What the First Readers Saw in the Creation Account of Genesis (We Often Miss) | Jens Bruun Kofoed

WEBVTT
00:00:00.605 --> 00:00:12.377
Any original reader would have understood the term image of God in terms of the temple because that's where the images of God were located.
00:00:12.377 --> 00:00:26.443
So the original reader would immediately understand the literary connection between the creation texts in Genesis 1 and 2 and the narrative on the construction of the tabernacle.
00:00:26.443 --> 00:00:33.118
and the temple, those literary connections I didn't see before I read the Hebrew.
00:00:33.118 --> 00:00:44.426
It makes so much sense for me that God inspired the biblical author to use temple language, especially because temples were miniature versions of creation as a whole.
00:00:44.426 --> 00:00:55.134
I've been quite challenged myself by the idea of Genesis 1 and 2 being templifications of creation and all.
00:00:55.170 --> 00:00:59.637
temple texts because why have no one told me that?
00:01:01.283 --> 00:01:08.367
Welcome back to another episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture, brought to you by NT Greek Tutoring, the place for personalized Greek studies in your spare time.
00:01:08.367 --> 00:01:10.888
My name is Daniel Mikkelsen, I'm your host.
00:01:11.248 --> 00:01:17.171
I'm the founder of NT Greek Tutoring and a PhD candidate at the University of Edinburgh in New Testament Studies.
00:01:17.412 --> 00:01:32.359
And this podcast exists to make gyms for biblical studies accessible to everyday Christians and show you how the biblical languages helps us open up scripture so they increase your love for God and His word and become more joyful witnesses for his mission.
00:01:32.721 --> 00:01:43.706
And today I'm delighted and honored to be joined by my undergraduate lecturer, Jens Bruun Kofoed, who is a professor of Old Testament at Fjellhaug International University College in Copenhagen and Oslo.
00:01:44.287 --> 00:01:49.328
He is also a preacher and teacher at Københavnerkirken where he also previously served as an elder.
00:01:50.129 --> 00:01:56.772
Jens has written multiple books, journal articles and book chapters on the Hebrew Bible and biblical theology.
00:01:56.813 --> 00:02:00.075
A few honorable mentions would be his book, Text and History.
00:02:00.260 --> 00:02:03.763
Histography and the Biblical Text, just a subtitle.
00:02:03.763 --> 00:02:09.987
And Til Syvende og Sidst so for the seven and last in English, which is on creation theology in the Hebrew Bible.
00:02:09.987 --> 00:02:16.572
And his most recent book, Majestic Mirror or Mind-Bending Mirage on Gender Ideology in Light of Biblical Theology.
00:02:17.473 --> 00:02:20.515
Biblical creation theology, to be correct.
00:02:20.515 --> 00:02:24.598
One of Jens' areas of expertise is the creation story in Genesis 1-12.
00:02:25.866 --> 00:02:29.867
and how the first readers understood this text.
00:02:30.807 --> 00:02:32.568
That's also going to be the topic for today.
00:02:32.568 --> 00:02:46.453
So if you want to know how reading and creation, story and Genesis, and how the original readers would understand it, and how that helps us understand the text, then stay tuned.
00:02:46.453 --> 00:02:52.554
I'm for one very excited to know more about this and to explore this with Jens.
00:02:52.775 --> 00:03:24.242
And as mentioned, Jens taught me Hebrew biblical exegesis in my undergrad days and it's not his fault that I'm not specializing in Hebrew Bible but rather New Testament because I thoroughly enjoyed your teaching and it was a wonderful, wonderful experience and on a more personal note I especially found of our memories for the trip to Israel in 2016 where you told us about the history of ancient Israel at a location at like Hezor and Tel Dan and Megiddo and so on.
00:03:24.877 --> 00:03:27.099
I really enjoyed that time together.
00:03:28.182 --> 00:03:30.127
it's a great pleasure to have you on the podcast, Jens.
00:03:30.127 --> 00:03:31.288
Welcome here.
00:03:32.151 --> 00:03:32.912
Yeah.
00:03:32.912 --> 00:03:36.016
Anything else you want to say before we jump into any questions?
