from the judgment of the flood.<\/p>\n
COVENANT MAKING IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND ANCIENT NEAR EAST<\/p>\n
Before further considering God\u2019s covenant with Noah, it is necessary to acquire a better grasp of covenant making in the culture of the biblical world. What is normally involved in initiating a covenant or treaty? The events described in Genesis 21:22\u201334 provide an excellent example of what is entailed in covenant making in the ancient Near East. The narrative concerns the king of Gerar (a city in the south of Canaan, just west of Beersheba), who makes a covenant\/treaty with Abraham. The agreement between the parties resolves a dispute over water rights relating to the well of Beersheba. Four features characterize this treaty and, in fact, are normative of covenants in general.
\n1. A covenant does not always or necessarily initiate a relationship. It does, however, formalize in binding and legal terms an agreement or commitment between parties who may or may not have developed or established a relationship before the covenant is made. In Genesis 21, Abimelech and Abraham have already developed a relationship together. When the covenant is made, Abimelech appeals to this already established understanding between them by speaking of the loving-kindness (\u1e25esed) he has shown Abraham in the past. In Joshua 9:3\u201327, however, the Gibeonites deceive and trick the Israelites into making a covenant with them, though the parties had no relationship prior to making the covenant. This was not the norm. If the parties have had dealings in the past, the covenant does specify a new level to the relationship.
\n2. There is conventional language for initiating covenants or treaties. The standard expression for initiating a covenant in the Old Testament is \u201cto cut a covenant\u201d (k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet; Gen. 21:27, 32). How and why this peculiar expression arose will become clear shortly.
\n3. A covenant gives binding and quasi-legal status to a relationship by means of a formal and solemn ceremony. As a general rule, covenants belong to the public rather than the private sphere. This is why, for example, elopement is inappropriate for marriage: no formal or public ceremony is involved.
\n4. Covenant making involves a commitment or oath or promise and frequently signs or witnesses. Here the parties of the treaty solemnly swear to the agreement. As William J. Dumbrell notes, the oath \u201cis obviously an important ingredient in the total arrangement, but it is not the covenant itself.\u201d
\nAlthough the ceremony is not described in complete detail in Genesis 21, we can put the pieces together from different sources. Animals are slaughtered and sacrificed. Each animal is cut in two, and the halves are laid facing or opposite each other. Then the parties of the treaty walk between the halves of the dead animal(s). This action is symbolic. What is being expressed is this: each party is saying, \u201cIf I fail to keep my obligation or my promise, may I be cut in two like this dead animal.\u201d The oath or promise, then, involves bringing a curse upon oneself for violating the treaty. This is why the expression \u201cto cut a covenant\u201d is the conventional language for initiating a covenant in the Old Testament.
\nMany other covenants and treaties are recorded in the Bible. As examples, one may mention the covenants between Joshua and the Gibeonites (Joshua 9), between the men of Jabesh Gilead and Nahash the Ammonite (1 Sam. 11:1\u20133), between David and Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:3; 23:18), between David and Abner (2 Sam. 3:12\u201321), between David and Israel (2 Sam. 3:21; 5:1\u20133), between Ahab of Israel and Ben-Hadad of Syria (1 Kings 20:31\u201334), and between Jehoiada the high priest and King Joash of Judah (2 Kings 11:17). While the components and also the nature and status of the parties differ, and the language varies somewhat, in each case a covenant involves a commitment or promise usually solemnized by oath in which an agreement and level of relationship between parties is specified.
\nAlthough this description of covenant making in the Old Testament is indebted to the pioneering labors of William J. Dumbrell, carefully nuanced differences from his presentation have been expressed here as well. Dumbrell\u2019s work has been sharply criticized in studies by Paul Williamson and Jeffrey J. Niehaus. Niehaus summarizes the definition of Dumbrell as follows: \u201cA covenant does not create a relationship between two parties. Rather it confirms an already existing relationship.\u201d He argues that the approach of Dumbrell blurs the distinction between covenants and covenant renewals. Niehaus also critiques Hafemann, who follows Dumbrell. The critique of Niehaus should be noted:<\/p>\n
[Hafemann] follows in Dumbrell\u2019s footsteps by believing that \u201c[l]ike a treaty or a marriage, a \u2018covenant\u2019 is a particular kind of political or legal arrangement that confirms or formalizes a relationship that already exists between two parties.\u201d As in Dumbrell\u2019s case, so with Hafemann, it is this mistaken definition of covenant which makes the \u201cone covenantal relationship\u201d view possible. Yet, as we have pointed out above, it was covenant renewals, and not covenants, that served this function in the ancient Near East and in the Bible. The fact that marriage is a covenant is actually a piece of contrary evidence. Marriage does not confirm an existing relationship: it takes an existing relationship (in which a couple is engaged) to an entirely new level\u2014thus transforming it\u2014and establishes a new state of affairs, with new privileges and new responsibilities.<\/p>\n
This critique is helpful but only partially right. A covenant, such as marriage, does specify a different and new level of relationship from what has been true in the past, but certainly this is not the beginning of relationship between the two parties. Dumbrell may possibly blur the distinction between covenants and covenant renewals in some instances, but his definition is based firmly on passages like the treaty in Genesis 21. Past relationship between the parties is admitted by Niehaus in some measure:<\/p>\n
A point that appeared for a long time to have been well understood, or at least taken for granted, among scholars who studied ancient Near Eastern covenants is this: a covenant assumes some past history of relationship (however minimal) between two parties, but a covenant, once agreed upon, changes the relationship between the two covenanting parties and takes it to a different level.\u2026 With regard to these facts, the historical prologues, found in second millennium BC treaties, at least, provide a valuable service. They document the relationship that had existed, or the events of mutual involvement or interest, that had occurred, before the two parties agreed to enter into a covenant relationship. The historical prologue illustrates the fact that some sort of prior relationship, however minimal or even hostile, had obtained in the past. Now, however, the parties enter into a covenant which declares, sanctions, witnesses and ratifies the stipulations that shall govern the new, covenant relationship (be it parity or suzerain-vassal) according to which both parties shall live going forward.<\/p>\n
In summary, Craig Bartholomew\u2019s adjustment of Dumbrell\u2019s definition is helpful:<\/p>\n
Dumbrell neglects the constitutive side of the divine covenants in his understanding of covenants as commitments that normalize existing relationships. The divine covenants do operate within existing relationships, but they shape and give future direction to the relationship, just as does the marriage covenant.<\/p>\n
INITIATING VERSUS AFFIRMING OR UPHOLDING A COVENANT<\/p>\n
The first occurrence(s) of the term \u201ccovenant\u201d (b\u0115r\u00eet) in the Hebrew Scriptures is significant. The word appears first in the flood narrative (Gen. 6:18; 9:9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17). In four of those instances God speaks of \u201caffirming\u201d or \u201cestablishing\u201d a covenant with Noah (6:18; 9:9, 11, 17). The construction in Hebrew is h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet. The remaining four occurrences have to do with the sign of the covenant that aids in remembering the covenant. Thus, when we consider the covenant God made with Noah and his descendants, we notice right away that the normal expression for covenant initiation is lacking. Nowhere in the flood account do we read of God \u201ccutting a covenant\u201d (k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet). Why is the language different here, and what does it signify? An exhaustive study of all instances of b\u0115r\u00eet in the Hebrew Bible and constructions involving this noun (see the appendix) reveals a completely consistent usage inherent in the language: the construction \u201cto cut a covenant\u201d (k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet) refers to covenant initiation, while the expression \u201cto establish a covenant\u201d (h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet) means \u201cto affirm (verbally) the continued validity of a prior commitment\u201d\u2014that is, to affirm that one is still committed to the covenant relationship as established or initiated previously. Frequently, h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet can have a more particular or specific use, meaning \u201cto carry out or fulfill the obligations of a covenant made previously\u201d\u2014that is, to make good one\u2019s commitment, obligation, or promise, or to uphold a covenant.
\nThe difference in the expressions can be illustrated in the case of the covenant with Abraham. In Genesis 15, God\u2019s promises to Abraham of land and seed given earlier in chapter 12 are formalized in a covenant. Notice that in 15:18, we have the standard terminology in the Hebrew text: \u201ccut a covenant\u201d (k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet). Later, in Genesis 17, God verbally reaffirms and upholds his covenant promise. Verses 7, 19, and 21 consistently employ the expression h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet, while the expression k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet is not used. Here God is affirming and fulfilling in the life of someone who is already a covenant partner his promise given in the covenant initiated previously in chapter 15. So God upholds his promise and says Sarah will have a baby within the year.
\nTherefore, the construction h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet in Genesis 6 and 9 indicates that God is not initiating a covenant with Noah but is rather affirming for Noah and his descendants a commitment initiated previously. This language clearly denotes a covenant established earlier between God and creation, or between God and humans at creation. When God says that he is affirming or upholding his covenant with Noah, he is saying that his commitment to his creation\u2014the care of the Creator to preserve, provide for, and rule over all that he has made, including the blessings and ordinances that he initiated through and with Adam and Eve and their family\u2014are now to be with Noah and his descendants.
\nThis distinction is frequently obscured by English translations because the verb h\u0113q\u00eem means \u201cto cause to rise or stand,\u201d and translators often use \u201cestablish\u201d as an English equivalent. The result may be confusing because the word \u201cestablish\u201d in English can refer to establishing something the first time or to strengthening and supporting something established previously that has since deteriorated and fallen into ruin. Therefore, some scholars claim that h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet can mean to establish a covenant either in the sense of initiating it or in the sense of upholding a covenant already in existence.
\nThe consistent distinction, however, as I have described it, between k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet and h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet in the Hebrew language from our earliest texts down through and including the Dead Sea Scrolls is considerable proof of a divine-human covenant established at creation. We do not consider it the main or only proof for a covenant in Genesis 1\u20133, but we will make an effort to clear up misunderstandings by other scholars concerning the linguistic evidence for this view.
\nThe idea that the covenant with Noah was a kind of reinstatement and upholding of a covenant initiated at creation was advanced by Dumbrell. He based his view in part on the distinction in usage between k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet and h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet. The claim that these expressions were distinct in usage, however, did not originate with Dumbrell. Already in 1934, the great Jewish scholar Umberto Cassuto described the usage this way. Subsequent scholarship has confirmed and supported this understanding, but it has been challenged by Paul Williamson.
\nWilliamson claims that Dumbrell\u2019s discussion is flawed and argues that it is difficult in a number of texts to maintain that key verbs employed with b\u0115r\u00eet refer back to a covenant that has already been initiated (Gen. 6:18; 9:9, 11; 17:2, 9, 17; Num. 25:12; Deut. 29:11 (29:12 EV); 2 Chron. 15:12; Ezek. 16:8; 17:13). Yet the texts he lists as evidence either beg the question, as with the references in Genesis, or do not involve the expression h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet. Moreover, the problem with Williamson\u2019s study is twofold: (1) Dumbrell did not adequately express his basic claim concerning the distinction between k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet and h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet, which needs to be modified somewhat by a more thorough study of all the texts, and (2) Williamson bases his research on the lexical study of Moshe Weinfeld and on criticisms of Dumbrell offered by others, such as Roger Beckwith. He argues that \u201cWeinfeld offers a more comprehensive list of relevant biblical texts and therefore provides a better basis on which to evaluate Dumbrell\u2019s assertion.\u201d On the one hand, then, Williamson is reacting to propositions by Dumbrell that could be better described and nuanced. On the other hand, he does not seem to have based his own research on a careful examination of all the primary sources but rather has relied on secondary studies like that of Weinfeld. We will deal here with the claims initially made by Williamson, as well as his critique of our first edition, which he reviewed.
\nThe description given here is based on an examination of all the primary sources, and although indebted to Dumbrell, it avoids claims he makes that are not supported by the evidence and offers a carefully nuanced modification of the usage. While full review of Williamson\u2019s critique of Dumbrell cannot be given here, examples from his discussion will be given. In attempting to show that h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet can mean \u201cto initiate a covenant\u201d and is equivalent in meaning to k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet, he says, \u201cSimilarly, in Jeremiah 34:18 a strong case can be made in support of a covenant being instituted and not just renewed (cf. Jer 34:10).\u201d The evidence, however, is otherwise. The expression k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet is employed in Jeremiah 34:8, 13, and 15, as well as the similar expression b\u00f4\u2019 bibr\u00eet (\u201center a covenant\u201d) in 34:10, for initiating or making a covenant between King Zedekiah and all the people of Jerusalem to proclaim freedom for Hebrew slaves. The people then fulfilled the obligation by freeing the slaves but later reneged on the covenant and reenslaved the manumitted slaves. Jeremiah was sent to challenge this covenant violation (see the expression \u2018\u0101bar b\u0115r\u00eet in 34:18), and he called upon the people in 34:18 to \u201cuphold the covenant\u201d (h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet), meaning to bring to pass in the experience of the people the promise entailed in the covenant made earlier to free the slaves. The people must make good on their commitment and promise made in the covenant. A simple straightforward reading of this text, then, shows that a \u201cstrong case\u201d can be made for the distinction in usage between k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet and h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet as described herein rather than a \u201cstrong case\u201d against. Williamson construed Dumbrell\u2019s argument to mean that h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet indicated covenant renewal, and he has misunderstood the usage in Hebrew. In addition, this proof for Williamson\u2019s view has disappeared from the evidence he gives in critiquing the first edition of this book.
\nFor Exodus 6:4, Williamson appeals to Beckwith as follows:<\/p>\n
As Beckwith observes, the deployment of \u05d4\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd in Exod. 6:4 illustrates that this verb does not necessarily suggest the confirmation or perpetuation of a pre-existing covenant. This latter text is of particular significance for a number of reasons. Although three patriarchs are alluded to, the covenant is spoken of in the singular. There is only one feasible explanation for this: God did not establish three different covenants, one with each patriarch, but made a singular commitment or covenant (i.e., solemn promise), initially to Abraham, but subsequently to Isaac and Jacob. It would appear from Exod. 6:4 that the commitment or promise in question relates essentially to the question of territory; only the promissory aspect relating to nationhood is picked up here; there is neither mention of nor allusion to the international dimensions of the promise that are reflected in Gen. 12:3; 17 and 22:18. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the covenant referred to in Exod. 6:4 is that solemnly established by divine oath in Gen. 15:18. If this is indeed the case, the fact that the verb \u05d4\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd should be applied in Exod. 6:4 to the establishment of the \u201ccovenant between the pieces\u201d is most significant; as Beckwith asserts, this would appear to confirm that this verb does not relate exclusively to the confirmation of a pre-existing covenant. While the latter interpretation of \u05d4\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd could be said to fit in the case of Isaac and Jacob, it is rather strange in the case of Abraham; prior to Genesis 15 there was no pre-existing covenant to be \u201cconfirmed.\u201d<\/p>\n
Whether Williamson is appropriately representing Beckwith or not, his reasoning is difficult to follow. There is only one feasible explanation but not the one proffered by Beckwith. Beckwith is correct that there is only one covenant. This can only mean that a covenant was made with Abraham and his descendants, the promises of which were later repeated or affirmed to Isaac and Jacob, so that one can only speak of a single covenant with all three. It is not possible in Hebrew to use the expression k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet here since the covenant was \u201ccut\u201d only with Abraham and was later repeated to Abraham in Genesis 17 and 22, to Isaac in Genesis 26, and to Jacob in Genesis 35. The expression k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet refers to an event, and there is no single event occurring with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the same time. Williamson, however, considers Genesis 15 and 17 as separate covenants. This leads him to affirm that h\u0113q\u00eem in Exodus 6:4 should be applied to Genesis 15, and therefore the expression h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet does not refer to confirming a preexisting covenant. The point being made in Exodus 6:4, however, is that God will now uphold his covenant promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them the land of Canaan, a promise that none of the patriarchs experienced during their lives, as the author to the Hebrews shrewdly noted (Heb. 11:13). This is why the expression h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet is aptly used in this text. Moreover, the land promise is part of Genesis 17 (see 17:8) as well, so that one could see an allusion to either Genesis 15 or 17, the latter being a confirmation of the former. Either way, the explanation provided by Williamson is difficult to follow since affirming Genesis 15 and 17 as separate covenants seems to contradict the affirmation of one covenant with all patriarchs. His assumptions, moreover, appear to beg the question. All other passages cited by Williamson are handled later.
\nOur analysis of all constructions with b\u0115r\u00eet has now been extended in this edition to include a full study of all objects occurring with h\u0113q\u00eem. The verb h\u0113q\u00eem simply means \u201cto cause to rise or stand.\u201d It does have a variety of uses. The meaning, however, is determined largely by the object. Most of the objects fall into three categories: (1) architectural objects, (2) speech acts, and (3) persons (including children, peoples, seed). When the object is an architectural item, such as an altar, hut, pillar, ruin, stone, or tent, the verb can mean to set it up for the first time or to set it up if it has fallen down or become ruined. When the object is a covenant, oath, promise, vow, or word, the idea is always to carry out or keep that which one has spoken. Under persons and other objects, causing them to stand can involve helping a person stand up, resurrection, or raising up descendants\u2014a variety of uses. A careful study of all objects of h\u0113q\u00eem confirms the claims made here. A covenant entails a commitment or obligation or relationship entered into by solemn speech acts. It is clearly in the category of oath, promise, vow, word. When this type of object is in view, the meaning is always to affirm verbally or carry out that which one has spoken.
\nThe claim I am making for the distinction between k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet and h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet is not something special in relation to the word b\u0115r\u00eet but rather is based on the normal meaning of h\u0113q\u00eem. Consider the following example from Deuteronomy 27:26:<\/p>\n
\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8 \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0\u05be\u05d9\u05b8\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b7\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u05be\u05d4\u05b7\u05d6\u05bc\u05d0\u05b9\u05ea \u05dc\u05b7\u05e2\u05b2\u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd<\/p>\n
\u201cCursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out.\u201d (NIV)<\/p>\n
The NIV has rendered the Hebrew text quite well: a person upholds the Torah by carrying out the obligations or stipulations that are specified in it.
\nAlthough the analysis here is based on my own exhaustive firsthand lexical studies, it is interesting to see that a recent check of the dictionaries or lexica largely supports the conclusions I reached. For the hiphil of \u05e7\u05d5\u05dd, HALOT has eight categories: (1) \u201cerect, put up,\u201d (2) \u201ctake out, keep,\u201d (3) \u201cfulfil,\u201d (4) \u201ctell to get up,\u201d (5) \u201craise, help up,\u201d (6) \u201craise someone, nominate,\u201d (7) \u201craise, erect, obtain,\u201d and (8) \u201cparticular instances.\u201d For the first category, the objects of the verb are \u201cstone,\u201d \u201cstones,\u201d \u201csiege towers,\u201d \u201cruins,\u201d \u201ccourtyard,\u201d \u201ccurtains,\u201d \u201cthrone of David,\u201d \u201caltar,\u201d \u201cstela,\u201d \u201ctent\u201d (or \u201chut\u201d), \u201cpillar,\u201d \u201cpillars,\u201d and so on. The point is that one is causing to stand, that is, erecting or setting up architectural features, buildings, monuments, and so forth. For the second category, the English rendering \u201ctake out\u201d does not adequately render the original German ausf\u00fchren. In this category the verbal objects are usually \u201cword,\u201d \u201cwords,\u201d \u201ccommand,\u201d \u201cvow,\u201d \u201ccovenant,\u201d and \u201coath.\u201d When one causes a \u201cword\u201d to stand, it means to carry out (not take out) or keep the promise or word. It is quite natural to put \u201ccovenant\u201d in this category since \u201ckeeping one\u2019s word\u201d and \u201ckeeping a covenant\u201d are in the same semantic field as \u201coath\u201d and \u201cvow.\u201d The same categories are in the first and second editions of Koehler-Baumgartner.
\nWhen one turns to the older Oxford Lexicon, the classification is almost the same. Instances of the expression h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet (6d) are classified with the notion of keeping a vow (6e) or one\u2019s word (6f). The definition offered, however, is \u201cestablish (make, ratify) covenant.\u201d The English word \u201cestablish\u201d is confusing at this point since \u201cestablish\u201d could mean either to initiate something new or to uphold something already in place. The reason for this confusion is not hard to find. The lexicographers who produced this lexicon were committed to the Documentary Hypothesis and believed that the expressions k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet and h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet were equivalent in meaning and evidence of different sources. Thus they were combining lexicography with literary criticism.
\nThe eighteenth edition of Gesenius, the most recent Hebrew lexicon, and an excellent one at that, separates cases where h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet means \u201cto keep a covenant\u201d from places where they think it means \u201cto initiate a covenant,\u201d based on a prior commitment to source theory. The new Dictionary of Classical Hebrew has the same classification as HALOT, as does the article on \u05e7\u05d5\u05dd in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, in spite of the fondness in the latter work for the \u201cassured results\u201d of source analysis. Conversely, the Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, is influenced by the Documentary Hypothesis in the same way as the authors of the Oxford Lexicon.
