![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/4\/2012\/05\/Exile.jpg\" "\\"Exile")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe following series is based on my senior paper for Seminary. You may remember a video where I invited people to contribute their stories<\/a> to help make my case. For the next couple weeks, I\u2019ve decided to share my findings with you all. There will be a \u201cthesis\/problem\u201d section, a \u201cbiblical theology\u201d section, and an \u201capplication\u201d section. I hope you will read along and share this with others! You can read the rest of the series here<\/a>. Evolving Evangelicalism: Inviting Church Leaders to Refine their Approach to Scripture and Origins (part 5)<\/strong><\/p>\n In order to understand the author\u2019s intent in Genesis 1, examining the original historical context will prove helpful. <\/em>Although well-meaning evangelical apologists have written much to the contrary,[1]<\/a> the entire book of Genesis did not come into its final form until the post-exilic age.[2]<\/a> Genesis 1, the first creation narrative, is the relatively newer text (composed by the Priestly redactor [\u201cP\u201d]) addressing issues arising from the exilic \/ post-exilic period, and Genesis 2-3, the second creation narrative, finds its roots well before the exile (\u201cJ\u201d source). <\/em>For \u201cP,\u201d one purpose was to address the despair of God\u2019s people who were divided, pillaged, and forced out of their land. The text provides a reflection on God as the creative organizer of the cosmos within a historically disorienting set of circumstances.<\/p>\n The two creation accounts ought to be read as two distinct stories.[3]<\/a> <\/em>These texts with \u201cdifferent origins and transmission histories\u201d were intentionally \u201cbrought together in a coherent way by a redactor\u201d to complementarily \u201cprovide the canonical picture of creation.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n Genesis 1 functions as a polemic against the gods of Israel\u2019s exilic conquerors. <\/em>To accomplish this end, the liturgy utilizes older narratives about the creation of the cosmos from Israel\u2019s neighbors. <\/em>Elements of Egyptian and Mesopotamian stories find their way into the biblical text, but are deliberately subverted.[5]<\/a> <\/em>Genesis 1 provides a central interpretive concern, from which the creation theology finds its proper rooting. <\/em>In order to make meaning out of their experiences with God in the midst of exile, Genesis 1 refutes the theology of 6th<\/sup> century Babylon by reminding Israel that God alone brings life and order to humanity and the earth.[6]<\/a> <\/em>Peter Enns<\/a> states this well:<\/p>\n Placing Genesis in its ancient Near Eastern setting strongly suggests that it was written as a self-defining document, as a means of declaring the distinctiveness of Israel\u2019s own beliefs from those of the surrounding nations. <\/em>In other words, Genesis is an argument, a polemic, declaring how Israel\u2019s God is different from all the other gods, and therefore how Israel is different from all the other nations.[7]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The climax of Genesis 1, seen here, concerns humanity: \u201cSo God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them\u2026\u201d (Genesis 1.27). <\/em>Many conflicts regarding biological evolution stem from this passage, because the common assumption is that humankind is unique. <\/em>This is true, but our uniqueness is in our vocation<\/em>, not in our biological origins<\/em>.\u00a0 To make this point, it will be helpful to consider this verse in the context of the ancient world.<\/p>\n In the context of the passage, Brueggemann states: \u201cIt is now generally agreed that the image of God reflected in the human persons is after the manner of a king who establishes statues of himself to assert his sovereign rule where the king himself cannot be present.\u201d[8]<\/a> Placing tangible physical images in regions where the ruler could not be present served to remind the subjects of the identity of their ruler. <\/em><\/p>\n <\/em>A key difference in Genesis is that the kingly language does not refer to iron-fisted dominance. <\/em>Rather, this is a subversion of Mesopotamian ideology. J. Richard Middleton writes, \u201cBut whereas power in the Babylonian and Assyrian empires was concentrated in the hands of a few, power in Genesis 1 is diffused or shared.\u201d[9]<\/a> <\/em>In God\u2019s economy, humanity is \u201ccalled to a fundamental mutuality in a shared task,\u201d[10]<\/a> involving the stewarding of God\u2019s creation project. <\/em>Therefore, the \u201cimage of God\u201d ultimately describes the egalitarian role<\/em> of imaging God to all the earth, and as such, endows all humankind with intrinsic value, thus liberating humanity from the oppressive values of empire.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n Of the texts that Genesis 1 appropriates and subverts, Enuma Elish<\/em> stands out as a key to comparison (which dates back at least to the 7th<\/sup> century BCE [pre-exile], but may have traditions reaching back to the 3rd<\/sup> millennium BCE). Enuma Elish<\/em> makes us acutely aware of the theology of Babylonian peoples during the exilic period, which Israel\u2019s creation theology intentionally countered.[12]<\/a> Enuma Elish<\/em> tells the story of the victorious god Marduk, who during a cosmic battle kills his great-great-grandmother, the goddess Tiamot. <\/em>Then, Marduk separates her dead body into two pieces; one half becomes the heavens and the other half forms the earth.<\/p>\n There is a rhetorical connection between Genesis 1 and this Babylonian epic. <\/em>Where Tiamot personifies chaos that must be tamed (through violence), Israelite theology deliberately depersonalizes chaos as \u201cthe deep\u201d (Hebraic \u201ctehom\u201d with linguistic ties to the word Tiamot). <\/em>God alone tames the dark chaos without the use of violence,[13]<\/a> and is too powerful to consider a conflict with lesser deities from surrounding pagan nations.[14]<\/a><\/p>\n [1]<\/a>. See: Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict<\/em>, rev., updated, and expanded ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), ch. 13-21. <\/em>He argues for the Mosaic authorship of the whole Pentateuch.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [2]<\/a>. Brueggemann, Genesis<\/em>, 16.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [3]<\/a>. Ibid., 14.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [4]<\/a>. Fretheim, The New Interpreter\u2019s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes \u2013 Volume I<\/em>, 340.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [5]<\/a>. Brueggemann, Genesis<\/em>, 24.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [6]<\/a>. Ibid., 25.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [7]<\/a>. Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn\u2019t Say about Human Origins<\/em><\/a> (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2012), 6.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [8]<\/a>. Brueggemann, Genesis<\/em>, 32.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [9]<\/a>. J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005), 204.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [10]<\/a>. Ibid., 205.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/p>\nOccasion for Writing Genesis 1<\/h3>\n
Polemical Nature of the Text<\/h3>\n
God\u2019s Liberating Image<\/em> <\/em><\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nChaos and Enuma Elish<\/em> <\/em><\/h4>\n
\n