00:03:36.399 --> 00:03:40.864
It's a great honor to have you sitting here at my office and study.
00:03:40.864 --> 00:03:42.747
uh It's been a while.
00:03:42.747 --> 00:03:55.681
(Yes) But I remember your days as an undergraduate and um it's such a joy to see you again as a PhD student.
00:03:56.443 --> 00:03:57.364
Thank you.
00:03:57.365 --> 00:03:59.788
Yeah, it's a great honor to be here again.
00:04:01.171 --> 00:04:04.237
Yeah, let's start with your personal journey.
00:04:04.237 --> 00:04:07.182
How did you get into the study of the biblical languages?
00:04:10.358 --> 00:04:23.749
I don't think there's a simple explanation for that, but as a teenager, though I grew up in a Christian family, I wasn't a born-again Christian.
00:04:24.430 --> 00:04:29.233
And when I was 20 years old, my father died from cancer.
00:04:29.714 --> 00:04:59.144
And during the time he was ill, his first priority was to tell me about Jesus and I actually became a believer in that process and when I began the gymnasium I met a lot of other Christians a form of high school.
00:04:59.144 --> 00:05:01.115
yeah, exactly.
00:05:01.115 --> 00:05:10.139
em during that process, I ended up dedicating my life to serving Christ.
00:05:10.399 --> 00:05:15.081
And it was natural for me to begin studying theology.
00:05:16.608 --> 00:05:22.295
And then, because it's obligatory in Denmark to study the biblical languages.
00:05:22.295 --> 00:05:23.416
It is, yes.
00:05:23.416 --> 00:05:25.920
Yes, Greek and Hebrew and Latin.
00:05:26.223 --> 00:05:31.110
Though Latin is not a biblical language, but that's required as well.
00:05:31.735 --> 00:05:35.620
Yeah, but thank you for sharing that touching story.
00:05:36.382 --> 00:05:40.447
Both very tragic and wonderful at the same time.
00:05:40.447 --> 00:05:46.353
Getting to know Christ; but very sad to loss your dad.
00:05:46.819 --> 00:06:01.550
I still miss my dad, but I guess that my Heavenly Father has become even more important for me since I have no dad on earth.
00:06:02.468 --> 00:06:04.781
Yeah, yeah, it makes sense.
00:06:06.362 --> 00:06:07.663
Thanks for sharing.
00:06:08.985 --> 00:06:14.451
As you've been reading the biblical languages, how have you have knowing them opened up?
00:06:14.451 --> 00:06:18.425
Have you found knowing these languages opening up scripture for you?
00:06:18.999 --> 00:06:19.798
Absolutely.
00:06:19.798 --> 00:06:34.915
um I remember before I um became familiar with Hebrew, um there were all these odd comparisons that didn't make sense.
00:06:34.915 --> 00:06:37.987
They appeared very random.
00:06:38.067 --> 00:06:59.720
For example, in beginning of the book of Jeremiah, you have this comparison between an almond tree and God's watching over his word, um making no sense to uh a reader of a Danish or English translation.
00:06:59.720 --> 00:07:43.882
um And oh when I got into Hebrew, I suddenly realized that for the native reader or the original reader, um it would have made so much sense because there are these word plays em that would immediately connect, for example, the almond tree with the watching, because almond tree is שָׁקֵד (shaqed) in Hebrew, and watching over is שֹׁקֵד (shoqed) So em that's just one example I experienced very early on in my...
00:07:44.165 --> 00:07:45.132
career.
00:07:45.516 --> 00:07:55.684
Yeah, that's fascinating how wordplays are ah helping us understand that kind of comparison.
00:07:55.684 --> 00:08:02.098
So is it the wordplay in itself that makes that connection, or is there more depth to it than that?
00:08:02.098 --> 00:08:12.492
I think um it's the similarity in pronunciation that makes the importance.
00:08:12.872 --> 00:08:31.199
But of course, um God probably chose the almond tree as a symbol over his watching over his word because the almond tree was well known and it was everywhere.
00:08:31.199 --> 00:08:34.259
people walked.