\nWhat this brief survey shows is that no one is free from presuppositions, but where lexicography is based only on linguistic science (without interference from source theory), all the lexica support the position taken here. Here is the challenge for those who deny the claim we are making for the distinction between k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet and h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet: How does one explain the distribution in the Hebrew Bible? The majority of the fourteen instances of h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet are found in the flood account and Genesis 17. If one does not explain this on the basis of different sources, what motivates the use of h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet? Surely not stylistic variation, since that does not fit the data at all. To my mind, this challenge is insurmountable.
\nTo view the covenant with Noah as a kind of reinstating and upholding of a covenant or commitment initiated at creation is not equivalent to saying that this is a covenant renewal. Niehaus is correct to call for a clear demarcation between covenants made for the first time and renewal covenants that confirm or ratify covenants initiated previously. It is interesting, however, to note that the distinction in usage between k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet and h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet does not correlate with this perfectly valid difference between covenant initiation and covenant renewals or renewal covenants. Only k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet is employed for covenant renewals since a separate covenant is being made to renew a previously existing covenant. This happens in a number of places (Deut. 29:1; Josh. 24:25; 2 Kings 23:3) where a covenant is made to keep a previously initiated covenant in which the loyalty of one of the partners has begun to fail. So in the covenant with Noah, God \u201caffirms his commitment to creation.\u201d This might be conceived as ratifying a preexisting covenant but not in the sense in which Niehaus and Williamson have understood Dumbrell.
\nIn summary, based on the expression h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet, linguistic usage demonstrates that when God says that he is affirming or establishing his covenant with Noah, he is saying that his commitment initiated previously at creation to care for and preserve, provide for, and rule over all that he has made, including the blessings and ordinances that he gave to Adam and Eve and their family, is now to be with Noah and his descendants. This can be substantiated and further supported by noting the parallels between Noah and Adam and between the covenant terms given to Noah and the ordinances given to Adam and his family.<\/p>\n
PARALLELS WITH ADAM AND THE CREATION NARRATIVES<\/p>\n
In terms of literary techniques, we note that key words, dominant ideas, parallel sequences of actions, and similar themes clearly link the Noah narrative of Genesis 6\u20139 to the creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2.<\/p>\n
THE FLOOD STORY AS A NEW CREATION<\/p>\n
First, the flood story is presented in the narrative as a new creation. Just as God ordered the original heavens and earth out of the chaotic deep or ocean (Gen. 1:2; Heb. t\u0115h\u00f4m), so here God orders the present heavens and earth out of the chaotic floodwaters. Genesis 8:1 records that God caused a wind (Heb. r\u00fba\u1e25) to pass over the waters of the flood covering the entire earth, which reminds one of the creation narrative where the Spirit (Heb. r\u00fba\u1e25) of God hovers over the waters of the original chaotic deep. In the creation narrative, God gathers the waters together, and the dry land emerges; then he commands the earth to bring forth vegetation. After the flood, the dry land emerges as the waters subside and the earth brings forth vegetation, as we see when the dove returns with an olive leaf in her beak. These parallels indicate that after the flood, we have a new beginning like the first beginning.
\nBruce Waltke, following Kenneth Mathews, demonstrates that the flood narrative follows seven progressive phases of renewing creation that are modeled on the progression of the creation week in Genesis 1:<\/p>\n
Phase 1: Precreation. Just as God\u2019s Spirit hovered over the abyss (1:2), God sends a wind over the engulfing waters to renew the earth:
\n1:2: \u201cearth,\u201d \u201cdeep,\u201d \u201cSpirit\u201d (r\u00fba\u1e25), \u201cwaters\u201d
\n8:1b\u20132: \u201cwind\u201d (r\u00fba\u1e25), \u201cearth,\u201d \u201cwaters,\u201d \u201cdeep\u201d<\/p>\n
Phase 2: Second day. Just as God initially divided the waters (1:6\u20137), God regathers the waters, reestablishing the boundaries between sky and earth:
\n1:6\u20138: \u201cwaters,\u201d \u201csky\u201d
\n8:2b: \u201csky\u201d<\/p>\n
Phase 3: Third day. Just as God separated the dry, arable ground from the water to sustain vegetation, so again the dry ground emerges in successive stages:
\n1:9: \u201cwater,\u201d \u201cdry ground,\u201d \u201cappear\u201d
\n8:3\u20135: \u201cwater,\u201d \u201ctops of the mountains,\u201d \u201cappear\u201d<\/p>\n
Phase 4: Fifth day. The sky once again houses the winged creatures, as God first proclaimed it so to be:
\n1:20\u201323: \u201cbirds,\u201d \u201cabove [\u2018al] the ground [NIV, \u2018earth\u2019]\u201d
\n8:6\u201312: \u201craven,\u201d \u201cdove,\u201d \u201cfrom [m\u0113\u2018al] \u2026 the ground\u201d<\/p>\n
Phase 5: Sixth day. The living creatures of sky and land are called out from the ark, as in their first creative calling from the voice of God:
\n1:24\u201325: \u201ccreatures,\u201d \u201clivestock,\u201d \u201ccreatures that move along the ground,\u201d \u201cwild animals\u201d
\n8:17\u201319: \u201ccreature,\u201d \u201cbirds,\u201d \u201canimals,\u201d \u201ccreatures that move along the ground\u201d<\/p>\n
Phase 6. The reappearance of the nuclear family\u2014all of whom bear God\u2019s image, as the heads and sole representatives of the human race\u2014functions as a reprise of the creation of \u2019\u0101d\u0101m, male and female in God\u2019s image:
\n1:26\u201328: \u201cman,\u201d \u201cimage of God,\u201d \u201cmale and female\u201d
\n8:16, 18: Noah and his wife
\n9:6: \u201cman,\u201d \u201cimage of God\u201d<\/p>\n
Phase 7. The heavenly King graciously grants his blessing on humanity, feeds them with the fruit of the restored earth, and, renewing the cultural mandate, restores them as lords over the creation:
\n1:28: \u201cblessed,\u201d \u201cbe fruitful,\u201d \u201cincrease in number,\u201d \u201cfill the earth,\u201d \u201crule \u2026 every living creature\u201d
\n9:1\u20132: \u201cblessed,\u201d \u201cbe fruitful,\u201d \u201cincrease in number,\u201d \u201cfill the earth,\u201d \u201cfear of you \u2026 upon every creature\u201d<\/p>\n
NOAH AS A NEW ADAM<\/p>\n
Second, Noah is presented in the narrative as a new Adam. The blessing and commission given to Noah are the same as those given to Adam (Gen. 9:1 = 1:28a). In this way, the narrator portrays Noah as a new Adam. As we look at the terms of the covenant next, we will see that Noah is recommissioned with all the ordinances given at creation to Adam and Eve and their family.
\nThese literary techniques are important in determining the author\u2019s intent in communication. Williamson minimizes them because he does not see a covenant in Genesis 1\u20133:<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, while the conclusion that Genesis 1\u20133 must portray an antediluvian covenantal relationship is a non sequitur, Dumbrell and others are obviously correct to recognize several clear echoes of the creation narrative in the Noahic covenant. But these echoes suggest merely that God intended, through Noah, to fulfill his original creative intent; they do not presuppose the existence of a covenant between God and inanimate creation or indicate that the material in Genesis 1\u20133 must be understood covenantally.<\/p>\n
What, in fact, is a non sequitur is saying that in the covenant with Noah God is maintaining his original creative \u201cintent\u201d or \u201cpurpose\u201d but denying that the divine-human relationship in Genesis 1\u20133 is covenantal. This non sequitur should be clear from the subtitle of Williamson\u2019s work, which links covenant to divine purpose: \u201cCovenant in God\u2019s Unfolding Purpose.\u201d Furthermore, the flaw lies in exegesis and in an inadequate definition of covenant. The biblical metanarrative constructed by Williamson is one essentially beginning with Noah in which Adam has largely disappeared. This damages the parallels Paul draws between Adam and Christ, as well as diminishes understanding of the covenant with Noah. See, at the end of this chapter, table 5.2 (p. 209), from Warren Austin Gage, which draws out all the parallels between the first creation and the re-creation after the flood.
\nFrom the flood narrative in Genesis 6\u20139, then, both the language used there and the literary techniques indicate a covenant confirmed that had been initiated previously. This covenant entails a divine-human relationship initiated and specified at creation. Such a covenant could not, by definition, involve a ceremony between both parties, since what was involved was the creation of one of the parties in the relationship. That is a possible reason why the normal or standard language \u201cto cut a covenant\u201d is absent in Genesis 1\u20135. Another reason is suggested by John H. Stek. He argues as follows:<\/p>\n
Biblical covenants do not belong to the fundamentals of the God-creature relationship.\u2026 Covenants served rather to offer assurances, bolster faith, and reinforce commitments. In a world not invaded by sin, there would be no need for adding oaths to commitments, no need for \u201ccovenants\u201d\u2014no more than in such a world would oaths be necessary to establish the truth of one\u2019s \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d (see Matt. 5:34\u201337; Jas. 5:12; cf., Heb. 6:16). Biblical covenants were ad hoc emergency measures occasioned by and ministering to human weaknesses\u2014until the kingdom of God has fully come.<\/p>\n
This argument is erroneous and flawed. Biblical covenants are not ad hoc emergency measures. The divine-human relationship is essentially and fundamentally covenantal, because covenant is intrinsic to the being of God himself. Stek may possibly have a point in arguing that, after the fall into sin, oaths added assurances in relationships. Indeed, oaths will be completely unnecessary in the new creation. Yet Craig Bartholomew notes in answer to Stek that marriage is an example of a covenant that is not just a postfall phenomenon. Thus, Genesis 1\u20133 may well be described as a covenant between God and his creation, or at least a commitment on God\u2019s part to his creation, including conduct stipulated for his creatures. Let us remember, too, that covenants include oaths but that the oath is not the covenant itself. Part of the problem may be the way in which Stek and Williamson emphasize the role of oaths in their definition of covenant. Waltke\u2019s definition is simpler: \u201ccovenant (Heb. ber\u00ee\u1e6f) means \u2018a solemn commitment of oneself to undertake an obligation.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n
THE TERMS OF THE COVENANT<\/p>\n
In Genesis 9:1\u20137, God blesses Noah and commissions him as a new Adam, giving him Adam\u2019s mandate, modified somewhat to suit the circumstances of a fallen world. Genesis 9:8\u201317 describes the covenant, its parties, and its sign. The verses in Genesis 9:1\u201317, then, are an expansion on the statement made to Noah in Genesis 6:18. Let us briefly note the blessing and terms set before Noah in verses 1\u20137 of chapter 9.
\nFirst, Noah is told to \u201cbe fruitful,\u201d to \u201cincrease in number,\u201d and to \u201cfill the earth.\u201d As already noted, this is the blessing originally given to Adam at creation. This command is repeated in verse 7 with stylistic variation and so provides brackets or bookends\u2014that is, a framework\u2014for the covenant stipulations and terms.
\nSecond, we read in verse 2 that \u201cthe fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea\u201d (ESV). In Genesis 1, mankind was commanded to rule over the earth and subdue it. God now assists humans in this task in a fallen world by placing the fear of them on the animals, birds, fish, and all creatures that move. Fear of humans may also assist them in catching creatures for consumption and nourishment and so relate to the next stipulation.
\nThird, the animals are given to the human race for food, just as the plants were given at creation for food (Gen. 1:29\u201330). There are two important restrictions to this provision. First, humans are not to eat flesh or meat with its blood in it. Later, instructions given in the law of Moses clarify this stipulation. Several passages describe properly draining the blood from meat when animals are slaughtered before the meat can be eaten (Lev. 3:17; 7:26\u201327; 19:26; Deut. 12:16\u201324; 1 Sam. 14:32\u201334). So while God gave the flesh of birds, fish, wild animals, and all creatures that move to sustain human life, he makes a restriction to maintain and preserve respect among humans for all life. God remains the Lord of life. Second, human life is set apart. This prevents not only cannibalism but also homicide. Even animals that kill humans are held responsible.
\nFourth, human life is special and of priceless value and worth. God specifies two things concerning homicide. First, the human race is one family. We are all related. When a human life is wantonly taken, we are our brother\u2019s keeper. This is the first time in the Hebrew text since the story of Cain and Abel that the word \u201cbrother\u201d is used (cf. Gen. 4:2, 8 [2\u00d7], 9 [2\u00d7], 10, 11, 21). This is frequently obscured in modern translations. Genesis 9:5 can be literally translated, \u201cAnd surely the blood of your lives I will require; from the hand of every creature I will require it and from the hand of humans, that is, from the hand of the man\u2019s brother, I will require the life of humans.\u201d Thus the narrator reminds us of God\u2019s ordinance given originally to the family of Adam that he would require an accounting of life from fellow family members (Gen. 4:9\u201310). God holds the community responsible. He demands an accounting from society. Second, God requires retributive justice. That is, the penalty for taking a life is paying with a life. Thus God holds the community responsible; he demands an accounting from society. It is clear from the text that retribution is in the hands of the government and not left to the anger and vengeance of an individual; nor are blood feuds authorized.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS: GENESIS 9:6
\n(\u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05e4\u05b5\u05da\u05b0 \u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd \/\/ \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05e4\u05b5\u05da\u05b0)
\nThe interpretation of Genesis 9:6 is debated. The translation in the NIV is as follows: \u201cWhoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed.\u201d The expression \u201cby humans\u201d is rendering b\u0101\u2019\u0101d\u0101m, a prepositional phrase consisting of the preposition b\u0115 plus the article and the collective generic noun \u2019\u0101d\u0101m, for humans. The preposition is capable of being construed in two different ways: (1) beth instrumenti\u2014that is, the preposition signals an instrumental use: \u201cWhoever sheds the blood of mankind, by means of mankind shall his blood be shed\u201d; or (2) beth pretii\u2014that is, the preposition signals an economic exchange: \u201cWhoever sheds the blood of mankind, his blood will be shed in exchange for the [murdered\/slain] man.\u201d A thorough treatment is provided in Ernst Jenni, Die hebr\u00e4ischen Pr\u00e4positionen, vol. 1, Die Pr\u00e4position Beth (Stuttgart: Kolhammer, 1992), 154. According to the first interpretation, the text is authorizing the agency of humans in administering the death penalty. This interpretation is popular in many modern English translations. Nonetheless, Jenni, in his magisterial treatment of prepositions in Hebrew, argues that the second interpretation is more probable and also fits the lex talionis, the fundamental principle of retribution in the Torah. If Jenni\u2019s exegesis is followed, it is important to note that the text does affirm elsewhere that human agency is authorized to administer the death penalty. Genesis 9:5 states, \u201cAnd surely I shall demand an accounting of your lifeblood, from the hand of every animal I shall demand it, and from the hand of mankind, that is, from the hand of his fellow man I shall demand an accounting of the life of mankind.\u201d Thus God holds the community responsible; he demands an accounting from society.<\/p>\n
Fifth, God holds the human family\/society responsible to administer retribution when a human life is wantonly taken. This accounting principle is based on the fact that humans, men and women, are made in the image of God. The mention of the image of God is significant. It reasserts the creation standard and the unique status of mankind and explains why human life is specially protected while animal life is not protected to the same extent. Humanity owns the animals and thus can kill them, but humans cannot be killed because they are owned by God\u2014stamped with his seal of ownership. Furthermore, as we shall see, the mention of the divine image is a direct reference to the covenant between God and creation and God and humanity established at creation.
\nTable 5.1 outlines the terms of the covenant with Noah and his family and shows how they correspond to, renew, and repeat the terms of God\u2019s covenant at creation with Adam and Eve and their family.<\/p>\n
Table 5.1 Comparison of the Covenants with Noah and with Creation
\nCovenant with Noah
\nCovenant with Creation
\nGen. 9:1, 7: Be fruitful and increase in number
\nGen. 1:28: Be fruitful \u2026
\nGen. 9:2: Fear of you
\nGen. 1:28: Rule over fish, birds, animals
\nGen. 9:3: Animals given for food
\nGen. 1:29: Plants given for food
\nGen. 9:4: Don\u2019t eat meat with blood
\nGen. 9:5\u20136: Your blood \u2026 his brother\u2019s life
\nSee Gen. 4:8\u201324
\nGen. 9:6: In the image of God
\nGen. 1:27: In his own image<\/p>\n
Genesis 9:8\u201317 now describes the covenant promise, its parties, and its sign.<\/p>\n
THE PARTIES OF THE COVENANT<\/p>\n
In Genesis 6:18, the covenant is made between God and Noah and his family. Here in 9:8\u201317 is an expansion. The partners of the covenant are referred to in six different ways:<\/p>\n
9:9\u201310: \u201cwith you and with your seed after you and with every living being that is with you: birds, animals domesticated, animals wild \u2026\u201d
\n9:12: \u201cbetween me and you and every living being that was with you\u201d
\n9:13: \u201cbetween me and the earth\u201d
\n9:15: \u201cbetween me and you and every living being among all flesh\u201d
\n9:16: \u201cbetween God and every living being among all flesh that is on the earth\u201d
\n9:17: \u201cbetween me and all flesh that is on the earth\u201d<\/p>\n
The statements in Genesis 9:8\u201317 are highly repetitive and monotonous to Western ears. This repetition is like a cathedral bell ringing out again and again, reverberating into the future, that God is committing himself to all his living creatures while the earth lasts. There can be no mistaking the parties identified in the covenant.<\/p>\n
THE PROMISE OF THE COVENANT<\/p>\n
Genesis 9:11 specifies the obligation that God places on himself, the promise he makes to Noah and to the entire human race through him: \u201cNever again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth\u201d (NIV). God reiterates his promise in 9:15 with stylistic variations. We first learn of this divine decision in 8:21:<\/p>\n
And Yahweh smelled the soothing smell, and Yahweh said to himself, \u201cI will never again curse the ground on account of mankind because the inclination of the heart of mankind is evil from his youth.\u201d<\/p>\n
Dumbrell aptly comments,<\/p>\n
The reference to the heart of man in Gen. 8:21 which remains unchanged by the experience of the flood refers initially to the eight who have been saved and thus throws into clear relief the nature of Noah\u2019s righteousness as something extrinsic to him. Since we are virtually being told that a deluge would be an appropriate response by God to the sin of any age, mankind has been preserved by grace alone. Until the end of time the continued existence of the created order will thus be grounded simply in the gracious nature of the divine character.<\/p>\n
The references to the \u201cinclination of the heart of mankind\u201d harks back to the previous instance of these words in Genesis 6:5, where we were informed of the cause of the great judgment: \u201cThe LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time\u201d (NIV). The condition of humanity after the cataclysmic judgment remains the same as it was before; so the judgment has not altered or changed the condition of the human heart. The implication is that God would be completely justified in wiping out every generation of humanity by means of a great judgment. There is only one reason why he does not do so: because of his own grace and mercy toward us. The earth is maintained and preserved in spite of the human situation. Thus the covenant made with Noah creates a firm stage of history where God can work out his plan for rescuing his fallen world.
\nDumbrell draws attention to the fact that four of the eight occurrences of the word \u201ccovenant\u201d in this narrative have the possessive pronoun \u201cmy\u201d attached to it: \u201cI will confirm\/uphold my covenant with you\u201d (Gen. 6:18; 9:9, 11, 15). We must pause for a moment and consider the force of the \u201cmy\u201d involved in the expression \u201cmy covenant\u201d in these texts. We have already noted that covenant, on any understanding of the term, has the notion of commitment or obligation built into it. Is this a covenant by which humans are obligated, or does God bind himself and thus make mankind the beneficiary of the obligation so undertaken? Dumbrell rightly suggests that the \u201cmy\u201d of \u201cmy covenant\u201d indicates that the latter is the correct interpretation. This is a covenant in which God binds himself and obligates himself, and he will maintain the covenant in spite of human failure.
\nIn Genesis 9:18\u201329, we have the strange story of the drunkenness of Noah and his curse on Canaan. Like the first Adam, the second Adam (Noah) is also a gardener who plants a vineyard. Like the first Adam, the second Adam is also a disobedient son whose sin results in shameful nakedness. One of the points this episode is making is that once again the human partner has failed as a covenant keeper and that the fulfillment of the promise will be due solely to the faithfulness and grace of God, who is always a faithful covenant partner. This is the parallel in the Noah story to the fall in Genesis 3.<\/p>\n
THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT<\/p>\n
God gives to Noah and to all his descendants, to the entire human race, a physical sign of the covenant. The sign of the covenant with Noah is a rainbow in the clouds. There is, in fact, no word in Hebrew for \u201crainbow.\u201d The word used here is the ordinary term for an archer\u2019s bow. The only other occurrence in the Old Testament where it refers to a rainbow is Ezekiel 1:28, where a circumlocution such as \u201cthe bow that will be in the clouds\u201d is required to indicate that a rainbow is in view and not an archer\u2019s bow. I like the comment of Warren Austin Gage:<\/p>\n
The bow is a weapon of war, an emblem of wrath. God will now set it in the heavens as a token of grace. The Lord who makes his bow of wrath into a seven-colored arch of beauty to ornament the heavens is the one who will finally command the nations to beat their swords into plowshares and spears into pruninghooks (Mic. 4:3) for the Prince of Peace takes pleasure in mercy (Mic. 7:18) and the Righteous Judge delights in grace.<\/p>\n
The rainbow, then, is a physical picture that God has \u201claid his weapons down,\u201d as indicated in the promise that \u201cnever again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.\u201d It is interesting that the bow set in the clouds is always aimed at or pointed up to the heavens and never downward at us on the earth. Although not every covenant has a sign, this is the only covenant sign that can be given by the divine partner alone. All the other covenant signs are given by the human partner.<\/p>\n
THE PLACE OF THE COVENANT WITH NOAH IN THE LARGER STORY<\/p>\n
The covenant with Noah is in effect today. The promises and future statements made by God employ the emphatic negative \u201cnever again\u201d four times (8:21; 9:11 [2\u00d7]; 9:15). His commitment is throughout everlasting generations (9:12). And in 9:16, he calls the arrangement an everlasting covenant. Indeed, the sign of this covenant, the rainbow, remains as a witness to God to the present time. It is still with us today. There is no evidence anywhere in the completed canon of Scripture that this covenant has been annulled or superseded.
\nEarlier the claim was made that the covenants (plural) are at the heart of the metanarrative plot structure of the Bible. The method that substantiates this claim is twofold: (1) to exegete the main texts for each of the covenants, paying attention to cultural context, linguistic data, literary devices and structures, and the larger story; and (2) to exegete key texts that explicate the relationship between one or more covenants, so that the metanarrative is constructed from Scripture and not from an external metanarrative (i.e., philosophy or worldview). We would claim that classic covenant theology on the one hand and dispensational theology on the other (whether classic or so-called progressive) entail too much in their metanarratives that is external to Scripture. Moreover, the exegesis offered by these classic systems involves categories that do not sufficiently and accurately explain the meaning of the key texts. Someone once shrewdly stated, \u201cShe who marries the spirit of the age will be a widow in the next.\u201d Francis Schaeffer noted well that the theology of Thomas Aquinas is a good example of combining biblical metanarrative and pagan worldview.
\nThe relationship of the covenant with Noah and the covenant with creation will become clearer once the covenant with creation is explained in detail in chapter 6. Nonetheless, some of the later passages treating the covenant with Noah can be considered here.<\/p>\n
ISAIAH 24:3\u20135<\/p>\n
Chapters 13\u201327 of Isaiah constitute a literary unit consisting of judgment oracles against foreign nations, divided into three sets of five. Chapter 24 marks the onset of the third group of five oracles: all nations and peoples of the earth are indicted; this \u201ccity of man\u201d will be destroyed because humans have broken the \u201ceverlasting covenant\u201d by disobeying the instructions and violating its statutes:<\/p>\n
The earth will be completely laid waste
\nand totally plundered.
\nThe LORD has spoken this word.<\/p>\n
The earth dries up and withers,
\nthe world languishes and withers,
\nthe heavens languish with the earth.
\nThe earth is defiled by its people;
\nthey have disobeyed the laws,
\nviolated the statutes
\nand broken the everlasting covenant. (Isa. 24:3\u20135 NIV)<\/p>\n
Since the reference is to all humans breaking the \u201ceverlasting covenant,\u201d the Mosaic covenant given to Israel at Sinai is hardly in view. The most probable referent is the covenant made with Noah, which in reality reestablished and upheld the covenant with creation in Genesis 1, reaffirming the commitment of the Creator to his creation and the responsibilities placed on humans at that time. Isaiah\u2019s oracle predicts complete desolation on the earth because its people have violated the instructions and terms of the Noahic covenant.<\/p>\n
ISAIAH 54:9\u201310<\/p>\n
\u201cTo me this is like the days of Noah,
\nwhen I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth.
\nSo now I have sworn not to be angry with you,
\nnever to rebuke you again.
\nThough the mountains be shaken
\nand the hills be removed,
\nyet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken
\nnor my covenant of peace be removed,\u201d
\nsays the LORD, who has compassion on you. (Isa. 54:9\u201310 NIV)<\/p>\n
This passage is extremely important for letting the biblical text define in its own terms the relationships between the various covenants; it will be considered at length later. Nonetheless, Isaiah compares here the new covenant with the covenant with Noah. What is precisely similar between both covenants is the undeterred, unswerving commitment of Yahweh to carry out the promises enshrined in them. Just as he promised never again to cover the entire earth with floodwaters as a judgment, so he will never be angry with his people and withdraw his loyal love in the covenant of peace.<\/p>\n
JEREMIAH 33:19\u201326<\/p>\n
In a context where Jeremiah is communicating divine promises to restore the fortunes of Judah and Israel, he also speaks of the fulfillment of the promises of Yahweh to David:<\/p>\n
The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: \u201cThis is what the LORD says: \u2018If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time, then my covenant with David my servant\u2014and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me\u2014can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne. I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars in the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.\u2019 \u201d
\nThe word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: \u201cHave you not noticed that these people are saying, \u2018The LORD has rejected the two kingdoms he chose\u2019? So they despise my people and no longer regard them as a nation. This is what the LORD says: \u2018If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.\u2019 \u201d (Jer. 33:19\u201326 NIV)<\/p>\n
The divine oracle affirms that the covenant with David is unbreakable, just as the covenant with the day and the covenant with the night is unbreakable. What is being referred to in the expression \u201cmy covenant with the day and my covenant with the night\u201d? Scholars debate whether these words refer to the covenant with Noah or to what is being called here the covenant with creation (in Genesis 1). Since I have argued that the covenant with Noah \u201cupholds\u201d the covenant with creation in Genesis 1, either way the point is the same, and the debate can be evaluated later.<\/p>\n
SUMMARY<\/p>\n
Later references to the covenant with Noah pick up on features that are clearly expressed within the text of Genesis 6\u20139. Two of the texts, Isaiah 54 and Jeremiah 33, note the emphatic \u201cnever again\u201d element, in which God promises never again to employ floodwaters in judgment to destroy all flesh. Nonetheless, stipulations and terms are given to both animals and humans. God demands an accounting. Isaiah 54 picks up on the importance of human responsibility.
\nTheologians have attempted to classify and describe covenants as either conditional or unconditional. That is, are the commitments bilateral or unilateral, and is their fulfillment conditioned (in the case of a divine-human relationship) on the obedience of the human party? These categories are not helpful or fruitful if one desires to accurately represent the biblical text. The covenant with Noah entails divine promises whose fulfillment cannot be thwarted, yet it also calls the community of animals and humans to answer for their actions and stewardship.
\nThe covenant with Noah \u201cupholds\u201d the divine image. This is to be discussed in the next chapter. As we shall see, it entails a covenant relationship between God and humans on the one hand and between humans and creation on the other. The human community must express obedient sonship in faithful, loyal love to the creator God and rule over the creation with humble servanthood and responsible stewardship. Worship is a priority in achieving these purposes. The narratives of Genesis 6\u20138 begin by depicting Noah as an obedient son and steward of animal life on the earth. He also offers significant worship in a sacrifice that appeases the anger of the Lord and turns away further judgment. Nonetheless, like the first Adam, he ends up as a disobedient son whose nakedness reveals shame rather than full integrity.
\nAs Bruce Waltke aptly notes, the covenant with Noah is instructive because it shows that being given a fresh start and a clean slate is not a sufficient remedy for the human plight:<\/p>\n
The sin of Noah sheds light on the human plight. At one time or another, most people become disgusted with what is going on in the world\u2014the intractable problems among people: hatred, prejudice, and greed that lead to cruelty and war. The problems are insoluble because hatred and prejudice are burdens of our depraved nature and our history. Because we cannot change or forget, our nature and memory doom us. In response, the idealistic ones among us ask: \u201cWhat if we started over? What if we expunged history and wiped the slate clear?\u201d The account of Noah puts the lie to that solution.<\/p>\n
The unmerited favor and kindness of God in preserving his world in the covenant with Noah creates a firm stage of history where God can work out his plan for rescuing his fallen world. It also points ahead to the coming deliverance in Jesus Christ. Williamson\u2019s summary of the significance of the covenant with Noah is the same as my view presented here:<\/p>\n
The theological significance of the Noahic covenant is at least twofold. First of all, it is the basis for our present confidence in God as sustainer. It is the Noahic covenant that gives us the assurance that God will sustain the creation order, despite the chaos that continually threatens to engulf it.\u2026 Secondly, given that the Noahic covenant provides the biblical-theological framework within which all subsequent divine-human covenants operate, its universal scope is undoubtedly significant. As suggested by the allusions to Genesis 1 noted above, the universal scope of this covenant implies that the blessing for which humanity had been created and the creation had now been preserved will ultimately encompass not just one people or nation, but rather the whole earth. Accordingly, while the patriarchal narratives reflect an obvious narrowing in focus, the universal emphasis of Genesis 1\u201311 is not lost entirely in the subsequent chapters of Genesis and beyond.<\/p>\n
Warren Austin Gage helpfully draws the parallels between Adam and Noah together in a table (see table 5.2).<\/p>\n
Table 5.2 The History of the World: The Macrocosm
\nGenesis 1
\nThe World That Was
\nGenesis 7
\nCreation
\nAdam
\nFall
\nConflict of Seed
\nJudgment
\n1. Waters of chaos cover the earth, Gen. 1:1\u20132
\n1. Man commissioned in God\u2019s image, Gen. 1:26
\n1. Adam sins in a garden, Gen. 3:2\u20136
\n1. Cain condemned to wander, founds wicked city of Enoch, Gen. 4:13\u201317
\n1. Days of Noah are upon the earth, Gen. 6:13
\n2. Spirit hovers over face of the waters, Gen. 1:2
\n2. Man commanded to fill the earth, Gen. 1:28
\n2. Adam partakes in fruit of the tree of knowledge, Gen. 3:6
\n2. Seth, with son Enosh, begins to call on name of the Lord, Gen. 4:26
\n2. God brings cloud on earth to destroy the wicked with a flood, Gen. 7:23
\n3. Dry land emerges, vegetation brought forth, Gen. 1:9\u201312
\n3. God brings animals to Adam for naming, Gen. 2:19
\n3. Adam shamefully naked, Gen. 3:7
\n3. Daughters of men taken as wives by sons of God, Gen. 6:2
\n3. Old heavens and earth pass away before the present heavens and earth, 2 Pet. 3:5\u20137
\n4. Old world finished, God rests, Gen. 2:2
\n4. Adam\u2019s nakedness covered by God, Gen. 3:21
\n5. Adam\u2019s sin brings curse upon seed, Gen. 3:15
\nGenesis 8
\nThe World That Now Is
\nRevelation 22
\nThe New Creation
\nNoah, the New Adam
\nThe Fall Renewed
\nSeed Conflict Renewed
\nThe New Judgment
\n1. Waters of Noah cover the earth, Gen. 7:18\u201319
\n1. Man recommissioned in God\u2019s image, Gen. 9:6
\n1. Noah sins in a vineyard, Gen. 9:20\u201321
\n1. Noah\u2019s sons, to avoid wandering, found wicked city of Babel, Gen. 11:4
\n1. \u201cDays of Noah\u201d again upon the earth, Matt. 24:37\u201339
\n2. Dove \u201chovers\u201d over face of the waters, Gen. 8:9
\n2. Man commanded to fill the earth again, Gen. 9:7
\n2. Noah partakes of fruit of vine, Gen. 9:21
\n2. Shem\u2019s descendant Abram begins to call on name of the Lord, Gen. 12:8
\n2. God comes in clouds to destroy the wicked with a fire, Matt. 24:30; cf. 2 Pet. 3:7
\n3. Olive leaf betokens emergence of dry land, Gen. 8:11
\n3. God brings animals to Noah for delivering, Gen. 7:15
\n3. Noah shamefully naked, Gen. 9:21
\n3. The harlot Babel seduces the sons of Zion throughout the ages, cf. Isa. 47:1\u201315; Dan. 1:1; Rev. 17\u201318
\n3. Present heavens and earth pass away before the new heavens and earth, 2 Pet. 3:13
\n4. Present world finished; God receives sacrifice of rest, Gen. 8:21
\n4. Noah\u2019s nakedness covered by sons, Gen. 9:23
\n5. Noah\u2019s sin brings curse upon seed, Gen. 9:25<\/p>\n
6<\/p>\n
THE COVENANT WITH CREATION IN GENESIS 1\u20133<\/p>\n
Whether or not a covenant is entailed in Genesis 1\u20133 continues to be debated. In his work Sealed with an Oath, for example, Paul Williamson argues that a divine-human covenant is introduced for the first time in the flood narrative in Genesis 6:18. He notes arguments for a covenant in Genesis 1\u20133 by William Dumbrell and O. Palmer Robertson. According to Williamson, Dumbrell relies on the interpretation of the pronoun in the phrase \u201cmy covenant\u201d (Gen. 6:18; 9:9, 11, 15), the difference in meaning between \u201ccut a covenant\u201d (k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet) and \u201cuphold a covenant\u201d (h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet), and a divine commitment to achieve the purpose of creation observed in Genesis 1:1\u20132:4a. Robertson\u2019s main proof is based upon Jeremiah 33:20\u201326, a passage that can be considered after exegesis of Genesis 1\u20133. Williamson finds these arguments wanting. Before analyzing Genesis 1\u20133, we can briefly make a few points in response to scholars who argue against a covenant in the creation narrative.
\nFirst, Williamson states what for many scholars is apparently a strong argument: \u201cPrior to Genesis 6:18 there is not even a hint of any covenant being established\u2014at least between God and humans.\u201d The absence of the Hebrew word for \u201ccovenant\u201d in Genesis 1\u20135, however, cannot constitute an argument to demonstrate the absence of any covenant before Genesis 6:18. It is fully possible in biblical literature to speak of a covenant without actually using the word. To illustrate this important principle of interpretation, consider, for example, Richard Schultz\u2019s study of \u201cthe king in the book of Isaiah.\u201d Naturally, the first step in his investigation is to carefully analyze all contexts in which the Hebrew root mlk\u2014the lexical basis of all adjectives, nouns, and verbs in Hebrew having to do with royal rule\u2014occur in Isaiah. This is only, however, a first step. Wisely, Schultz looks for other ways in which the notion of kingship is communicated. A passage in Isaiah that fairly shouts the kingship of Yahweh without actually employing any word based upon the root mlk is 66:1:<\/p>\n
This is what the LORD says:<\/p>\n
\u201cHeaven is my throne,
\nand the earth is my footstool.
\nWhere is the house you will build for me?
\nWhere will my resting place be?\u201d (NIV)<\/p>\n
As one might expect, this verse forms an important part of Schultz\u2019s treatment of kingship in Isaiah. And just as one can speak of kingship without the word \u201cking,\u201d so one can speak of covenant without using that word. Later we will see that the phrase, \u201cI will be their God, and they will be my people\u201d is a frequent method of referring to a divine-human covenant. Furthermore, the word Torah frequently implies covenant as its reflex just as faith implies repentance as its reflex in the New Testament.
\nThese are just a couple of examples. In fact, people who claim that the absence of the word means there is no covenant in Genesis 1\u20133 are probably unaware of the large number of expressions used both within the Old Testament and in the cultures that surrounded Israel for referring to covenants without actually using the word. These are detailed and listed exhaustively by Paul Kalluveettil in his work Declaration and Covenant. But what is irrefutable is that all students of the Bible acknowledge that God made a covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7, though the word \u201ccovenant\u201d is nowhere used in that narrative. The absence of the word for \u201ccovenant\u201d (b\u0115r\u00eet) in Genesis 1\u20133, then, is no argument at all against the notion that a divine-human covenant is established at creation, if exegesis can demonstrate that the idea is there.
\nIt is legitimate to ask, as Dumbrell indeed does, why the expression \u201cto cut a covenant\u201d does not occur in Genesis 1\u20133. Probably the answer is simply that the ceremony involving cutting an animal in half to symbolize a self-imprecatory oath would have been anachronistic and unsuitable as a communicative instrument for the covenant at creation established between God and humans on the one hand and humans and the creation on the other. Exegesis of Genesis 1:26\u201328 will substantiate this.
\nSecond, some have argued (as, for example, John Stek) that covenants are necessary only after the fall in Genesis 3. Yet marriage is a covenant relationship that existed prior to the fall, as Craig Bartholomew has observed, and so this, too, is no argument against a divine-human covenant in Genesis 1.
\nThird, although Dumbrell\u2019s description of the difference in meaning between \u201ccut a covenant\u201d (k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet) and \u201cuphold a covenant\u201d (h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet) must be adjusted and his interpretation of some contexts modified, the difference is nonetheless real and substantiated by exhaustive examination of all the data. Williamson relied on Moshe Weinfeld and did not analyze all the data for himself. From the flood narrative we have seen that the language employed there does indeed point to the affirming of a covenant initiated previously between God and humans as well as between humans and creation in which Noah appears as a new Adam. Williamson\u2019s argument that there is no covenant in Genesis 1\u20133 results in an emasculated biblical metanarrative that essentially begins with Noah and greatly endangers the parallels drawn by Paul between Adam and Christ from the larger story of Scripture.
\nFourth, the way in which one defines covenant can prejudice one\u2019s view on the question of a covenant at creation. Williamson says,<\/p>\n
For Reformed theologians, apparently, any relationship involving God must be covenantal in nature\u2014whether his relationship with creation in general or his relation with human beings in particular. Covenant is seen as framing or establishing any such relationship. This, however, is not in fact what the biblical text suggests. Rather than establishing or framing such a divine-human relationship, a covenant seals or formalizes it.<\/p>\n
While no attempt is made here to provide support for classic covenantal theology or classic\/progressive dispensational treatments of covenants, the statement by Williamson seems confused. The covenant with Noah, which Williamson has just expounded as universal in scope, should be sufficient to show that God\u2019s relationship to all creatures and humans is covenantal. This is so, as we will see, because covenant is essential to the being of God. Nonetheless, Williamson employs an ill-defined notion of covenant against those who hold that there is a covenant at creation.
\nJeffrey J. Niehaus also finds the treatment of Williamson problematic at this point, and his evaluation needs to be cited in full:<\/p>\n
Williamson further uses the understanding that a covenant ratifies or seals an existing relationship as an argument against a creation covenant, and in doing so he notes the background of relationship in the divine-human covenants:<\/p>\n
Leaving aside creation for a moment, just consider the ensuing biblical examples of divine-human relationships that are subsequently sealed by means of a covenant: God was clearly in relationship with Abraham from Genesis 12, yet it is not until Genesis 15 that God formalizes that relationship by means of a covenant. Similarly, God was in relationship with Israel before the covenant he formally established with them on Mount Sinai. Likewise, God was in relationship with David long before he sealed that relationship by covenant in 2 Samuel 7. And a straightforward reading of Genesis 6 suggests that God was in relationship with Noah before sealing that relationship by covenant immediately after the Flood. Thus the question is not whether or not a relationship existed between God and creation or between God and humanity prior to the fall. Undoubtedly, such a relationship existed. However, to insist on calling this relationship a \u201ccovenant relationship\u201d is another matter entirely. There is no indisputable evidence in the text for doing so. This is hardly surprising if, as suggested above, a covenant was primarily a means of sealing or formalizing such a relationship; it did not establish it.<\/p>\n
The question is not, however, whether a relationship existed between God and Abraham, God and Israel, God and David, and God and Noah, before God entered into covenants with them. The question is what sort of relationship existed in each case. The answer is: pre-covenantal (and not a covenantal) relationship. That relationship, which existed before the covenant was actually \u201ccut\u201d or made, would become the stuff of the historical prologue of the future covenant. So, Yahweh commanded Abram to leave his homeland (Gen 12:1), and later, when the covenant was made (Genesis 15), identified himself as Yahweh who brought him up out of Ur of the Chaldeans (Gen 15:7). Likewise, Yahweh delivered Israel out of Egypt, and then, when he began to give them the laws of the covenant he was now making with them, identified himself as \u201cYahweh, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery\u201d (Exod 20:2). The pattern is exactly what we typically see in the late second millennium BC international treaties.<\/p>\n
Covenants in both the biblical texts and the ancient Near Eastern culture vary widely, and a definition that is narrower than the evidence permits prejudges the situation in Genesis 1\u20133, as is illustrated by the skewed definition of Williamson. It is interesting to note that Williamson speaks of \u201cGod\u2019s universal purpose\u201d in creation and that \u201cGod intended, through Noah, to fulfill his original creative intent.\u201d These are, in essence, backdoor references to the (covenantal) commitment of the Creator to his creation, which Williamson cannot escape.
\nIn the end, exegesis must show\u2014an exegesis not only based on the cultural and linguistic data but also attuned to literary structures and techniques and a canonical metanarrative\u2014whether or not there is a covenant in Genesis 1. It may be that Dumbrell\u2019s exegesis is inadequate and so not persuasive for Williamson, but Williamson provides no exegesis of Genesis 1\u20133 whatsoever.<\/p>\n
EXEGESIS OF GENESIS 1\u20133<\/p>\n
A covenant initiated at creation is clearly indicated by the text of Genesis 1:26\u201328, as well as by elements in 2:4\u20133:24.