00:08:34.600 --> 00:08:51.489
So in that sense I think it was purposeful but it is the similarity in pronunciation that makes the word play function Yeah, then the prevalence of the tree as well.
00:08:51.609 --> 00:08:54.490
So that makes the word play even more powerful.
00:08:55.370 --> 00:08:57.750
That's very helpful to understand that.
00:08:57.750 --> 00:09:08.714
eh So, as you already started showing examples of how the languages have helped you, do you have seen something in the original translation?
00:09:08.953 --> 00:09:10.974
Sorry, I rephrased that question.
00:09:11.215 --> 00:09:17.628
So have you seen something in the original languages that you didn't catch in translation?
00:09:18.437 --> 00:09:19.288
Absolutely.
00:09:19.288 --> 00:09:28.791
One example would be the Hebrew word shalom, often translated as peace in English.
00:09:28.791 --> 00:09:45.816
em There are so many words we cannot translate directly em because there are no words in English or other languages that completely covers the same.
00:09:45.988 --> 00:09:50.331
semantic feel as the Hebrew word.
00:09:50.331 --> 00:10:02.581
And the shalom is a great example because we do not have a word in English that translates everything in that Hebrew word.
00:10:02.761 --> 00:10:18.518
And when I found out that shalom actually means something like em when everything is completely as God created it in the beginning.
00:10:23.701 --> 00:10:49.881
I achieved a much deeper understanding of what Shalom means. So when I came across the translation, Peace, I knew that there was more to it than just peace between two people or two nations or even between God and man, was something much more comprehensive.
00:10:49.881 --> 00:11:01.130
Yeah, like so, can you give an example to show how it's more sort of like comprehensive and deeper than just lack of conflict, so to speak.
00:11:02.049 --> 00:11:12.265
Yeah, if you take the em example of David and Solomon, David actually tells God that he wants to build a house for him.
00:11:12.606 --> 00:11:15.768
But God says, no, you're not going to build a house for me.
00:11:15.768 --> 00:11:18.288
I'm going to build a house for you.
00:11:18.809 --> 00:11:43.836
Because the establishment of the Davidic dynasty as a symbol of m the house God wants to build on earth should not be based on what man can do, what a king can even not what a king can do, but on what God can do for us.
00:11:43.836 --> 00:11:56.345
em later on it is explained that another reason why David should not build the house for Yahweh, for the Lord, was that he was a warrior.
00:11:56.605 --> 00:11:59.586
And there you have em the conflict.
00:11:59.812 --> 00:12:04.586
But David was a symbol of conflict.
00:12:04.586 --> 00:12:15.711
therefore he could not symbolize what the house God wanted to build should be like.
00:12:16.432 --> 00:12:20.094
And then comes Solomon, David's son.
00:12:20.394 --> 00:12:26.798
Solomon in Hebrew, Shlomo, is actually a form of shalom.
00:12:27.518 --> 00:12:27.918
So...
00:12:27.918 --> 00:12:40.158
um what Shlomo Solomon came to do was actually to symbolize something completely different than his father David.
00:12:40.217 --> 00:12:58.643
Not only um an end to the conflict, but also the positive side of what comes after the end of a conflict, namely, a creation, so to speak.
00:12:59.311 --> 00:13:05.072
that is complete, whole and perfect.
00:13:05.072 --> 00:13:21.095
Of course, Solomon and other Davidic kings never accomplished that in full, but that was nevertheless the symbolism God wanted to achieve by building a house.
00:13:22.220 --> 00:13:24.902
Yeah, that makes sense.
00:13:25.241 --> 00:13:27.404
So, yeah, powerful or so, yeah.
00:13:27.404 --> 00:13:30.388
It's true that none of the...
00:13:30.388 --> 00:13:45.528
even Solomon, who was this very wise person, who ended up apostating or least leading into a life where he did all the things that God didn't want in the end.
00:13:45.528 --> 00:13:52.264
He did, but um in the beginning of his life or his reign, he did the right thing.
00:13:52.264 --> 00:14:10.278
I mean, um he reconfigured the infrastructure of ancient Israel in order to create wealth, prosperity, and to further the fruitfulness of the land.