\nBefore beginning exegesis of these two texts, let us note an argument that is difficult to refute. In Genesis 1:1\u20132:3, the first creation narrative, the name for God is always \u0114l\u014dh\u00eem. In 2:4\u20133:24, the second creation narrative, the name for God is always the double name Yahweh \u0114l\u014dh\u00eem except when Satan is speaking\u2014and then only \u0114l\u014dh\u00eem. Later we shall see that both narratives are written by one author and that this is a normal technique in Hebrew literature where the author seeks to create a \u201cfull-orbed idea.\u201d Dividing the text into sources and editors is an erroneous method arising in the Enlightenment period, when scholars imposed modern and Western methods of literary analysis on ancient and Eastern texts. The double name Yahweh \u0114l\u014dh\u00eem occurs twenty times in Genesis 2:4\u20133:24 and only in seventeen instances in the rest of the entire Old Testament. So the double name Yahweh \u0114l\u014dh\u00eem is being employed by the author for a particular reason. Since Yahweh emphasizes God in covenant relationship to his people, it should be obvious that the author\u2019s purpose is to show that the transcendent Creator of the first account is also the God in covenant relationship with his people in the second account. These are the twin pillars of all theology in the Old Testament. If there is no covenant at creation, how can one explain the special use of the double name in Genesis 2:4\u20133:24?
\nAlthough centuries of analysis and debate have focused on interpretation of the divine image in Genesis 1:26\u201328, a significant contribution can yet be made to our understanding of this text by combining biblical theology on the one hand and recent insights into the cultural setting and language of the text on the other. The biblical-theological framework of Genesis 1:26\u201328 has been provided first from a consideration of the language used in the flood narratives, so now an exegesis of the text itself with close attention to its cultural setting and linguistic and literary features is a desideratum.<\/p>\n
THE DIVINE IMAGE IN GENESIS 1:26\u201328<\/p>\n
HUMANS ARE THE CROWN OF CREATION<\/p>\n
The first creation narrative, Genesis 1:1\u20132:3, is divided according to the chronological structure of a week into seven paragraphs. Genesis 1:26\u201328 describes the creation of humans in a paragraph delimited by 1:24\u201331, which is devoted to the events of day six. The following considerations may appear to belabor the point unnecessarily, but 1:26\u201328 is intended to be viewed as the climax and crown of God\u2019s creative work.
\n1. The clauses describing the creation of humans are marked by a notable change in style. To this point the creation has been achieved by a series of divine words always introduced by third-person singular verbs. Surely the first-person plural \u201clet us\u201d catches the attention of the reader and signals something significant. The interpretation of the first-person plural will be discussed later, but whatever the interpretation, the main point is that something special is happening in this section.
\n2. The paragraph in Genesis 1:24\u201331 has a different pattern from the other paragraphs. Table 6.1 shows that the paragraphs in this creation narrative follow a standard sequence of (1) announcement, (2) command, (3) action, (4) evaluation or report, and (5) temporal framework, with minor variations. The pattern of events in paragraph six deviates from the norm considerably and thus informs the reader that the topic is important.<\/p>\n
Table 6.1 Sequence of Day Six versus the Other Days of Creation
\nDay One (1:3\u20135)
\nAnnouncement
\nCommand
\nReport
\nEvaluation
\nAction described
\nNaming
\nTemporal framework<\/p>\n
Day Two (1:6\u20138)
\nAnnouncement
\nCommand
\nAction described
\nReport
\nNaming
\nTemporal framework<\/p>\n
Day Three (1:9\u201313)
\nAnnouncement
\nCommand
\nReport
\nNaming
\nEvaluation
\nAnnouncement
\nCommand
\nReport
\nAction described
\nEvaluation
\nTemporal framework<\/p>\n
Day Four (1:14\u201319)
\nAnnouncement
\nCommand and purpose
\nReport
\nAction and purpose
\nEvaluation
\nTemporal framework<\/p>\n
Day Five (1:20\u201323)
\nAnnouncement
\nCommand
\nAction described
\nEvaluation
\nBlessing
\nTemporal framework<\/p>\n
Day Six (1:24\u201331)
\nAnnouncement
\nCommand
\nReport
\nAction described
\nEvaluation
\nAnnouncement
\nDecision and purpose
\nAction and purpose
\nBlessing and purpose
\nFood provision
\nReport
\nTemporal framework<\/p>\n
Day Seven (2:1\u20133)
\nCompletion statement
\nDivine rest
\nBlessing of seventh day
\nConsecration of seventh day
\nNo temporal framework<\/p>\n
3. In terms of the larger literary structure, the work of creation is accomplished in six days. In such a sequence, day six is clearly the climax of this creation work.
\n4. Figure 6.1 concisely indicates the number of words per paragraph in the creation narrative. The number of words in paragraph six is far above the norm\u2014another indication of the significance of the creation of humans.<\/p>\n
Figure 6.1 Words Describing Each Day of Creation<\/p>\n
5. Genesis 2:4\u20133:24, the so-called second account of creation, does not, in fact, prove that an editor patched together different sources but rather corresponds well to the normal pattern of Hebrew narrative when an author seeks to consider a topic in a resumptive manner. We cannot critique ancient, Eastern texts using principles of literary analysis based on modern, Western literature. Instead, the approach in ancient Hebrew literature is to take up a topic and develop it from a particular perspective and then to stop and take up the same theme again from another point of view. The effect of repetition\u2014that is, discussion of the same topic from different points of view\u2014is to present well-rounded ideas, 3-D ideas, so to speak. The first creation story (1:1\u20132:3) gives a global perspective. The second creation story (2:4\u20133:24) begins by focusing on the creation of man. Thus, the first focuses on the origin of the universe, the second on humanity. Therefore, 2:4\u20133:24 is, in fact, devoted to further developing the topics broached in the sixth paragraph of the first account and so adds to the significance of the creation of mankind.
\n6. The clause marking the temporal framework normally has the pattern \u201cand it was evening and it was morning, a ___th day.\u201d Thus, it is striking that, for paragraph six, the definite article is used: \u201cthe sixth day.\u201d The function of the article here has yet to be explained satisfactorily, but it adds to the significance of the creation of humans.
\n7. The use of b\u0101ra\u2019, the verb \u201cto create\u201d in Hebrew, is interesting. This verb always and only has God as subject. It occurs seven times in the creation narrative: in 1:1, which some commentators see as the creation of matter ex nihilo; in 1:21, at the creation of organic life; in 1:27 (3\u00d7), at the creation of human life; and in 2:3\u20134 (2\u00d7), the summary. In between, other synonyms are used. Thus this verb seems to mark important points in the creation work.
\n8. In 1:26, \u2019\u0101d\u0101m, a generic term for mankind as both male and female, is created as the image of God. This is another indication of humans as the crown of God\u2019s creation.
\n9. Humans exercise royal rule. This requires some discussion but points to the significance of mankind within creation as a whole.
\n10. Psalm 8, attributed to David, in verses 5\u20138 constitutes a word-by-word commentary and meditation on Genesis 1:26\u201328. The psalmist understands that mankind is at the apex of God\u2019s creation, however one understands the disputed verse 5.
\nIn sum, a large number of literary techniques point to the significance of the creation of humans. The interpretation of the creation of man as the divine image will unfold this significance.<\/p>\n
THE IMAGE OF GOD<\/p>\n
Explanations of the divine image during the last two thousand years have been numerous and varied. Since the amount of ink spilled on the subject is enormous, careful exegesis is necessary, as well as humility in interpretation. An extremely brief survey of the different views follows, adapted from the commentary by Gordon Wenham. The present writer, however, is ultimately responsible for the evaluation of each view.<\/p>\n
Survey of Views<\/p>\n
1. The biblical terms \u201cimage\u201d and \u201clikeness\u201d are distinct aspects of man\u2019s nature (from Irenaeus, ca. AD 180, onward). The \u201cimage\u201d denotes the natural qualities in man (personality, reason, etc.) that make him resemble God, while the \u201clikeness\u201d refers to the supernatural (i.e., ethical) graces that make the redeemed godlike. Lexical analysis of \u201cimage\u201d and \u201clikeness\u201d according to the cultural setting of the biblical text shows that this distinction is foreign to Genesis.
\n2. The divine image refers to the mental and spiritual qualities that man shares with his Creator. The fact that commentators cannot agree in identifying these qualities makes this approach suspect.
\n3. The image consists of a physical resemblance. In favor of this view, the Hebrew term \u1e63elem does refer to a physical image or statue in a majority of its occurrences. Moreover, in Genesis 5:3, Adam is described as fathering Seth \u201cafter his image,\u201d which most naturally refers to physical appearance. The Old Testament, however, emphasizes the incorporeality and invisibility of God (Deut. 4:12). Also, if the terminology is related to Egyptian and Mesopotamian thinking, the image of God there refers to the function of the king and not to his appearance. Furthermore, the Old Testament does not sharply distinguish the material and spiritual realms in the way that we sometimes do. The image of God must characterize the whole man, not simply his mind or spirit on the one hand or his body on the other. Finally, the image of God is what separates man from the animals, and yet the practice of sacrifice must have made the ancient people of Israel well aware of the physiological similarities between humans and animals.
\n4. The divine image makes man God\u2019s representative on earth. Careful exegesis below indicates that the ruling function is a result of being made in the divine image and is not the image itself.
\n5. The image is a capacity to relate to God. The divine image means that God can enter into personal relationships with man, speak to him, and make covenants with him. Karl Barth propounded this view, and Claus Westermann further argued that the \u201cimage of God\u201d is not so much part of the human constitution as it is a description of the process of creation that made man different. Although this view has much to commend it, in that relationship to God is fundamental to the image of God, nonetheless, passages like Genesis 5:3 and Exodus 25:40 suggest that the phrase \u201cin the image\u201d describes the product of creation rather than the process.<\/p>\n
Critique of the Traditional View<\/p>\n
The majority of Christians have followed the second view, believing that the image refers to mental and spiritual qualities that humans share with the creator God. Since God is invisible (John 4:24), man resembles God not physically but rather in terms of morality, personality, reason, and spirituality. This interpretation did not originate with the Christian church but can be traced to Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher living from about 30 BC to AD 45 (On the Creation \u00a769).
\nThe traditional view is inadequate because it is not the result of grammatical and historical interpretation of the text. Rather, it is based largely on a kind of reasoning from systematic theology. It does not come to grips with the fact that \u201cimage\u201d normally refers to a physical statue and cannot be exegetically validated as the author\u2019s intended meaning or the first audience\u2019s natural understanding of the text in terms of the ancient Near Eastern cultural and linguistic setting.<\/p>\n
Exegesis of Genesis 1:26\u201328<\/p>\n
An attempt to determine the meaning of this text according to the historical setting and linguistic usage of the time in which it was written begins with the literary structure, grammatical and lexical issues, and ancient Near Eastern background.<\/p>\n
THE STRUCTURE OF GENESIS 1:24\u201331. As already noted, the paragraph in the creation narrative devoted to describing events of the sixth day is structured differently from the other paragraphs. The following outline builds upon the work of P. E. Dion as best representing the structure in the text.<\/p>\n
The Sixth Day\u2014Genesis 1:24\u201331<\/p>\n
A. Creation of the Animals
\n1:24\u201325
\n1. Command for creation of animals
\n1:24a
\n2. Confirmation of command
\n1:24b
\n3. Execution of creation of animals
\n1:25a
\n4. Evaluation of execution
\n1:25b
\nB. Creation of Mankind
\n1:26\u201331
\n1. Decision for creation of man
\n1:26
\na. To make man
\n1:26a
\nb. To give him a certain role
\n1:26b
\n2. Execution of creation of man
\n1:27\u201328
\na. Creation of man
\n1:27
\nb. Proclamation of his role
\n1:28
\n3. Food regulations
\n1:29\u201330
\na. For man
\n1:29
\nb. For animals
\n1:30
\nC. Conclusion
\n1:31
\n1. Evaluation
\n1:31a
\n2. Day notation
\n1:31b<\/p>\n
For the creation of humans, instead of the normal pattern giving a command and indicating a result, there is first a divine decision and then a divine execution of that decision. Note that the decision has two parts and that the execution of the decision has the same two corresponding parts. This observation leads us to consider two separate grammatical issues before looking at the ancient Near Eastern setting.<\/p>\n
KEY GRAMMATICAL ISSUES IN GENESIS 1:26\u201328. The sequence of verbs in verse 26 is inadequately represented in most modern translations. The first verb in the divine speech is \u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d4. Randall Garr\u2019s analysis is both adequate and complete:<\/p>\n
Technically, this form is ambiguous; the imperfect and cohortative of final weak roots are usually not distinguished in the morphology but are expressed by the self-same ending -\u05b6\u05d4. The interpretation of \u05e0\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4, however, is clear enough. Not only does the clause-initial position of the verb suggest the cohortative reading, but a comparison with the jussives that engaged other acts of creation reinforces its desiderative sense.<\/p>\n
The first verb, then, is a command form and is correctly rendered \u201clet us make\u201d in all the English versions. The second verb in the sequence is \u05d5\u05b0\u05d9\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05d5\u05bc. This, too, could be construed as either imperfect or jussive. What is important, however, is that grammarians of Hebrew agree that this particular sequence (cohortative followed by imperfect) marks purpose or result. The correct translation, therefore, is \u201cLet us make man \u2026 so that they may rule \u2026\u201d Here many modern versions fail to represent properly the grammar of the Hebrew text. An important exegetical point is at stake: the ruling is not the essence of the divine image but rather a result of being made as the divine image.
\nAnother grammatical issue concerns the clause patterns in verse 27. The verse contains three clauses or sentences: (1) \u201cand God created man in his image\u201d; (2) \u201cin the image of God he created him\u201d; (3) \u201cmale and female he created them.\u201d The first sentence has a normal clause pattern: verb-subject-object. The conjunction waw is used, and the verb is a waw-consecutive imperfect\u2014all standard in Hebrew narrative. The remaining two sentences have a different clause pattern: modifier-verb-object. Both are also asyndetic, that is, not connected by the conjunction waw; both verbs are perfects. This is a clear macrosyntactical signal with pragmatic significance: these clauses do not advance the narrative but digress and pause to comment on the first clause in the verse. These two short sentences are grammatically marked as circumstantial information or parenthetical remarks. The author is digressing from the narrative in order to stress two particular aspects or features of the creation of man. In other words, the last two clauses are footnotes dealing with the first clause or sentence:<\/p>\n
a. human sexuality is binary and entails two distinct genders: male and female
\nb. humankind resembles God in some way<\/p>\n
By pausing to stress these two things, the author prepares us for the two commands given to man in the very next verse:<\/p>\n
a. be fruitful (three imperatives in Hebrew)
\nb. rule over the other creatures (two imperatives in Hebrew)<\/p>\n
The actual literary presentation is chiastic in structure: The word chiasm comes from the letter in the Greek alphabet known as chi (\u03c7), which is shaped like an X. The top half of the letter has a mirror image in the bottom half. If, for example, a literary piece has four distinct units and the first matches the last while the second matches the third, the result is a mirror image, a chiasm. The following diagram illustrates the chiastic structure:<\/p>\n
God created mankind in his image according to his likeness:
\na in the image of God he created him
\nb male and female he created them
\nb\u2032 be fruitful and increase in number
\nand fill the earth
\na\u2032 and subdue it
\nand rule over the fish\/birds\/animals<\/p>\n
Thus, binary sexuality, or duality of gender, is the basis for being fruitful, while the divine image is correlated with the command to rule as God\u2019s viceroy. These observations from the discourse grammar of the narrative are crucial. They are decisive in showing that the divine image is not to be explained by or located in terms of duality of gender in humanity.<\/p>\n
THE CLAUSE \u201cLET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE, ACCORDING TO OUR LIKENESS\u201d<\/p>\n
We are now in a position to explain the meaning of the clause in Genesis 1:26a, \u201cLet us make man in our image, according to our likeness.\u201d The exegetical microscope will be focused on (1) the ancient Near Eastern background to the text, (2) the meaning of the nouns \u201cimage\u201d and \u201clikeness,\u201d (3) the exact force of the prepositions \u201cin\u201d and \u201caccording to,\u201d and (4) the referent of the first-person plural pronoun in \u201clet us,\u201d in that order.<\/p>\n
THE ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN BACKGROUND<\/p>\n
In biblical revelation, God communicates in the culture and language of the people. Yet in employing language people understand, he also fills the terms with new meaning. The key to correct interpretation, therefore, is to compare and contrast the biblical text and the data from the contemporary cultures. One must notice not only the similarities between the Bible and the ancient Near Eastern background but also the differences, which show the new meaning being revealed by God.
\nThis can be illustrated by examining the tabernacle (Exodus 25\u201340). If we consider the plan of the tabernacle or the plan of Solomon\u2019s temple, there is nothing unusual or unique. Its overall plan was just like any other temple in the ancient Near East. They all had an outer courtyard, an altar of sacrifice, and a central building divided into a \u201choly place\u201d and a \u201cmost holy place.\u201d What, then, made the faith of Israel different from the faith of the pagan religions surrounding her? If one were to enter a pagan temple, passing through the courtyard, and through the Holy Place into the Most Holy Place, what would one find there? An image representing one of the forces of nature. But that is not what one finds at the center of Israel\u2019s worship. What was in the Most Holy Place in the tabernacle? First of all, there was no image or statue there representing God himself, because God is spirit and cannot be properly represented by man-made images. All there is in the Most Holy Place is just a little box. And what is in that box? The Ten Commandments. Thus, what God is saying to the Israelites is that he cannot be manipulated by magic. If they want the good life, they must conform their lifestyle to his revealed standards of right and wrong. Ethics, not manipulation of the powers that be by magic, guarantees the good life. The meaning is clear when one both compares and contrasts the biblical text with the ancient Near Eastern cultural setting. At the outset, the differences appear to be small and insignificant. Yet in the end, the differences are so radical that only divine revelation can explain the origin of the text.<\/p>\n
THE MEANING OF \u201cIMAGE\u201d AND \u201cLIKENESS\u201d IN THE BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST<\/p>\n
Paul Dion has produced one of the most careful and thorough studies of the ancient Near Eastern background to the image of God. His work can be consulted for the detailed evidence that the following only briefly summarizes. In the ancient Near East we see the flourishing of plastic arts; it was part and parcel of religion. Statues and likenesses of all sorts have been preserved to the present time.
\nThe epithet or descriptive title of the Egyptian king as a \u201cliving statue of such and such a god\u201d was common in Egypt from 1630 BC onward and therefore was well known to the Israelites. In Egyptian thinking, the king is the image of god because he is the son of god. The emphasis or stress is not on physical appearance\u2014for example, a male king could be the image of a female goddess. Rather, the behavior of the king reflects the behavior of the god. The image reflects the character traits of the god. The image reflects the essential notions of the god.
\nCommonly associated with the image is the notion of conquest and power. A clear example is an inscription from the Karnak Temple marking the triumph of Thutmoses III at Karnak, ca. 1460 BC. In the following stanza, the god is speaking in the first person, and the second person refers to the king:<\/p>\n
I came to let you tread on Djahi\u2019s chiefs,
\nI spread them under your feet throughout their lands;
\nI let them see your majesty as lord of light,
\nso that you shone before them in my likeness.<\/p>\n
The god Amen-Re, in giving victory to Thutmoses III, calls the king his son in the prologue of the poem and in this stanza indicates that the extension of the rule of the king entails his shining before his enemies in the likeness of his god.
\nIn the thirteenth century BC, Pharaoh Ramesses II had his image hewn out of rock at the mouth of the Kelb River, on the Mediterranean just north of Beirut. His image\u2014displayed like the presidents at Mount Rushmore\u2014meant that he was the ruler of this area. In the ancient Near East, since the king is the living statue of the god, he represents the god on earth. He makes the power of the god a present reality.
\nTo sum up, the term \u201cthe image of god\u201d in the culture and language of the ancient Near East in the fifteenth century BC would have communicated two main ideas: (1) rulership and (2) sonship. The king is the image of god because he has a relationship to the deity as the son of god and a relationship to the world as ruler for the god. These relationships would have been understood as covenantal relationships. We ought to assume that the meaning in the Bible is identical or at least similar, unless the biblical text clearly distinguishes its meaning from the surrounding culture.<\/p>\n
LIKENESS AND IMAGE<\/p>\n
Careful and exhaustive lexical studies of the Hebrew terms \u201clikeness\u201d (\u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u05ea) and \u201cimage\u201d (\u05e6\u05dc\u05dd) indicate the possible range of meaning.
\n\u201cLikeness\u201d (\u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u05ea) may refer to a physical entity, such as the model of the altar King Ahaz sent Uriah the priest (2 Kings 16:10b). It may also refer to a likeness that is real yet referentially unspecific or inexact (Isa. 40:18). It can even be nonreferential to express resemblance or relative similarity (Isa. 13:4). Ezekiel 1:26 is instructive since, opposite to Genesis 1:26, which speaks of humanity created in the likeness of God, Ezekiel\u2019s vision speaks of God appearing in the likeness of humanity. As Garr notes, either way, God and humanity are morphologically similar.
\n\u201cImage\u201d (\u05e6\u05dc\u05dd) frequently refers to an object in the real world that can have size, shape, color, material composition, and value. The image erected by King Nebuchadnezzar in the plain of Dura is an example (Dan. 3:1). Yet as Psalm 39:6\u20137 shows, \u1e63elem can also be abstract and nonconcrete. And as with the word \u201clikeness\u201d (dem\u00fbt), \u201cimage\u201d can simply be an imprint etched on a wall (Ezek. 23:14b, 15b).
\nParticularly instructive for Genesis 1:26\u201328 is the usage of the words \u201clikeness\u201d and \u201cimage\u201d in the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription. Inscribed on a large statue of King Hadduyith\u02bb\u00ee of Gozan, a city in what is now eastern Syria, is an Akkadian-Aramaic bilingual text from the tenth or ninth century BC. The text is divided thematically into two sections. The first half focuses on the role of the king as a supplicant and worshiper of his god and is headed in the Aramaic text by \u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u05ea, the equivalent of the Hebrew \u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u05ea. The second half focuses on the majesty and power of the king in his role in relation to his subjects. This is headed in the Aramaic text by the word \u05e6\u05dc\u05dd, the equivalent of the Hebrew \u05e6\u05dc\u05dd. While both terms can and do refer to the statue of the king and are synonyms, each has a different nuance. The term \u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u05ea occurs twice and each time nuances the relation of the copy to the original. The term \u05e6\u05dc\u05dd also occurs twice and each time nuances how the copy represents the original to the world.
\nAkkadian texts containing the cognate for the Hebrew word \u201cimage\u201d support the force and meaning of the word in the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription. Three brief examples will suffice to further clarify the use of the term \u201cimage\u201d:<\/p>\n
LAS 125:14b\u201319 (K 595; from the time of Esarhaddon, 681\u2013668 BC):<\/p>\n
What the king [my lord], wrote to me: \u201cI heard from the mouth of my father that you are a loyal family, but now I know it from my own experience,\u201d the father of the king, my lord, was the very image of the god B\u0113l, and the king, my lord, is likewise the very image of B\u0113l.<\/p>\n
The author of the letter is a loyal subject. He proclaims that the king is the image of the god Bel because he is acknowledging the authority and majesty of the king in the king-subject relationship.<\/p>\n
LAS 143 o. 14\u2013r. 6 (K 583; from the time of Esarhaddon, 681\u2013668 BC):<\/p>\n
Why, today already for the second day, is the table not brought to the king, my lord? Who (now) stays in the dark much longer than the Sun, the king of the gods, stays in the dark a whole day and night, (and) again two days? The king, the lord of the world, is the very image of the Sun god. He (should) keep in the dark for only half a day!<\/p>\n
The king is the image of the god Shamash and should be treated as representing his authority and power.<\/p>\n
SAA 8:333 (82\u20135\u201322,63; from the period 697\u2013665 BC):<\/p>\n
The wisest, merciful Bel, the warrior Marduk, became angry at night, but relented in the morning. You, O king of the world, are an image of Marduk; when you were angry with your servants, we suffered the anger of the king our lord; and we saw the reconciliation of the king.<\/p>\n
The king represents the majesty, authority, and power of god to his subjects.
\nEvidence from the Nebuchadnezzar Inscription of Brisa also offers an important parallel for the biblical texts. Nebuchadnezzar says,<\/p>\n
I let the people in the Lebanon lie in safe pastures; I did not allow an intimidator (against them). So that nobody will oppress them, I installed an eternal image of myself as king to protect (them).<\/p>\n
We must now compare and contrast the data in Genesis 1:26\u201328 with these ancient Near Eastern data.<\/p>\n
Similarities<\/p>\n
As Garr notes, the grammar of the first sentence in Genesis 1:26a is unusual. Following a hortatory predicate (\u05e0\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4) and an undetermined direct object (\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd) are two distinct prepositional phrases that are not obligatory either grammatically or semantically. The exact force of each preposition will be discussed shortly. This much is clear: the nonobligatory phrases specify a divine-human relation in the creation of mankind, and the differential marking suggests that each phrase has distinct meaning.
\nWe have seen the normal meanings of \u201cimage\u201d and \u201clikeness\u201d in the cultural and linguistic setting of the Old Testament and the ancient Near East. In that light, \u201clikeness\u201d specifies a relationship between God and humans such that \u2019\u0101d\u0101m can be described as the son of God, and \u201cimage\u201d refers to a relationship between God and humans such that \u2019\u0101d\u0101m can be described as a servant-king. Although both terms specify the divine-human relationship, the first focuses on the human in relation to God, and the second focuses on the human in relation to the world. These relationships would be characterized by faithfulness and loyal love, obedience and trust\u2014exactly the character of relationships specified by covenants after the fall. In this sense the divine image entails a covenant relationship between God and humans on the one hand, and between humans and the world on the other. In describing a divine-human relationship, the terms in Genesis 1:26\u201328 correspond precisely to the usage of the same words in the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription.
\nConfirmation of this interpretation of \u201clikeness\u201d and \u201cimage\u201d comes from both the context of Genesis 1 and the interpretation of Genesis 1 found later in the Old Testament.
\nFirst, the term \u201clikeness\u201d indicates that \u2019\u0101d\u0101m has a special relationship to God like that of father and son. This is clearly implied by Genesis 5:1\u20133:<\/p>\n
1. This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.<\/p>\n
2. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.<\/p>\n
3. When Adam had lived a hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth (RSV).<\/p>\n
The comment of Stephen Dempster is both adequate and succinct:<\/p>\n
By juxtaposing the divine creation of Adam in the image of God and the subsequent human creation of Seth in the image of Adam, the transmission of the image of God through this genealogical line is implied, as well as the link between sonship and the image of God. As Seth is a son of Adam, so Adam is a son of God. Language is being stretched here as a literal son of God is certainly not in view, but nevertheless the writer is using an analogy to make a point.<\/p>\n
This idea can be further supported from later texts: Luke 3:38 interprets the \u201clikeness of God\u201d in Genesis to indicate that Adam is the son of God. Israel inherits the role of Adam and Eve and is specifically called the son of God (Ex. 4:22, 23). The song at the sea pictures Israel as a new Adam entering the Promised Land as a new Eden (Ex. 15:17). Later, the divine sonship devolves particularly on the king in the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:14\u201315): what was true of the nation will now be fulfilled specifically and solely by her king. Recently, a study done by Gavin Ortlund independently of our work demonstrates that Genesis 5:3 and Luke 3:38 strongly support the interpretation of Genesis 1:26\u201328 proposed here.
\nSecond, the term \u201cimage\u201d indicates that \u2019\u0101d\u0101m has a special position and status as king under God. Humans rule as a result of this royal status. The term \u201cto rule\u201d (r\u0101d\u00e2 in Gen. 1:26, 28) is particularly true of kings, as Psalm 72:8 illustrates. Also, the term \u201cto subdue\u201d (k\u0101ba\u0161) especially speaks of the work of a king (e.g., 2 Sam. 8:11).
\nFurther confirmation comes from Psalm 8, in which verses 5\u20138 constitute a word-by-word commentary and meditation on Genesis 1:26\u201328. Psalm 8:5, which says, \u201cYou have made him a little less than the gods; you have crowned him with glory and honor,\u201d is a commentary on Genesis 1:26a, \u201cLet us make mankind in our image and according to our likeness.\u201d Psalm 8:6\u20138 then details and unfolds the rule of mankind specified in Genesis 1:26b. It is clear and obvious that the psalm writer has the text of Genesis 1:26 before his mind. Note in particular that the terms in Hebrew for \u201ccrowned\u201d (\u05e2\u05d8\u05e8), \u201cglory\u201d (\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3), and \u201chonor\u201d (\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8) are all royal terms. This shows that the psalm writer understood \u201cimage\u201d to speak of royal status. Furthermore, the Hebrew word for \u201crule\u201d (\u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05dc) used in Psalm 8:6 is a broad term meaning \u201chave dominion, reign, rule,\u201d but it generally speaks of a king (examples of royal uses include 2 Sam. 23:3; Ps. 103:19; Prov. 29:26a; Isa. 14:5; 19:4; Mic. 5:1). The phrase \u201cplace under his feet\u201d (\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea \u05ea\u05d7\u05ea \u05e8\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5) is an image associated with royalty. This is clear from 1 Kings 5:17 (5:3 EV), Egyptian texts like the poem of Thutmoses III cited above, Phoenician inscriptions (Karatepe A.i.16), and Assyrian royal texts.
\nIn verses 7\u20138 of Psalm 8, humans rule over the animals. Paul Dion appropriately suggests that the word \u201call\u201d in Psalm 8:6b is restricted to the earthly sphere in the light of Genesis 1:14\u201319, 26\u201328, where man rules only the earthly sphere.<\/p>\n
Differences<\/p>\n
Correct interpretation requires one to contrast as well as compare the biblical text with the contemporary documents. In Egypt, only the king is the image of god. In the Bible, all humans constitute the image of God. The covenant relationship between God and man is not restricted to an elite sector within human society.<\/p>\n
PRECISE MEANING OF THE PREPOSITIONS \u201cIN\u201d (b\u0115) AND \u201cAS\/ACCORDING TO\u201d (k\u0115)<\/p>\n
As already noted, the grammar of the first sentence in Genesis 1:26a is unusual. Two distinct prepositional phrases that are not obligatory either grammatically or semantically follow the predicate (na\u02bba\u015beh) and direct object (\u2019\u0101d\u0101m): \u201cin our image, according to our likeness.\u201d The preposition \u201cin\u201d corresponds to the preposition b\u0115 in Hebrew, while \u201cas\u201d or \u201caccording to\u201d corresponds to Hebrew k\u0115. What is the exact semantic value of each preposition?
\nThe phrase \u201cmade in his image\u201d has been construed in two different ways. First, the \u201cin\u201d has been interpreted to indicate the norm or standard. This is normal usage of the preposition \u201cin\u201d following the verb \u201cto make.\u201d The statement that man is created \u201cin\u201d the image of God would then mean that man conforms to a representation of God. As Gordon Wenham explains, \u201cMan is made \u2018in the divine image,\u2019 just as the tabernacle was made \u2018in the divine pattern.\u2019 This suggests that man is a copy of something that had the divine image, not necessarily a copy of God himself.\u201d The traditional view, however, does not do full justice to the meaning of the words \u201cimage\u201d and \u201clikeness,\u201d nor does the explanation of Wenham account for the fact that the prepositions seem somewhat interchangeable. The phrase is found in six instances:<\/p>\n
Genesis 1:26a in our image, according to our likeness
\nGenesis 1:27a\u03b1 in his image
\nGenesis 1:27a\u03b2 in the image of God
\nGenesis 5:1b in the likeness of God
\nGenesis 5:3a in his likeness, according to his image
\nGenesis 9:6b in his image<\/p>\n
It is possible to use \u201cin\u201d with \u201clikeness\u201d as well as \u201cimage,\u201d and in Genesis 5:3a, the prepositions are exactly the reverse of what we find in Genesis 1:26a. Indeed, in the example of the tabernacle used by Wenham, the expression \u201cmade in the pattern\u201d in Exodus 25:40 is \u201cmade according to the pattern\u201d in Exodus 25:9. James Barr has shrewdly observed \u201cthat b\u0115, commonly \u2018in\u2019 when combined with nouns of the semantic function \u2018likeness,\u2019 is thereby brought to have almost the same effect as the preposition k\u0115 \u2018like, as.\u2019 It is the semantics of the noun, not those of the preposition alone, which are here decisive.\u201d Thus, when the verb \u201cmake\u201d is followed by \u201cin\u201d (b\u0115), because it is used with nouns indicating likeness, the \u201cin\u201d likewise receives by this fact a value almost identical to \u201cas\u201d (k\u0115). This makes the expression in Genesis 1:26a differ somewhat from that in Exodus 25:9, where the object of the preposition is \u201cpattern\u201d (tabn\u00eet).
\nIt is possible, then, that the preposition \u201cin\u201d could be translated \u201cas\u201d in Genesis 1:26a. The usage shows that b\u0115 (= \u201cin\u201d) and k\u0115 (= \u201cas\u201d) have roughly the same value in these texts. God indeed created man as the divine image. Humans do not conform to a representation of God; they are the divine image. This interpretation is supported by the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 11:7, Paul says that man is the image of God. Why, then, is the statement in Genesis not more forthright in explicitly saying that man is the divine image? Why is this notion expressed in a slightly more indirect manner? I suggest that a more indirect expression is used in the cultural and linguistic setting of the ancient Near East to prevent man from being considered an idol and being worshiped as such.
\nIn spite of the fact that the two prepositions are close in meaning, we must not assume that the meaning is identical. This has been discussed extensively in a substantial monograph on the divine image by Randall Garr. Garr is correct to affirm that \u201cthe differential marking of each nonobligatory phrase suggests that each phrase has distinct meaning, at least in relation to one [an]other.\u201d His careful and thorough linguistic analysis reveals that the preposition b\u0115 (= \u201cin\u201d) emphasizes proximity while the preposition k\u0115 (= \u201cas\u201d or \u201caccording to\u201d) emphasizes something similar yet distinct and separate. Garr\u2019s linguistic analysis is also supported by the exhaustive research of Ernst Jenni, who has produced an entire monograph on each of the three basic prepositions in Hebrew. One volume analyzes all 15,570 instances of the preposition b\u0115; a second, all 3,000 instances of k\u0115; and a third, all 20,000 instances of the preposition l\u0115 (\u201cto\u201d or \u201cfor\u201d) in the Hebrew Bible. Jenni concludes that, in fundamental meaning, k\u0115 stands between the opposition pair b\u0115 (marking an equating relation) and l\u0115 (marking a non-equating relation) as an expression of partial equation (and so also partial nonequation) of the semantic characteristics of two quantifications. Thus, again, b\u0115 indicates something locative and proximate while k\u0115 indicates something similar but distal and separate.
\nWe have already seen that, although the words \u201cimage\u201d and \u201clikeness\u201d share similar meanings, each has a different emphasis. In the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription, the word \u201clikeness\u201d focuses on the king as a suppliant and worshiper of his god and communicates sonship. The word \u201cimage\u201d focuses on the majesty and power of the king in relation to his subjects. These ancient Near Eastern data confirm and correspond to the use in the biblical text. The word \u201clikeness\u201d in Genesis is closely associated with the creation of the human race, human genealogy, and sonship. It occurs in Genesis 1:26 in the creation of humans and again in 5:1, when this is recapitulated under the heading \u201cBirth History of Humankind.\u201d The third use is in 5:3 with the generation of Seth. The word \u201cimage\u201d is consistently used of man representing God in terms of royal rule.
\nPutting the nouns and prepositions together, humans closely represent God in image\u2014that is, they represent his rule in the world. Humans are also similar to God in performing the action of creating human life, but not in the same way. Thus b\u0115 emphasizes a way in which humans are closely like God, k\u0115 a way in which humans are similar but distinct. This interpretation also explains the reversal of the prepositions in Genesis 5:3. Seth shares precisely in the matter of generation and sonship (\u201cin his likeness\u201d) but is only similar and not identical in the representation of his father\u2019s image (\u201caccording to his image\u201d).<\/p>\n
SUMMARY<\/p>\n
Before considering the difficult first-person plural \u201clet us,\u201d it may be useful to crystallize, consolidate, and summarize the exegetical results to this point. Humans have been given an absolutely unique place in creation. Ten times prior to Genesis 1:26, we are told that each of the animals and plants are made \u201caccording to their kind.\u201d But humans are not made according to their kind. They are created in some way according to God. This has huge significance! What does it mean?
\nAs we have seen, Genesis 1:26 defines a divine-human relationship with two dimensions, one vertical and one horizontal. First, it defines human ontology in terms of a covenant relationship between God and humans, and second, it defines a covenant relationship between humans and the earth. The relationship between humans and God is best captured by the term (obedient) sonship. The relationship between humans and the creation may be expressed by the terms kingship and servanthood, or better, servant kingship.
\nThis interpretation best honors the normal meaning of \u1e63elem (\u201cimage\u201d) according to the cultural and linguistic setting. Hans Walter Wolff expresses the matter well:<\/p>\n
In the ancient East the setting up of the king\u2019s statue was the equivalent to the proclamation of his domination over the sphere in which the statue was erected (cf. Dan. 3:1, 5f.). When in the thirteenth century BC the Pharaoh Ramesses II had his image hewn out of rock at the mouth of the nahr el-kelb, on the Mediterranean north of Beirut, the image meant that he was the ruler of this area. Accordingly, man is set in the midst of creation as God\u2019s statue. He is evidence that God is the Lord of creation; but as God\u2019s steward he also exerts his rule, fulfilling his task not in arbitrary despotism but as a responsible agent. His rule and his duty to rule are not autonomous; they are copies.<\/p>\n
Thus, the image is physical and yet goes far beyond being merely physical. This is an interpretation that allows for the normal physical aspect of \u201cimage\u201d but results in the emphasis that the character of humans in ruling the world is what represents God.
\nIt is important to note that this definition of the divine image is not only a functional but also an ontological and structural one. As Wenham points out, the phrase \u201cin the image\u201d describes the product rather than the process of creation, as suggested by the usage in Genesis 5:3 and Exodus 25:40. The grammar reveals that man rules as a result of being made as the divine image; ruling is not the essence of the image itself. Thus, those who define the image merely in functional terms are in error both linguistically and theologically.
\nMan is the divine image. As servant-king and son of God, mankind will mediate God\u2019s rule to the creation in the context of a covenant relationship with God on the one hand and with the earth on the other. Hence, the concept of the kingdom of God is found on the first page of Scripture. Indeed, the theme is kingdom through covenant. God establishes his rule by means of covenant relationship. No wonder the Mosaic covenant, which seeks to implement this relationship in Abraham\u2019s family, can be summarized as providing divine direction concerning (1) how to have a right relationship with God, (2) how to treat each other in genuinely human ways, and (3) how to be good stewards of the earth\u2019s resources.
\nTheologians have debated the extent to which the divine image was marred or even lost by the fall into sin (Genesis 3). Normally it is argued that the divine image was marred but not lost through the fall (Gen. 9:6; James 3:9). The interpretation given here of the divine image as God establishing his rule in the world through covenant clarifies the matter. The human rebellion described in Genesis 3 violated the love, loyalty, obedience, and trust at the heart of the covenant. God sought to confirm and reestablish this relationship in the covenant with Noah; hence the expression h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet. The story of the drunkenness of Noah (Gen. 9:20\u201327) shows once more the inability of the human partner in the covenant relationship. God makes a new start with Abraham and his family in the covenant made with him. The Abrahamic covenant is implemented in the Iron Age, with Israel as Abraham\u2019s family, through the Mosaic covenant. Israel\u2014or more particularly, Israel\u2019s king, as the Davidic covenant later makes plain\u2014will be the instrument for renewing the covenant relationship and establishing the instruction and will (i.e., t\u00f4r\u00e2) of Yahweh in the hearts and lives of his people and, through them, in the nations. In a long history of apparent failure, Jesus of Nazareth comes as Israel\u2019s King to renew the relationship by inaugurating a new covenant and bringing about the rule of God in the lives of those who are part of his new creation. Thus, Jesus\u2019s proclamation of the kingdom is nothing less than the message we already find in Genesis 1:26\u201327.
\nWhen we look at the New Testament and the references there to the renewal of the divine image brought about by the work of Jesus Christ, terms are used that emphasize man\u2019s relation to God. This is clear in the parallel texts in Ephesians and Colossians:<\/p>\n
Ephesians 4:24<\/p>\n
\u2026 and put on the new humanity created according to God in righteousness<\/p>\n
and holiness, which derive from the truth.<\/p>\n
Colossians 3:10<\/p>\n
\u2026 and have put on the new humanity, which is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created it.<\/p>\n
God has planned a new creation\u2014a new heavens and a new earth. Unlike the first creation, where he first made the place and afterward the people to live there, in the new creation he is first making the people and afterward the place where they will live. The new creation begins in the midst of the old: when God raised Jesus from the dead, he was the first man in the new creation. And anyone who is joined to Jesus Christ by faith is new creation (2 Cor. 5:17; frequently translated incorrectly as \u201cis a new creation\u201d). This happens first in the inner person and later, at the resurrection, in the outer person. The passages in Ephesians 4:24 and Colossians 3:10 call believers to adopt in daily lifestyle all that is entailed in the new creation life within them. The phrase \u201caccording to God\u201d in Ephesians 4:24 may be ambiguous by itself but is clarified by the parallel in Colossians 3:10 and means that the new creation is, like the old, according to the image and likeness of God. The words that Paul uses in connection with this are \u201crighteousness\u201d and \u201choliness\u201d in Ephesians 4 and \u201cknowledge\u201d in Colossians 3. This has been misconstrued in studies on the divine image in the past. Paul mentions holiness, knowledge, and righteousness, not because one can identify ethical or mental or spiritual qualities as elements of the divine image but because these terms are covenantal and describe a covenant relationship. Thus, the New Testament supports the explanation of the divine image in Genesis 1:26 advanced here. The divine image indicates man\u2019s relationship and spiritual fellowship with God.