00:14:10.320 --> 00:14:13.363
So in many ways, he...
00:14:13.363 --> 00:14:32.375
em he tried to recreate the promised land as a symbol of the land of Eden because I think that is what the promised land was meant to be, namely a foreshadowing of new creation.
00:14:32.568 --> 00:14:48.147
Yeah, that's helpful with understanding how Solomon and his kingdom and wisdom and all the things that he did of good and well things throughout most of his life.
00:14:48.147 --> 00:14:55.855
He actually was foreshadowing new creation and pointing back to creation.
00:14:55.855 --> 00:14:57.523
Yes, exactly.
00:14:59.191 --> 00:15:09.994
So, I wanted to ask a question before we go to the main topic, because we're already seeing it in the conversation and about.
00:15:09.994 --> 00:15:17.456
But, you spend a lot of time reading through the Hebrew of Genesis and other places in the Hebrew Bible.
00:15:17.556 --> 00:15:27.078
So, without giving too much away from what we're going to talk about in a minute, have you seen something about creation in Genesis or elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible that...
00:15:27.144 --> 00:15:29.663
just wasn't there in translation?
00:15:31.755 --> 00:16:08.384
Yeah, um I think especially the very literary connection between the creation texts in Genesis 1 and 2 and uh the narrative on the construction of the tabernacle and the temple m and uh eventually the description of Jesus as the temple and the new creation in Revelation.
00:16:08.905 --> 00:16:27.399
Those very literary connections I didn't see before I read the Hebrew because they are not as clear in translations and in some translations you don't see them at all.
00:16:27.519 --> 00:16:54.061
For example, in Genesis 1, you have this repetitive language, God m made, God saw, God said, and em the very same words are used on Moses' role in the construction of the tabernacle.
00:16:54.061 --> 00:17:07.565
There is Moses who did and Moses who saw that it was good and there are a lot of other features as well.
00:17:08.325 --> 00:17:17.667
And these features are not very visible, prominent in translations.
00:17:18.297 --> 00:17:19.297
That's fascinating.
00:17:19.297 --> 00:17:20.298
Yeah, the connections.
00:17:20.298 --> 00:17:38.651
Because we have had Seth Postell on the podcast before, em and he talks a lot about how the narrative in the Torah foreshadows a lot of things and is picked up by the prophets, and it's then picked up further by the authors of the New Testament.
00:17:38.730 --> 00:17:45.454
And so you say that the same thing happens, on the literal, even word use.
00:17:45.983 --> 00:17:47.335
Yeah.
00:17:47.335 --> 00:17:48.371
In terms of creation.
00:17:48.371 --> 00:17:49.192
Yeah.
00:17:50.224 --> 00:18:08.479
Many of the typologies or reruns you find on creation and fall, etc., are readily available in translations, but there are certain elements you only see when you read the original Hebrew text.
00:18:09.398 --> 00:18:23.412
Yeah, I remember once in one of your classes in my undergrade were you talked about the density of creation language in Isaiah, it's from 41?
00:18:23.412 --> 00:18:24.993
and then...
00:18:24.993 --> 00:18:27.734
or is it 41 to 46?
00:18:27.734 --> 00:18:43.494
40 to, well really 40 to 66 you can take that chunk as a whole but especially in 40 to 45.
00:18:43.883 --> 00:18:47.395
Yeah, so density is it בָּרָא (bara) comes again?
00:18:48.053 --> 00:19:12.881
Yeah, the verb בָּרָא (bara) is a good example on what we have been talking about, because before I learned Hebrew, I didn't know that that particular verb is only used with God as a subject, em designating em what only God can create.
00:19:13.221 --> 00:19:14.041
So...
00:19:14.465 --> 00:19:22.948
That's just another example on how Hebrew deepens your understanding of the text.
00:19:22.948 --> 00:19:29.970
And especially בָּרָא (bara) em is prominent in that part of the book of Isaiah.
00:19:29.970 --> 00:19:48.404
em there's no doubt that Isaiah is pointing back to first creation em and saying that in the same way as only God could create first creation, he's going to create again.