\nSome readers of the first edition of Kingdom through Covenant are still not convinced because the word \u201ccovenant\u201d does not appear in Genesis 1\u20133. We are claiming that \u201cimage\u201d and \u201clikeness\u201d describe covenant relationships; they are the covenantal words in this context. Those who reject a covenant in Genesis 1\u20133 must show that these words would not have been understood in a covenantal sense by the first readers of the text in the ancient Near East.<\/p>\n
THE MEANING OF THE FIRST-PERSON PLURAL<\/p>\n
The interpretation of the first-person plural \u201clet us make\u201d is a difficult problem. The commentary by Kenneth A. Mathews provides an excellent summary of the various views and the impasse in scholarship over this issue:<\/p>\n
Among commentators the plural reference is variously understood: (1) a remnant of polytheistic myth; (2) God\u2019s address to creation, \u201cheavens and earth\u201d; (3) a plural indicating divine honor and majesty; (4) self-deliberation; (5) divine address to a heavenly court of angels; and (6) divine dialogue within the Godhead. It is unlikely when we consider the elevated theology of 1:1\u20132:3, that any polytheistic element would be tolerated by the author; therefore, the first option can be ruled out. The second option is flatly contradicted by v. 27, where God alone is identified as the Creator. The plural as used to show special reverence (honorific plural) is flawed since the point of the verse is the unique correspondence between God and man, not the majesty of God. The fourth viewpoint considers \u201cLet us make\u201d a plural of self-deliberation, depicting God anthropomorphically as someone in contemplation. This is supported by the change to the singular (\u201chis own image\u201d) in v. 27 which indicates that the figure of \u201cdeliberation\u201d is completed. In ancient myths divine deliberation prefaces the creation of humans. Self-deliberation is attested in the Old Testament (e.g., Ps 42:5, 11; 43:5), but there is no attestation that the plural form is used in this way.<\/p>\n
Mathews finds the evidence from the Old Testament and from ancient Near Eastern parallels for the view that God is addressing a heavenly court of angels to be impressive but rejects this view on theological grounds: how can humans be said to be created in the image of angels? He then develops the interpretation that it refers to divine dialogue within the Godhead, although he admits that this can be entertained only as a possible \u201ccanonical\u201d reading of the text. This admission, in fact, shows how unlikely his final proposal is to be right. The Bible is a divine-human book. A reference to the Trinity may possibly have been intended by the divine author, but this cannot be discovered until one comes to the New Testament. D. J. A. Clines argues that the plural refers to a dialogue between God and \u201cthe spirit of God\u201d mentioned in 1:2, but Bruce Waltke shows that this construes \u201cspirit of God\u201d in a New Testament sense. It is virtually impossible that such a meaning was intended by the human author of Genesis 1 or even understood by the original audience. Interpretation that rides roughshod over the human authorship and audience in the text in this way is highly suspect. A canonical reading of the text is imperative, but this appears more along the lines of special pleading.
\nIs there a way out of this impasse? Evidence for the view that God is addressing his heavenly court is impressive. Some readers may be unfamiliar with this approach. Texts from ancient Canaan and Mesopotamia depict a pantheon in which the high or supreme god operates in an assembly or community of gods. Yet one need not look to the culture contemporary to the Old Testament since evidence abounds within the Old Testament itself. Psalm 82:1 is a case in point:<\/p>\n
God presides in the divine assembly;
\nHe gives judgment in the midst of the gods.<\/p>\n
We also glimpse the divine assembly in Job 1\u20132; 1 Kings 22; Isaiah 6; and Jeremiah 23:18. They are variously referred to as \u201cmessengers\u201d\/\u201cangels\u201d (\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dd), \u201cgods\u201d (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd), or \u201cdivinities\u201d (\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd = \u201csons of the gods,\u201d i.e., those of the class of gods or divinities). The angels or gods in the Old Testament are subordinate and subservient to God. They bow down to him (Ps. 29:2), obey him (Ps. 103:20\u201321), praise him (Ps. 148:2\u20135), and minister to and serve him (1 Kings 22:19).
\nJohn Walton has shown that the first commandment, when interpreted in the context of the ancient Near Eastern setting, is directed against falsely construing these \u201cgods\u201d as sharing power with Yahweh or being worthy of worship in any sense. Although the command \u201cYou shall have no other gods before me\u201d is normally understood in terms of priorities, that interpretation is contrary to the linguistic data, where every occurrence of the preposition \u201cbefore\u201d plus a personal object in the Hebrew Bible is spatial. Walton argues that the correct interpretation entails a reference to the divine assembly. His argument must be cited in full to avoid misunderstanding:<\/p>\n
In the light of even deeper probing of the practices and beliefs that were current in the ancient Near East, Werner Schmidt has proposed a couple of other alternatives. He begins by suggesting that the first commandment prohibited the setting up of the images of other deities in the temple. However, this does not follow the common logic of ancient Near Eastern practices in which temples were typically made to honor a single deity along with his consort. Schmidt advocates another approach that focuses on God\u2019s heavenly rather than His earthly presence. That is, when the first commandment prohibits other gods in the presence of Yahweh, it is ruling out the concept that He operates within a pantheon, a divine assembly, or with a consort. J. Bott\u00e9ro compares this system to that of a king at the head of the state with his family and functionaries around him operating in a structured hierarchy.
\nHaving this image as background suggests that the Israelites were not to imagine any other gods in the presence of Yahweh. Scholars could have arrived at this meaning by simple lexical study, but without the benefit of the ancient Near Eastern material, the results of the lexical study made no sense to interpreters. Consequently, they devised alternative explanations, even though when the prepositional combination that occurs in the Hebrew text takes a personal object the meaning is consistently spatial. Using comparative cultural information, we have recovered a neglected sense of the text that was there all the time.
\nIn view of the information provided from outside the Bible, this spatial sense gains credibility. In the ancient Near East the gods operated within pantheons and decisions were made in the divine assembly. Furthermore, the principal deities typically had consorts. For the gods life was a community experience. The destinies of the gods were decreed in assembly, as were the destinies of kings, cities, temples and people. The business of the gods was carried out in the presence of other gods. Lowell Handy helpfully summarizes this system as a hierarchy of authoritative deities and active deities.<\/p>\n
The highest authority in the pantheon was responsible for ordering and maintaining earth and cosmos but was not actively engaged in the actual work necessary to maintain the universe. The next lower level of deities performed this function. Serving under the authority of those who actually owned the universe, the active gods were expected to perform in a way that would enable the cosmos to operate smoothly. Each of the gods at this level of the pantheon had a specific sphere of authority over which to exert his or her control. Ideally, all the gods were to perform their duties in a way that would keep the universe functioning perfectly in the manner desired by the highest authority. Yet the gods, like human beings, are portrayed as having weaknesses and rivalries that kept the cosmos from operating smoothly.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, by a comparative interpretation of the first commandment the Israelites were not to construe Yahweh as operating within a community of gods. Nor were they to imagine Him functioning as the head of a pantheon surrounded by a divine assembly, or having a consort. In short, He works alone. The concept of a pantheon\/divine assembly assumed a distribution of power among many divine beings. The first commandment declared simply and unequivocally that Yahweh\u2019s authority was absolute. Divine power was not distributed among other deities or limited by the will of the assembly.
\nThe point of the prohibition of the worship of any other gods \u201cbesides\u201d Yahweh was to ensure that Israel\u2019s perception of divinity was to be distinct from the peoples around them. This text is readily misunderstood if the interpreter is not aware of the notions being rejected. According to this revised interpretation, the purpose of the first commandment was not simply to promote monolatry; it served the monotheistic agenda another way. Although this text does not explicitly deny the existence of other gods, it does remove them from the presence of Yahweh. If Yahweh does not share power, authority, or jurisdiction with them, they are not gods in any meaningful sense of the word. Thus, the first commandment does not insist on the non-existence of other gods; only that they are powerless. In so doing it disenfranchises them, not merely by declaring that they should not be worshiped; it leaves them with no status worthy of worship.<\/p>\n
The approach in the Old Testament to the divine assembly is thus twofold. On the one hand, it acknowledges the existence of beings known as angels or gods who serve God in his presence. On the other hand, it rejects the notion prevalent in the societies around Israel that these gods share authority or power or status worthy of worship with Yahweh.
\nEvidence that the phrase \u201clet us\u201d refers to the divine assembly is stronger than even Mathews allows as a result of the work of Randall Garr. Garr notes that Genesis 1:26\u201327 follows the formula or pattern for clauses introduced by h\u0101b\u00e2. In form, h\u0101b\u00e2 is an extended imperative (qal stem, masculine singular) from the root y\u0101hab, \u201cto give.\u201d There are two distinct uses of this verb: literal and nonliteral. In the literal use, the verb actually means \u201cto give.\u201d In the nonliteral use, the verb functions as a manipulative and suasive particle prefixed asyndetically to commands exactly like \u201cc\u2019mon\u201d in English: \u201cC\u2019mon, let\u2019s play together.\u201d Unlike \u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05b8\u05d4 and \u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05d4, however, the imperative h\u0101b\u00e2 is always connected without a conjunction and need not agree in number and person with the command to which it is prefixed. What is significant is that all clauses beginning with h\u0101b\u00e2 have a fixed pattern as follows:<\/p>\n
1. It begins with a directive or assertive utterance (represented by a cohortative or imperfect, respectively),
\n2. which proposes an activity (event)
\n3. jointly and cooperatively, between the speaker and a referentially distinct addressee;
\n4. the speaker\u2019s proposal receives the tacit consent of the addressee
\n5. and is executed by an agent, whether unidentified or identified and salient (e.g., addressee, leader).<\/p>\n
This pattern can be observed in all instances: Genesis 11:3, 4, 7; 38:16; and Exodus 1:10. What is noteworthy is the fact that Genesis 1:26\u201327 has exactly this formulaic pattern, albeit without the introductory particle h\u0101b\u00e2. Garr explains the absence of the particle h\u0101b\u00e2 in Genesis 1:26 as dialect specific to a particular source, but this approach is unnecessary. During his exhaustive analysis, he also observes that the particle h\u0101b\u00e2 is always used to introduce situations spelling trouble, and there is no sign of trouble in Genesis 1:26. This is a compelling explanation for the absence of the particle h\u0101b\u00e2. Thus, the formulaic pattern of Genesis 1:26\u201327 provides a strong argument that God is addressing the heavenly court.
\nIt remains to show what this statement could possibly mean in context. A proposal is at hand from the discussion of the ancient Near Eastern setting described by John Walton. The ancients believed that the ruling of the world was a community effort on the part of the gods. I propose that Genesis 1:26\u201327 be understood as a polemic to subvert such an idea. God announces to the heavenly court his decision to share rule with humanity. This entails both a negative and positive result. On the positive side, it elevates humanity to a status almost equal to the angels or \u201cgods.\u201d Like the angels, humans will in obedience and subservience to Yahweh effect the rule of God in the world. This is exactly the point being made in Psalm 8:5: \u201cYou have made him a little less than the gods.\u201d There is also, however, a negative side. This decision in effect disenfranchises the gods according to ancient Near Eastern thinking. Yahweh does not share rule with them in the sense understood in ancient Canaan. This is another way of saying, \u201cYou shall have no other gods before me,\u201d and it powerfully makes the point of monotheism.
\nClines\u2019s objection to this view that \u201cthe elohim would be said to have shared in man\u2019s creation\u201d does not give adequate attention to the details of the text. As Garr notes, citing Gemser, \u201cIn the plural of vs. 26 a plurality of heavenly beings may be understood, but there is not a hint of diversity of will or purpose. God\u2019s divine court agrees to his proposal.\u201d Garr also points out the contrast between proposal and execution in the text. In the proposal, God involves his heavenly court. Yet in the execution, the sole use of third-person verbs and the significant shift from \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 to \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 show that the execution is absolutely and exclusively reserved for God. The creation of all, including the creation of humans, is solely the work of God.
\nSome, no doubt, may not be persuaded by the above argument. It is not necessary for the exegesis given of Genesis 1:26\u201327, but it is in harmony with it because it fits the interpretation of the divine image as expressing the theme of kingdom through covenant. God has communicated to the divine assembly that his rule in the world will be effected largely through humans, not through \u201cgods\u201d or \u201cangels.\u201d This result is completely contrary to the culture of that time.<\/p>\n
THE GOAL OF THE COVENANT: REST<\/p>\n
Day six is the climax of the creation week but not the consummation. The conclusion is day seven. Thus, the account of creation does not conclude with man and his mandate, for humankind is not the consummation of all things, even though he is the agent through whom the aims of creation will be realized. Dumbrell aptly says,<\/p>\n
The symmetry of the eight creative acts spread over the preceding six days, and set in what seems to be an inner parallelism and progression between days one to three and four to six, receives its real significance from the addition of the seventh day. By the divine rest on the seventh day the goal of creation is indicated, a goal which will be maintained notwithstanding sustained human attempts to vitiate it. Not only does the seventh day rest note the goal to which creation points, but it is the call to man to begin history holding firmly to the view that the \u201cgoal of creation, and at the same time the beginning of all that follows, is the event of God\u2019s Sabbath freedom, Sabbath rest and Sabbath joy, in which man, too, has been summoned to participate.\u201d<\/p>\n
GENESIS 1:26\u201327 IN THE CONTEXT OF GENESIS 2:8\u201317<\/p>\n
The interpretation advanced here for the creation of humans as the divine image and according to the divine likeness is corroborated by Genesis 2:8\u201317 and developed further there. Indeed, Genesis 2:4 begins an explanation and exposition of Genesis 1:26\u201328 in which the creation of man as a species is related and royal rule over the world is conferred upon man. Chapter 2, in effect, tells us how this royal rule that is given to humankind within the covenant structure is to operate. The writer indicates that man was created outside Eden and then placed within the garden. The garden is presented as a center of blessing in the world. In it arose the world river that divided outside the garden into four systems. The garden also functions as a divine sanctuary, the point where the divine presence was experienced and enjoyed in a close and immediate way. Gordon Wenham, followed by William Dumbrell, has described the garden in Eden as a sanctuary and Adam as a priest worshiping there. This may be briefly summarized and related to the divine image.<\/p>\n
THE GARDEN AS SEPARATE SPACE<\/p>\n
The Hebrew word for garden (gan) comes from a root meaning to \u201cenclose,\u201d \u201cfence,\u201d or \u201cprotect.\u201d The garden envisaged in Genesis 2:8\u201317 is an enclosed or protected space. In the Old Testament, walls surrounded both royal gardens (2 Kings 25:4; Neh. 3:15; Jer. 39:4; 52:7) and vineyards (Prov. 24:30\u201331; Isa. 5:5). The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, employed a loanword from Persian (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2) in Genesis 2 that means a pleasure garden surrounded by an earthen or stone wall. In our culture and society, we normally think of gardening as a lowly task, a job or vocation for a blue-collar worker, something lower on the ladder of success. The culture of the ancient Near East was similar: in addition to royal gardens, temples had gardens owned and worked by entrepreneurs, and people had private gardens. Gardeners could be considered some of the least valuable members of society. For example, in the substitute king ritual that took place during certain eclipses when Jupiter was not present, the king ritually stepped down from the throne and installed a substitute. After the allotted time, the substitute was killed. Substitutes were drawn from the expendable peoples in society: prisoners of war, criminals condemned to death, political enemies of the king, the mentally deficient, and gardeners. Notwithstanding all this, kings in Mesopotamia created and kept extravagant gardens. In fact, \u201cgardener\u201d was a descriptive title or epithet for monarchs in Mesopotamia. This use has a similarity to Louis XIV\u2019s gardens in Versailles\u2014it showed that he was able to control nature and form entire trees into topiaries. Thus gardening was a royal vocation. The role of Adam as gardener further portrays him as a royal figure.
\nThe role of Adam as gardener comes up much later in Scripture. After the crucifixion of Jesus, on that first Easter Sunday, the disciples (Peter and John) ran to the tomb. They found it empty and returned to their homes:<\/p>\n
But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb.\u2026 She turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she didn\u2019t know that it was Jesus.\u2026 Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, \u201cSir, if you have carried him somewhere, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.\u201d Jesus said to her, \u201cMary!\u201d She turned and said to him in Aramaic, \u201cRabbouni!\u201d (which means Teacher). (John 20:11\u201316)<\/p>\n
As N. T. Wright notes, \u201cIt wasn\u2019t, after all, such a silly mistake for Mary to think that Jesus, the true Adam, was the gardener.\u201d<\/p>\n
THE GARDEN AS SACRED SPACE \/ SANCTUARY<\/p>\n
Creation accounts in the ancient Near East commonly connected creation and temple building. For example, the temple Esagila was built for Marduk in the creation myth Enuma Elish. Genesis 2:8\u201317 portrays the first man as a kind of priest in a garden sanctuary. In terms of literary structure, 2:8a describes the creation of the garden and 2:8b the placing of the man there. In what follows, 2:9\u201315 elaborates on 2:8a and 2:16\u201317 elaborates on 2:8b.
\nParallels between the description of the garden in Eden and descriptions of sanctuaries elsewhere in the Old Testament and ancient Near East reveal that the garden is being portrayed as a sanctuary. Some of the evidence is summarized as follows:
\n1. The garden in Eden is characterized by the presence of God. There God comes to meet man at the cool of the day. The verb h\u0101lak in the hithpael stem (\u201cto walk to and fro,\u201d Gen. 3:8) is the same term employed to describe the divine presence in the later tent sanctuaries (Lev. 26:12; Deut. 23:15 [23:14 EV]; 2 Sam. 7:6\u20137).
\n2. When humans were cast out of the garden in Eden, k\u0115r\u00fbb\u00eem (\u201ccherubim,\u201d i.e., guardian creatures) were stationed east of the garden to guard the way to the tree of life (Gen. 3:24). This clearly indicates that the entrance to the garden was in the east. Like the garden in Eden, the entrances to the later tabernacle and temple were also in the east and were guarded by k\u0115r\u00fbb\u00eem (Ex. 25:18\u201322; 26:31; 1 Kings 6:23\u201328, 29). Two guarded the inner sanctuary of Solomon\u2019s temple and two more the mercy seat of the ark in the inner sanctuary. Pictures of k\u0115r\u00fbb\u00eem decorated the curtains of the tabernacle and the walls of the temple (Ex. 26:31; 1 Kings 6:29).
\n3. In the center of the garden in Eden is the tree of life. Similarly, in the center of the tabernacle and temple is the menorah (i.e., the branching lampstand), which, as Carol Meyers has shown, is a stylized tree of life. The idea that fullness of life can be found in the sanctuary is basic to the instructions for the sacrifices in the Torah and is a recurrent theme in the Psalms.
\n4. The responsibility and task given to Adam in the garden is l\u0115\u02bbobd\u0101h \u00fbl\u0115\u0161omr\u0101h (\u201cto serve\/work it and to keep it\u201d). The only other passages in the Torah where the same two verbs occur together are Numbers 3:7\u20138; 8:26; and 18:5\u20136, which describe the duties of the Levites in guarding and ministering in the sanctuary. These words are also commonly used in the Old Testament for worship. Thus Adam is portrayed as a kind of Levite who fulfills his role or task by maintaining the priority of worship.
\n5. According to Genesis 2:10, \u201cA river flows out of Eden to water the garden.\u201d This river brings fertility and life to the entire world, as we see in 2:11\u201314. Similarly, in Psalm 46:5 (46:4 EV), we read of \u201ca river whose streams make glad the city of God,\u201d and Ezekiel 47 describes a great river flowing out of the temple in the new Jerusalem to sweeten the Dead Sea. Such a source of fertility and life is an indication that the divine presence is there. One of these rivers was called the Gihon, which was also the name for the spring under the Jerusalem temple (1 Kings 1:33, 38, 45).
\n6. The river giving life to the garden divides into four as it issues from Eden. Since water flows downhill, this fact clearly indicates that Eden was an elevated place. In the ancient Near East, temples were situated on mountains because that is where the heavens meet the earth. In Ezekiel 28:13\u201314, Eden is also described as a mountain sanctuary. Interestingly, some passages in the Old Testament portray Canaan, the Promised Land given to Israel, as a new Eden. These texts speak of the \u201cnew Eden\u201d as a mountain sanctuary, the dwelling place of God (Ex. 15:17; Ps. 78:54). After divine judgment brings devastation to the land of Israel, God\u2019s plan of renewal involves restoring the desert so that it is like Eden (Isa. 51:3; Ezek. 36:35). The future new Jerusalem\/Zion is likewise a mountain sanctuary (Isa. 2:2\u20134; 4:5; 11:9; 25:6\u20138; 56:7; 57:13; 65:11, 25).
\n7. The garden is the place of divine decrees. After placing the man whom he had formed in the garden (Gen. 2:8, 15), God gave him commands there. The Lord daily met the man there, and as Judge and King he called him to account for his sin in one of these daily meetings. Similarly, the purpose of the tabernacle (and later Solomon\u2019s temple) is to be the place from which God rules as King: \u201cThen make for me a sanctuary so that I may dwell among them\u201d (Ex. 25:8). The ark in the center of the inner room of the sanctuary is a kind of footstool of God\u2019s throne: \u201cThe LORD sits enthroned above the cherubim\u201d (1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2 = 1 Chron. 13:6; 2 Kings 19:15; Ps. 99:1).
\n8. The tree of knowledge in the garden in Eden was recognized as \u201cpleasant to the sight, good for food, and to be desired to make one wise\u201d (Gen. 3:6). These characteristics are echoed by Psalm 19, where the covenant\/Torah\/law is described as \u201cmaking wise the simple, rejoicing the heart, and enlightening the eyes.\u201d Referred to as the \u201ctestimony,\u201d the covenant\/Torah was kept in the ark in the Most Holy Place, the inner sanctuary (Ex. 25:16; Deut. 31:26). Touching the ark brought death just as eating from the tree of knowledge did (Num. 4:20; 2 Sam. 6:7).
\n9. Genesis 3:21 records that \u201cthe LORD God made tunics of skin for them and clothed them.\u201d In the accounts of the ordination of the priests, Moses also clothed them (Ex. 28:41; 29:8; 40:14; Lev. 8:13).
\n10. The first branch of the river coming forth from Eden goes round the land of Havilah (Gen. 2:11) and perhaps is reminiscent of the gold in the tabernacle and the temple. There were \u0161\u014dham (onyx?) stones in the sanctuary (Ex. 25:7; 28:9, 20; 1 Chron. 29:2). Two such stones were engraved with the names of the twelve tribes and worn by the high priest on his ephod (Ex. 28:9\u201314). The substance called b\u0115d\u014dla\u1e25 in Hebrew (= bdellium, a kind of special gum or resin from a tree) was also found in the land of Havilah. The only other occurrence of b\u0115d\u014dla\u1e25 is Numbers 11:7, where the appearance of manna is compared to this substance. Some manna was kept in the tabernacle (Ex. 16:33\u201334).<\/p>\n
CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE GARDEN IN EDEN AND THE EXODUS TABERNACLE<\/p>\n
Other passages in the Old Testament support the cultic connections between the garden in Eden and the later sanctuaries. Wenham notes the following:<\/p>\n
[Genesis] 1:1\u20132:3 tells of the creation of the world in six days. The parallels in phraseology between the conclusion of the creation account in 1:1\u20132:3 and the tabernacle building account in Exodus 25\u201340 have long been noted. Kearney argued that the six commands in the instructions for building the tabernacle corresponded to the six days\u2019 creation. More recently Weinfeld argued that God\u2019s rest on the first sabbath (2:1\u20133) corresponds to his resting, i.e. dwelling in the tabernacle.<\/p>\n
John Davies also notes these parallels between the creation and tabernacle accounts:<\/p>\n
A stronger point may be made of the use of the sabbatical structure, the six-days-plus-one cycle, which was used as the structuring device for the account of creation in Gen. 1:1\u20132:3. The pattern of six days plus a seventh forms an inclusio around the entire set of tabernacle instructions. The prelude to the tabernacle instructions is the account of Moses being taken up into the divine cloud on the mountain, where we read, \u201cFor six days the cloud covered the mountain, and on the seventh day Yhwh called to Moses from within the cloud\u201d (Exod. 24:16).
\nFurther, just as the first section of the Genesis creation account concluded with the record of the divine rest (Gen. 2:2\u20133), so the whole fiat section of the tabernacle account (including the directives concerning the priesthood) concludes with a summons to its \u201ccreators\u201d to imitate the divine rest (Exod. 31:13\u201317). Batto remarks: \u201cThere can be no doubt that the Priestly Writer intends this scene to parallel the opening scene in Genesis with six days of active creation and a seventh day in which God ceased his activity and \u2018rested.\u2019 \u201d Kearney likewise draws attention to what he considers to be the framework of the P redactor, though in a somewhat more elaborate manner. He detects in the wider framework of Exodus 25\u201340 a reflection of the thematic structure of creation (chs. 25\u201331), the fall (chs. 32\u201333) and the reconstruction (chs. 34\u201340). The seven separate divine speeches in the first section (commencing at 25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1, 12) have a thematic correspondence in sequence to each of the seven creation days of Gen. 1:1\u20132:3. Not all of Kearney\u2019s parallels are equally convincing, though even the fact that there are seven speeches, of which the seventh is a summons to Sabbath rest is instructive. The sabbatical cycle of work and rest is also specifically enjoined on the people in connection with the work to be done in constructing the tabernacle (Exod. 35:2).
\nThen just as the divine spirit overshadowed the original creative enterprise (Gen. 1:2), so the mountain top is covered by the \u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3 (\u201cglory\u201d) of God (Exod. 24:16, 17). The spirit endows gifted craftsmen (31:3; 35:31) for the creative work.<\/p>\n
In addition, the sanctuary is described as a place of rest for Yahweh in Psalm 132:14. In Exodus 20:11, we note the same word used to describe the Sabbath\u2014God \u201crested\u201d on the seventh day. Thus we can see that the planting of the garden on the sixth day is the construction of a sanctuary, and on the seventh day, God rests\u2014that is, he enters his sanctuary.
\nHaving noted parallels between later temples and the garden in Eden, it is also important to distinguish Eden as a sanctuary from the later temples. Note Dumbrell\u2019s apt and important description:<\/p>\n
In the mythical structures of the ancient world, at the very centre of the earth and so controlling it, stood the sacred mountain where the deity of the national fortunes presided and where contact with him could be had. It was at this point that it was believed that the upper and lower waters of the cosmos met, where heaven and earth and the netherworld were connected. The important depiction of Eden as the holy mountain of God, itself a synonym for the temple in the Old Testament in Ezekiel 28:13\u201314, takes us back to this paramount theological point of the ancient Near East. In the ancient Near East the sacred mountain was the meeting place of heaven and earth where celestial and mundane reality met. There the gods assembled in council, presided over by the principal deity (Anu\/El). From this place, world decrees by which creation was to be regulated were promulgated. From this \u201ccosmic mountain\u201d there was frequently thought to issue a sacred stream whose water teemed with supernatural significance. There, at the sacred site, the victory that brought creation into being was won and celebrated. The cosmic mountain lay at the centre of the world, and everything else in creation took its bearings from it. Significant mountains in the ancient world were imagined as basic points of contact between heaven and earth. Eden is presented as the axis mundi, the point from which the primal stream from the mountain divides to the four quarters ([Gen.] 2:10\u201314). In this mountain centre stood the trees of life and of the knowledge of good and evil. They signified the source of life and the manner by which life was to be conducted.
\nThe Garden of Eden, quite unlike the rest of the world in Genesis 2, is best seen as a special sanctuary, not a temple as such since God himself is present. The temple in the Old Testament is designed to remedy for Israel a lack of the divine presence. The narrower view of Eden as a temple is not warranted, however, since the temple motif in the Bible is confined to the needs of communication in a fallen world, in which, when renewed and humanity is redeemed, no temple is required (Rev. 21:22). Canaan in the Old Testament is not only paralleled at times to Eden (Isa. 51:3; Ezek. 36:35) but is also fulsomely presented in Deuteronomy as an Israelite correspondence to Eden (cf. 8:7\u201310; 11:8\u201317) and is in its totality presented as divine space (cf. Exod. 15:17; Ps. 78:54) in which, as it is now a fallen world, a temple is built to mark the divine rule. However, Eden by the divine presence is clearly considered divine space.<\/p>\n
T. Desmond Alexander also follows the work of Beale and Wenham and notes the garden in Eden pictured as a sanctuary. He draws out the implications as follows:<\/p>\n
(1) Since the garden is a place where divinity and humanity enjoy each other\u2019s presence, it is appropriate that it should be a prototype for later Israelite sanctuaries. This explains why many of the decorative features of the tabernacle and temple are arboreal in nature. (2) Because they met God face to face in a holy place, we may assume that Adam and Eve had a holy or priestly status. Only priests were permitted to serve within a sanctuary or temple. (3) Although it is not stated, the opening chapters of Genesis imply that the boundaries of the garden will be extended to fill the whole earth as human beings are fruitful and increase in number.<\/p>\n
This is good, but it does not explore the implications sufficiently. It reveals the weakness of a biblical theology based on themes instead of one focused on discovering the narrative plot structure through attention to cultural and linguistic data from exegesis and analysis of the literary structures, both macro and micro. We must remember that the pattern of Hebrew literature is recursive, resumptive, and holographic. Genesis 1 goes round the topic of creation, and Genesis 2 goes round the topic again from a different perspective. Put the two together and you have a 3-D presentation of the creation.
\nGenesis 2:8\u201317 pictures Adam as a kind of king-priest worshiping in a garden sanctuary. This passage explains how the royal rule given to humankind within the covenant structure established in 1:26\u201327 is to operate. Dumbrell begins to draw out the implications of this as follows:<\/p>\n
In short, created in the world with dominion over it, man is immediately abstracted from the world and placed directly in the divine presence. What is being said in all this is surely how the dominion mandate was to be exercised.\u2026 Man was to control his world, not primarily by immersing himself in the tasks of ordering it, but by recognizing that there was a system of priorities by which all of life was to be regulated. If he were rightly related to his Creator, then he would rightly respond to creation.<\/p>\n
Included in the covenant was an ordering of male-female relationships and family life so that part of responding rightly to creation was true humanness defined in proper ways of treating each other.
\nThe relationship between Genesis 2:8\u201317 and 1:26\u201327 is significant. Genesis 2:8\u201317 explains the relationship between \u201clikeness\u201d and \u201cimage\u201d in the covenant relationship between man and God. Only when the father-son relationship is nurtured through worship, fellowship, and obedient love will humankind appropriately and properly reflect and represent to the world the kind of kingship and rule intrinsic to God himself. Kingship is effected through covenant relationship.<\/p>\n
THE DEMAND OF THE COVENANT AND ITS BREACH<\/p>\n
There was a real and vital element of condition in the covenant relationship in the garden. Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was prohibited. We know that the conditions for maintaining love, loyalty, and trust in the covenant relationship were not met. When the fruit of the forbidden tree was eaten, we were all involved somehow, as Romans 5:12\u201321 makes plain.
\nA brief comment is necessary to discuss the breaking of the covenant. Just what was involved in this initial transgression? Was the prohibition against eating the fruit of the forbidden tree an arbitrarily imposed means for testing loyalty and obedience? This is surely true, but it does not do justice to what was offered by the snake and confirmed by God after the fall, that they would be \u201clike gods, knowing good and evil\u201d (see Gen. 3:5, 22).
\nSome have explained knowing good and evil as a sexual understanding of each other. This is inadequate because it does not make plain how the acquisition of such knowledge would make one like God.
\nOthers have explained good and evil as a way of expressing the totality of knowledge by describing opposite poles. But certainly neither Adam and Eve nor any subsequent humans can claim the totality of knowledge.
\nThe best explanation to date is that of W. M. Clark, who carefully analyzed all the occurrences of the phrase in the Hebrew Bible and showed that the \u201cknowledge of good and evil\u201d has to do with the exercise of absolute moral autonomy. That is to say, knowing good and evil means choosing or determining for oneself what is right and wrong independently of God. The decision of Adam to be self-legislating did make him like God in one sense but also unlike God in that he would not be able to foresee the consequences of his choices Long-term or always be certain of the issues before him.<\/p>\n
SUMMARY<\/p>\n
Careful exegesis of Genesis 1\u20133 has shown that at creation, God made humankind as his image and according to his likeness. In the cultural and linguistic setting of the fifteenth century BC and according to the literary techniques embedded in the text and the framework provided by the metanarrative, this speaks of man\u2019s relationship to God as son and his relationship to creation as servant-king. In the ancient Near East, both the context of the family and the relationship of king and people are covenantal, requiring loyal love, obedience, and trust. Although the word \u201ccovenant\u201d (b\u0115r\u00eet) is not in the narrative, the words \u201cimage\u201d and \u201clikeness\u201d are understood by the first readers as describing covenant relationships.<\/p>\n
LATER TEXTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT<\/p>\n
Several texts later in the Old Testament may have a direct bearing on the question of whether or not there is a covenant at creation.<\/p>\n
HOSEA 6:7<\/p>\n
Explicit support for a covenant at creation may be found in Hosea 6:7, although the text is disputed. The Masoretic Text has w\u0115h\u0113mm\u00e2 k\u0115\u2019\u0101d\u0101m \u02bb\u0101b\u0115r\u00fb b\u0115r\u00eet, which may be literally translated, \u201cbut they, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant.\u201d Williamson notes the problem and argues as follows:<\/p>\n
Although several translations and commentators interpret k\u0115\u2019\u0101d\u0101m in a personal sense, meaning \u201clike Adam,\u201d most interpreters emend the key word to read b\u0115\u2019\u0101d\u0101m (in\/at Adam), taking the proper noun in its geographical sense\u2014referring to the first town Israel reached after crossing into the Promised Land (Josh. 3:16). Indeed, arguably, a geographical interpretation may not necessitate a textual emendation at all (cf. the similar syntax kammidb\u0101r [Lit. \u201cas in the wilderness\u201d] in Hos. 2:3; MT 5:5). Further support for this geographical understanding is found in the reference to Gilead (Hos. 6:8) and Shechem (Hos. 6:9) in the immediate context, and especially in the deployment of the locative \u0161\u0101m (there) immediately after b\u0115r\u00eet in Hosea 6:7.<\/p>\n
The arguments of Williamson appear to be persuasive. Nonetheless, Davies shows that Hosea 6:7 is probably linked to Hosea 4:4\u20136:<\/p>\n
Yet let no one contend,
\nand let none accuse,
\nfor with you is my contention, O priest.
\nYou shall stumble by day;
\nthe prophet also shall stumble with you by night;
\nand I will destroy your mother.
\nMy people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;
\nbecause you have rejected knowledge,
\nI reject you from being a priest to me.
\nAnd since you have forgotten the law of your God,
\nI also will forget your children. (ESV)<\/p>\n
Davies argues convincingly that Hosea is alluding directly to Exodus 19:6 and addressing corporate Israel with the words \u201cO priest.\u201d Because the people have rejected the Torah, God has rejected them as his royal priesthood. Davies further says,<\/p>\n
This understanding might lend support to the unfashionable reading \u201clike Adam\u201d (Vulgate, RV, NASB, NIV) for \u05db\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd at 6:7. If Hosea has as part of his shared presupposition pool with his readers the story of Genesis 2, with Adam as the idyllic priest-king (cf. Ezek. 28:12\u201315; Jub. 4.23\u201326), together with the notion that Israel at Sinai was constituted as the new humanity, the true successors of Adam (cf. 4 Ezra 3:3\u201336; 6:53\u201359; 2 Bar. 14.17\u201319), then it makes sense to compare the breach of the Sinai covenant (e.g., Hos. 4:1, 2) with the rebellion in the garden (Gen. 3; cf. Ezek. 28:16\u201317). The LXX \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 understands the reference to be to a man. An alternative is to read \u05db\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd as a place reference (cf. \u05e9\u05c1\u05dd, \u201cthere,\u201d which seems to call for a place reference), though why the preposition \u05db should have been chosen (it is usually emended to \u05d1 on this understanding), and why the notion of \u201ccovenant\u201d should be introduced in connection with the place Adam (RSV, JB, NRSV) or Admah (NEB) is unclear.<\/p>\n
The royal priesthood of Israel is an Adamic role assigned to her at the exodus, as indicated by Israel being addressed as the \u201cson of God\u201d (Ex. 4:22), a fact to which Hosea directly refers in 11:1. By violating the Mosaic covenant, Israel has forfeited this role. The connection with Genesis 2 is natural and suitable. Williamson, however, has been less than precise with the linguistic data. It is true that the adverb \u0161\u0101m (\u201cthere\u201d) follows b\u0115r\u00eet in Hosea 6:7, but it begins a new clause: \u201cThere they acted treacherously against me.\u201d It is normal that the adverb has a locative and spatial function, as in Hosea 9:15 and 12:4:<\/p>\n
Every evil of theirs is in Gilgal;
\nthere I began to hate them. (9:15 ESV)<\/p>\n
He met God at Bethel,
\nand there God spoke with us. (12:4 ESV)<\/p>\n
Yet the anaphoric referent of the adverb may specify a location more indirectly by referring to circumstances. Consider Hosea 10:9 (cf. 9:9):<\/p>\n
From the days of Gibeah, you have sinned, O Israel;
\nthere they have continued. (10:9 ESV)<\/p>\n
The phrase \u201clike Adam\u201d in Hosea 6:7 indicates sin in a place, the garden in Eden. The \u201cthere\u201d can refer back to these circumstances. If the Masoretic Text of Hosea 6:7 is taken at face value, it seems to imply that the failure of Israel\u2019s role as another Adam was doomed from the garden in Eden because all are somehow involved in Adam\u2019s covenant breaking:<\/p>\n
But like Adam they transgressed the covenant;
\nthere they dealt faithlessly with me. (ESV)<\/p>\n
Admittedly, the text is difficult and disputed, but Williamson has not shown that a face-value reading of the text is to be rejected. Hosea is a book with many geographical allusions, but nowhere does the Old Testament clearly speak of covenant breaking at the location known as Adam (Josh. 3:16). Such a reference would be more than obscurantist.<\/p>\n
JEREMIAH 33:19\u201326<\/p>\n
In Jeremiah 33:19\u201326 the certainty of Yahweh\u2019s covenant with David is correlated with the certainty of his covenant with the arrangement of day and night:<\/p>\n
The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: \u201cThus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me.\u201d
\nThe word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: \u201cHave you not observed that these people are saying, \u2018The LORD has rejected the two clans that he chose\u2019? Thus they have despised my people so that they are no longer a nation in their sight. Thus says the LORD: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth, then I will reject the offspring of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his offspring to rule over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.\u201d (ESV)<\/p>\n
Apparently, Williamson wishes to argue that this is a reference to the covenant with Noah (Gen. 8:22) and thus does not indicate a covenant in Genesis 1. This, however, is specious reasoning. The covenant with Noah is a renewal of the commitment of the Creator to the ordinances established at creation, so the reference in Jeremiah 33 is to both his commitment to Noah and his original commitment at creation. God\u2019s commitment to \u201cthe fixed order of heaven and earth\u201d was initiated at creation and upheld in the covenant with Noah. Williamson admits as much when he says, \u201cGod intended, through Noah, to fulfil his original creative intent.\u201d To aver that this is a reference to the covenant with Noah but not creation is contradictory and results from Williamson\u2019s misunderstanding and misuse of the phrases \u201ccut a covenant\u201d (k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet) and \u201cuphold a covenant\u201d (h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet). A parallel reference is Jeremiah 31:35\u201337, which surely refers to creation and indicates that God\u2019s commitment to Israel is as certain as his commitment to creation. The reason for this is that Israel\u2019s doctrine of salvation is based on her doctrine of creation. Williamson has lost sight of this.<\/p>\n
7<\/p>\n
THE COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM (1)<\/p>\n
After the covenant at creation established between God and humans and humans and creation, and the subsequent covenant with Noah upholding the original covenant at creation, next in the grand story comes the covenant with Abraham. Brian Walsh, Christian Reformed chaplain to the University of Toronto in Canada, wrote some time ago of the importance of this grand story to the challenges facing the church in a postmodern age:<\/p>\n
Postmodern culture is deeply suspicious of all grand stories. Again, The Smashing Pumpkins prove to be insightful in this regard. In their infinitely sad song, \u201ctales of a scorched earth,\u201d they sing, \u201cwe\u2019re all dead yeah we\u2019re all dead \/ inside the future of a shattered past.\u201d We live inside the future of a shattered past because that \u201cpast\u201d told grand stories of Marxist utopia, technological freedom, or capitalist paradise. Yet we have come to see not only that these stories are unfinished, but that they are also fundamentally unfinishable, for the simple reason that they are fundamentally lies. The postmodern ethos insists that stories such as these that have so shaped our lives are not stories of emancipation and progress after all, but stories of enslavement, oppression and violence. And on such a view, any story, any world view, that makes grand claims about the real course and destiny of history will be perceived as making common cause with such violence and oppression. This characteristic of the postmodern shift is, I think, the most challenging to Christian faith. If there is one thing that Christianity is all about it is a grand story. How else can we interpret the cosmic tale of creation, fall, redemption and consummation that the Scriptures tell? Yet it is precisely this story that we must tell in a postmodern culture. In the face of the dissolution of all grand stories, Christians have the audacity to proclaim, week after week, the liberating story of God\u2019s redemption of all creation. It is, we insist, the one story that actually delivers on what it promises.<\/p>\n
ABRAHAM IN THE GENESIS PLOT STRUCTURE<\/p>\n
If we are to construct a metanarrative that is, in fact, the metanarrative of Scripture and not a marriage of biblical data and secular worldviews, we must pay attention to the shape of the text and the literary techniques used by the narrator to locate the narratives concerning Abraham within the larger plot structure of Genesis, the Pentateuch, the Old Testament, and the Bible as a whole. Afterward, we can reckon with the internal movement and literary structure within the Abraham narratives.
\nN. T. Wright, an evangelical scholar in England, describes the story of Abraham this way:<\/p>\n
Abraham emerges within the structure of Genesis as the answer to the plight of all humankind. The line of disaster and of the \u201ccurse,\u201d from Adam, through Cain, through the Flood to Babel, begins to be reversed when God calls Abraham and says, \u201cin you shall all the families of the earth be blessed.\u201d<\/p>\n
Here, after Adam and Noah, God is making another new start. Abram and his family constitute another Adam. Notice the parallels in the biblical narrative: Adam and Eve had three sons (besides other children who are not named in the text, Gen. 5:4). Similarly, the genealogy in Genesis 5 ends with a man who also had three sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth). The genealogy in Genesis 11 ends in the same way: with a man who had three sons (Abram, Nahor, and Haran). This parallel is a literary technique inviting the reader to compare Abram with Noah and Adam.
\nOther parallels between Genesis 1\u20133 and Genesis 12 also suggest that we should view Abram as a new Adam, and we will now explore some of them.<\/p>\n
GENESIS 12 AS A NEW CREATION<\/p>\n
According to the apostle Paul, God\u2019s choosing of Abram involved calling into existence that which was nonexistent. Paul says,<\/p>\n
That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring\u2014not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, \u201cI have made you the father of many nations\u201d\u2014in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. (Rom. 4:16\u201317 ESV)<\/p>\n
When Paul speaks of Abraham believing in the God who calls into existence the things that do not exist, what does this language bring to our minds? Paul can be alluding directly to only one passage of Scripture: Genesis 1. Over and over again in the creation narrative we read the words, \u201cAnd God said, \u2018Let x be.\u2019 And x was.\u201d God simply speaks his word and calls into existence things that do not exist. Therefore, according to the New Testament, as we read Genesis 12\u201325, we are to view the call of Abram as a kind of \u201cnew creation.\u201d Just as the divine word in Genesis 1:3 brings into being and existence things that are not, so in Genesis 12:3 it is the divine word that brings into existence a new order out of the chaos resulting from the confusion and curse of Babel\u2014the condition of the world just prior to Genesis 12.
\nNote that Genesis 10 and 11 are not presented in chronological order. Genesis 10 constitutes a \u201cTable of Nations,\u201d showing the various families and peoples of the world lost and scattered over the face of the earth. Genesis 11 presents the narrative of the \u201cTower of Babel,\u201d which explains how the nations were scattered throughout the world in this way. Just as the first Adam failed as a covenant keeper and his family line through Cain ended up with the corruption and violence displayed by Lamech, a polygamist who murdered a boy and promised severe vengeance for any who would redress his heinous act, so the second Adam, Noah, also failed to produce a covenant community practicing social justice, which resulted in the humanistic hubris of Babel. The earth returns once more to chaos before God begins anew by calling Abram. As one commentator notes, \u201cIn this way the absolutely free and unconditioned nature of the choice of Abram is emphasized, and thus the presence of the divine will as the power which shapes and directs all history is at this point made perfectly clear.\u201d<\/p>\n
ISRAEL AS LAST ADAM<\/p>\n
Other parallels are established by the use of key words. Let us now notice how the language of the commission to Adam is repeated throughout the book of Genesis by following the use of \u201cbless,\u201d \u201cbe fruitful,\u201d and \u201cmultiply\u201d in the narratives subsequent to the creation narrative.<\/p>\n
1:28: And God blessed them, and God said to them, \u201cBe fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves on the earth.\u201d<\/p>\n
12:2\u20133: \u201cAnd I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great; and be a blessing! And I will bless those who bless you.\u201d<\/p>\n
17:2, 6, 8: \u201cI will make my covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.\u2026 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, \u2026 and I will give to you and to your seed after you \u2026 all the land of Canaan.\u201d<\/p>\n
22:16\u201318: \u201cBecause you have done this, \u2026 I will certainly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore.\u2026 and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.\u201d<\/p>\n
26:3\u20134: [The Lord said to Isaac,] \u201cI will be with you and will bless you; for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will fulfill the oath that I swore to your father Abraham. I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and will give your descendants all these lands, and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.\u201d<\/p>\n
26:24: \u201cFear not, for I am with you. I will bless you and multiply your descendants, for the sake of my servant Abraham.\u201d<\/p>\n
28:3: [Isaac blessed Jacob and said,] \u201cGod Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples. May he give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and to your descendants with you, that you may possess the land of your sojournings, which God gave to Abraham.\u201d<\/p>\n
35:11\u201312: And God said to [Jacob], \u201cI am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and company of nations shall come from you, \u2026 and the land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the land to your descendants after you.\u201d<\/p>\n
47:27: Thus Israel lived in the land of Egypt, \u2026 and they gained possessions in it and were fruitful and multiplied exceedingly.<\/p>\n
48:3\u20134: Jacob said to Joseph, \u201cGod Almighty appeared to me \u2026 and said to me, \u2018Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you, \u2026 and will give this land to your seed after you.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n
From tracing this trail of the terms \u201cbless,\u201d \u201cbe fruitful,\u201d and \u201cmultiply\u201d through Genesis, N. T. Wright concludes as follows:<\/p>\n
Thus at key moments\u2014Abraham\u2019s call, his circumcision, the offering of Isaac, the transition from Abraham to Isaac and from Isaac to Jacob, and in the sojourn in Egypt\u2014the narrative quietly makes the point that Abraham and his family inherit, in a measure, the role of Adam and Eve. The differences are not, however, insignificant. Except for 35:11 f., echoed in 48:3 f., the command (\u201cbe fruitful \u2026\u201d) has turned into a promise (\u201cI will make you fruitful \u2026\u201d). The word \u201cexceedingly\u201d is added in ch. 17. And, most importantly, possession of the land of Canaan, and supremacy over enemies, has taken the place of the dominion over nature given in 1:28. We could sum up this aspect of Genesis by saying: Abraham\u2019s children are God\u2019s true humanity, and their homeland is the new Eden.<\/p>\n
The last point made by Wright is forcefully illustrated by Exodus 15:17. At the end of the song sung by Israel after crossing the Red Sea we read,<\/p>\n
You will bring them in and plant them on your own mountain,
\nthe place, O LORD, which you have made for your abode,
\nthe sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands have established. (ESV)<\/p>\n
In this verse the establishment of Israel in the land of Canaan is pictured as the planting of a tree in a mountain sanctuary, exactly the picture of Eden presented in Genesis 2 and Ezekiel 28. The same thought is expressed in Psalm 78:54, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n
And he brought them to the border of his sanctuary,
\nthe mountain that his right hand had acquired.<\/p>\n
The verse describes the event of the exodus in which the Lord brought Israel to Canaan, but the terms used to describe the Land of Promise depict it in Edenic terms as a mountain sanctuary. This depiction is strengthened by two texts in which, after the Assyrians and Babylonians desolate the land by divine judgment, a restoration is promised wherein the land will once more be like Eden:<\/p>\n
The LORD will surely comfort Zion
\nand will look with compassion on all her ruins;
\nhe will make her deserts like Eden,
\nher wastelands like the garden of the LORD. (Isa. 51:3 NIV)<\/p>\n
This is what the Sovereign LORD says: On the day I cleanse you from all your sins, I will resettle your towns, and the ruins will be rebuilt. The desolate land will be cultivated instead of lying desolate in the sight of all who pass through it. They will say, \u201cThis land that was laid waste has become like the garden of Eden; the cities that were lying in ruins, desolate and destroyed, are now fortified and inhabited.\u201d Then the nations around you that remain will know that I the LORD have rebuilt what was destroyed and have replanted what was desolate. I the LORD have spoken, and I will do it. (Ezek. 36:33\u201336 NIV)<\/p>\n
Thus Abraham and his family, later called Israel, is, as it were, a last Adam. God made a major new start with Noah. Now he is making a new start with Abraham. There are no major new beginnings after this in the narrative of Scripture (until we come to the new creation at the end of the story).
\nWhen we see that Israel is, according to the Old Testament, the last Adam and, as later Jewish tradition understood it, the one undoing the sin of the first Adam, we see the background for Paul\u2019s understanding of Christ as the last Adam. As history unfolds, Jesus accomplishes in his person and work what God intended for Israel as a people.
\nIt may be useful to note here that literary structure and plot structure are not the same thing. The literary structure of Genesis is determined by the formula \u201cthese are the generations.\u201d The repetition of \u201cblessing,\u201d \u201cfruitful,\u201d and \u201cmultiply,\u201d however, is key to the plot structure.<\/p>\n
OVERVIEW OF GOD\u2019S DEALINGS WITH ABRAM<\/p>\n
It was over a period of forty years that God had dealings with Abram, later called Abraham. During this time there was a call for Abram to leave his homeland and journey to a country unknown to him. Initially, God made promises to Abram (Genesis 12) that were later enshrined in a covenant (Genesis 15 and 17) and were finally confirmed by an oath (Genesis 22). All throughout this period, one can perceive development and growth in the character and life of Abram in terms of faith in God\u2019s promises and obedience to his instructions (normally revealed to him by means of visions). The book of Genesis is characterized by a literary structure in which the sections are divided according to \u201cbirth\/family histories.\u201d The narratives concerning Abram fall within the \u201cfamily history\u201d of Terah (11:27\u201325:11), which divides naturally into nineteen sections, as shown in table 7.1.<\/p>\n
Table 7.1 The Abram Narratives
\nBirth and Family History of Terah
\nGenesis 11:27\u201325:11
\nTerah\u2019s family and journey to Haran
\n11:27\u201332
\nCall of Abram and journey to Canaan
\n12:1\u20139
\nAbram and Sarai in Egypt
\n12:10\u201320
\nAbram and Lot separate
\n13:1\u201318
\nBattle with four kings from east
\n14:1\u201324
\nMaking of covenant with Abram
\n15:1\u201318
\nBirth of Ishmael by Hagar
\n16:1\u201316
\nConfirming of covenant with Abram
\n17:1\u201327
\nAbraham\u2019s hospitality and social justice
\n18:1\u201333
\nLot rescued from destruction of Sodom
\n19:1\u201329
\nLot\u2019s daughters\u2019 incest
\n19:30\u201338
\nAbraham sojourns in Gerar
\n20:1\u201318
\nBirth of Isaac
\n21:1\u201321
\nCovenant with Abimelech
\n21:22\u201334
\nAbraham tested and God\u2019s oath
\n22:1\u201319
\nNahor\u2019s family
\n22:20\u201324
\nDeath and burial of Sarah
\n23:1\u201320
\nA wife for Isaac
\n24:1\u201367
\nAbraham\u2019s remarriage and death
\n25:1\u201311<\/p>\n
To be sure, the skillful narrator arranges these divisions in a more artful literary structure than the above outline shows, but the outline indicates simply the flow of the plot in the divine dealings with Abram according to its basic divisions.
\nThree or four episodes in the Abram narrative particularly focus on the covenant that God made with Abraham. First, in Genesis 12, God makes incredible promises to Abram involving progeny and land (i.e., a place where his progeny can live that they can call home). Then, in chapter 15, both of these promises are enshrined in a covenant. Later on, in chapter 17, after Abram and Sarai\u2019s attempt to fulfill the promise of progeny through Hagar and Ishmael, God repeats his promises and confirms his covenant, this time adding the rite or sign of circumcision. Some ten to fifteen years afterward, according to chapter 22, God \u201ctests\u201d Abraham and, upon his obedience, swears by himself in another mighty confirmation of the promises.<\/p>\n
Key Points in the Abraham Narratives<\/p>\n
1. Giving the promise: The call of Abram (Genesis 12)
\n2. Making the covenant: The promise of descendants and land (Genesis 15)
\n3. Confirming the covenant: The sign of circumcision (Genesis 17)
\n4. Abraham\u2019s obedience and confirmation of the promises by oath (Genesis 22)<\/p>\n
We might compare the relationship between God and Abraham to a marriage. The giving of the promises in chapter 12 would then represent the betrothal or engagement. The covenant making in chapter 15 and confirmation in chapter 17 would correspond to the wedding vows of the marriage covenant and the reaffirmation on the silver anniversary. After testing Abraham, God reiterates his promises by a mighty oath.<\/p>\n
OUTLINE OF GENESIS 12<\/p>\n
Careful consideration of key grammatical issues and the literary structure of Genesis 12 is necessary for a correct interpretation of the promises made by God to Abram and the covenant ensuing from them. In fact, interpretation at this key point affects how one understands the rest of the Bible. Table 7.2 provides a basic outline.
\nThe chapter divides into two sections: 12:1\u20133 constitutes the divine word to Abram, and 12:4\u20139 indicates his response to that word. Noting the literary structure of 12:1\u20133 is crucial. In the Hebrew text, there are two commands (i.e., verbs marked in the Hebrew verbal system as imperatives): \u201cgo\u201d and \u201cbe.\u201d Each of these commands is followed by three prefix forms (which could be construed as either cohortatives or imperfects), and normally prefix forms following commands mark purpose or result. Thus three promises flow from each of the two commands. Since the literary structure is debated, the data must be analyzed in detail.<\/p>\n
Table 7.2 The Giving of the Promise: The Call of Abram (Genesis 12)
\nThe Divine Word: Command and Promise
\n12:1\u20133
\nGo (Command)
\n1. I will make you into a great nation
\n(Promise)
\n2. I will bless you
\n(Promise)
\n3. I will make your name great
\n(Promise)
\nBe a Blessing (Command)
\n1. I will bless those who bless you
\n(Promise)
\n2. I will curse him who curses you
\n(Promise)
\n3. In you all nations will be blessed
\n(Promise)
\nAbram\u2019s Response: Obedience
\n12:4\u20139
\n1. Obedience
\n12:4\u20136
\n2. Confirmation
\n12:7
\n3. Obedience
\n12:8\u20139<\/p>\n
THE IMPERATIVES<\/p>\n
The divine speech to Abram in Genesis 12:1\u20133 contains eight verbs (not including verbs in embedded or relative clauses): ,\u05d5\u05b7\u05d0\u05b2\u05d2\u05b7\u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4 ,\u05d5\u05b7\u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05db\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 ,\u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05e2\u05b6\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05da\u05b8 ,\u05dc\u05b6\u05da\u05b0 \u05d5\u05b0\u05e0\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc ,\u05d0\u05b8\u05d0\u05b9\u05e8 ,\u05d5\u05b7\u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b8\u05bd\u05e8\u05b2\u05db\u05b8\u05d4 ,\u05d5\u05b6\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b5\u05d4. The first and fifth, \u05dc\u05b6\u05da\u05b0 and \u05d5\u05b6\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b5\u05d4, are formally unambiguous and must be analyzed as qal second-person singular imperatives. The remaining verbs are all first-person volitives (i.e., cohortative), determined either from the termination in -\u00e2 or from their clause-initial position. The verb forms with pronominal suffixes (\u05d5\u05b7\u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05db\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 ,\u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05e2\u05b6\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05da\u05b8) naturally cannot have the -\u00e2 termination but are clause initial and in a sequence of volitives and so ought to be construed as such. The prefix forms in Genesis 12:1\u20133 could also be read as simple future indicatives without altering the meaning significantly. In 12:3, \u05d0\u05b8\u05d0\u05b9\u05e8 is not prefixed by waw and is not clause initial since a clause component is preposed. This clause pattern marks the sentence as part of a matching pair with the preceding clause (i.e., \u201cI will bless the ones blessing you, but the one cursing you I will curse\u201d are clauses marked by discourse-grammar signals as a matched pair).
\nThe form most troublesome to scholars in this sequence is \u05d5\u05b6\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b5\u05d4. Many prefer to construe it as an emphatic consequence clause, \u201cso that you will be a blessing.\u201d Kenneth Mathews explains:<\/p>\n
\u05d5\u05b6\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b5\u05d4 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05d4 (lit. \u201cbe a blessing,\u201d v. 2d) is preceded by the cohortative \u05d5\u05b7\u05d0\u05b2\u05d2\u05b7\u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4 (\u201cI will make \u2026 great\u201d); by this sequence of verbs the imperative expresses expected certainty or intention (GKC \u00a7 110i). The use of the imperative instead of an imperfective verbal form heightens the certainty of the promise (IBHS \u00a7 34.4c).<\/p>\n
Mathews appeals to An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, by Bruce Waltke and Michael O\u2019Connor. The relevant section states,<\/p>\n
The imperative, like the jussive, has uses in which its ordinary force is lost. The figure of heterosis involves the exchange of one grammatical form for another; with the imperative, heterosis creates a promise or prediction to be fulfilled in the future, made more emphatic and vivid than would be the case were the prefix conjugation used.<\/p>\n
Certainly, the line of demarcation between command and future indicative is fuzzy in many languages; one need not appeal to a figure of speech with a pedantic name to substantiate this. The three examples given by Waltke and O\u2019Connor are not particularly convincing (2 Kings 19:29; Ps. 110:2; Isa. 54:14) and can most simply be construed as straightforward commands. Genesis 12:3 is not listed as an example, although elsewhere Waltke appears to agree with the analysis of Mathews. The explanation of Mathews is hardly satisfying. The assumption in our approach is that the choice of every verb form is motivated. A consequence clause would be more clearly marked by a prefix form in clause-initial position. If the author intended a consequence, forms such as \u05d5\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b6\u05d4 or \u05d5\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9 would have been clearer and more natural than \u05d5\u05b6\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b5\u05d4.
\nWhile one might construe the imperative following the cohortative as a purpose sequence, as in GKC \u00a7110i, such sequences are common with cohortatives and jussives but extremely rare with imperatives, as more recent studies on Hebrew volitives have shown. This is what creates the problem. The alert reader, however, would immediately pair \u05d5\u05b6\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b5\u05d4 with \u05dc\u05b6\u05da\u05b0 since both are not only imperatives but are also second person, in contrast to the first-person forms that dominate the divine speech. This is indeed the author\u2019s literary signal that divides the speech into two sections, so that there are just two commands, and each is followed by three promises.
\nSuch an analysis does not remove the problem for some scholars, since what could the command \u201cbe a blessing\u201d mean? What we see here, even before the divine-human relationship is solemnized as a covenant in chapter 15, is that a relationship with God entails commands or obligations to be obeyed and fulfilled but that these are always surrounded and supported by the mighty promises of God. Long ago, Augustine expressed it this way: \u201cGive what you command, and command what you will,\u201d by which he meant, \u201cWhat God commands, he also enables.\u201d God is promising to do something. But he is doing it in the context of using Abram as an agent of blessing to the world. The three promises that follow begin to explain the command \u201cbe a blessing\u201d and unfold how this will work out: \u201cI will bless the ones blessing you, but the one cursing you I will curse, and in you all the clans of the world will be blessed.\u201d Although God commands Abram, God is still the implied agent who will enable Abram to bring blessing to others.
\nThe exegesis of Williamson ought to be cited as well on this important point of grammar in Genesis 12:3:<\/p>\n
As it stands, the traditional Hebrew text (MT) can be interpreted either as an emphatic consequence clause, \u201cso that you will indeed be blessed,\u201d or as a second command, \u201cBe a blessing.\u201d While modern English translations clearly favour the former, most recent studies support the latter. Unfortunately, therefore, this is an area over which scholarly opinion is sharply divided. Indeed, some have even suggested removing the problem altogether through textual surgery\u2014by retaining the Hebrew consonants but supplying different vowel points, the text may be emended to read, \u201cand it [i.e., \u2018your name,\u2019 v. 2c] shall be a blessing.\u201d However, such an extreme measure is unnecessary, especially since it is possible to make sense of the text as it stands, and the latter is undoubtedly the harder reading.
\nSupport for reading the verb as a second divine command may be found in Genesis 17:1b, in which a similar construction (an imperative verb string involving hyh + X) is found, and here the verb undoubtedly retains its imperative force (\u201cWalk before me and be blameless\u201d Gen. 17:1 NIV; my italics). Further support for retaining the imperative reading can be adduced from the fact that both imperatives in Genesis 12:1\u20133 are directly followed by cohortatives\u2014a construction that normally expresses purpose or result. Since the first of these imperative-cohortative clauses expresses a conditional promise, it seems reasonable to conclude that an identical construction in the same text-unit should be similarly interpreted (i.e. as a second conditional promise). Thus understood, Abraham\u2019s divine commission was twofold: he was to \u201cGo,\u201d and he was to \u201cBe a blessing!\u201d<\/p>\n
Apart from the first statement, Williamson\u2019s analysis is excellent. Those who consider that the form can be construed as an emphatic consequence clause have misconstrued the text and missed important clues to the literary structure. The verb \u05d5\u05b6\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b5\u05d4 is in sequence with \u05dc\u05b6\u05da\u05b0 and not with \u05d5\u05b7\u05d0\u05b2\u05d2\u05b7\u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4. A Hebrew imperative followed by an imperative merely shows a logical sequence of commands and does not mark emphatic consequence, purpose, or result as do other sequences of volitives. This analysis alleviates the problem in a possibly difficult text. An imperative of the verb \u201cto be\u201d is not in itself problematic or singular in attestation.<\/p>\n
THE PROMISES<\/p>\n
As the outline shows, God\u2019s six promises to Abram are arranged in two groups of three: (1) the first group promises blessing for Abram as an individual\u2014he will develop into a great nation, be blessed, and be given a great name; and (2) the second group promises blessing (or cursing) for the nations of the world through their relation to Abram.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The flood, then, is a divine judgment in response to the evil of the human heart and the resultant corruption and violence. In contrast to his contemporaries, Noah was righteous in an age of social violence. Genesis 6:8 indicates that Noah was the object of divine favor. This was not an arbitrary result, since the … <\/p>\n