00:19:49.294 --> 00:20:02.287
Yeah, I think that's fascinating how that's used in the Hebrew Bible and the density and it's only God that is the subject of this particular verb.
00:20:02.749 --> 00:20:04.371
That's fascinating.
00:20:04.371 --> 00:20:10.997
maybe it's the question then, why did you specialize in creation and the creation story of Genesis?
00:20:11.805 --> 00:20:14.226
Learning New Testament Greek can be a real challenge.
00:20:14.226 --> 00:20:20.910
If that's been your experience, I've put together a free PDF guide called Why Learning Greek Could Be a Struggle and How to Move Forward.
00:20:20.910 --> 00:20:27.773
Inside you'll find the most common pitfalls and my simple three step framework to help you start reading Greek with more confidence.
00:20:27.773 --> 00:20:32.096
Get your free copy today by clicking the link in the description below or the pinned comment.
00:20:32.096 --> 00:20:33.436
Now back to the episode.
00:20:33.436 --> 00:20:35.058
That's fascinating.
00:20:35.058 --> 00:20:41.684
maybe it's the question then, why did you specialize in creation and the creation story of Genesis?
00:20:44.506 --> 00:20:50.526
The short answer, I think, is from reading the Bible.
00:20:51.865 --> 00:21:22.403
reading the biblical text in its original language, or the Old Testament in its original language, made me aware of connections between the creation text in Genesis 1 and 2 and other texts in the Bible, making me aware of threads or a biblical theology I wasn't aware of.
00:21:22.403 --> 00:22:20.032
em And that challenged my understanding of the creation account em and changed it from being a very literal even a scientific description of creation to em an understanding of it as em well it is I believe about first creation also in the literal sense because it's about the first creation but the way it narrates em first creation is not literal, but pointing towards em something that runs all the way through the Bible, from first creation to new creation.
00:22:20.314 --> 00:22:35.903
So em it was really from reading the Bible and discovering these connections between texts that made me curious.
00:22:36.904 --> 00:22:53.336
I just had to find out more about em what kind of text is it and what is its function in the Bible as a whole, in biblical theology.
00:22:53.643 --> 00:23:10.157
Yeah, it's fascinating and it's helpful and actually leads to the next question because some people today would describe Genesis as a myth and that in popular discourse usually means something that is fictional or just plainly false.
00:23:10.238 --> 00:23:18.280
But what does it actually mean in the original context, historical context em and literary context of Genesis?
00:23:19.277 --> 00:23:40.314
It's very difficult to give a short answer to that question, but I'm very cautious em about using the term myth, because in the New Testament, m in its Greek meaning, it is something that is not true.
00:23:41.055 --> 00:23:51.157
And if you use the term in that meaning, it would be wrong to use it on Genesis 2, for example.
00:23:52.097 --> 00:24:18.326
But in literary studies, the definition of myth has changed from a very material one, a formal one, where a text, if it contains something supernatural, you know, snakes talking and the gods appearing and interacting with human history.
00:24:18.326 --> 00:24:26.270
The sheer appearance of that em meant that it was a myth.
00:24:26.272 --> 00:24:47.986
But today, scholars, literary scholars use a much more functional definition of myth where It is the appearance of certain motives or mythemes, it's called, oh in a text that makes it a myth.
00:24:48.346 --> 00:24:58.143
And in that sense, I do believe that we can talk about, m especially Genesis 2 and 3.
00:24:58.269 --> 00:25:06.423
I hesitate to use the term about Genesis 1 because that's a completely different text.
00:25:06.743 --> 00:25:23.830
when it comes to Genesis 2 uh and 3, you find uh a lot of motives that we also find in em a number of other texts from the ancient Near East.
00:25:23.931 --> 00:25:31.433
And the question is not so much, is it a myth m in that?
00:25:31.590 --> 00:25:46.942
in that uh sense, but how are the mythemes or motives used in Genesis 2 and 3 in comparison with other texts from the ancient Near East?
00:25:47.342 --> 00:26:53.355
And it's on that basis uh scholars like, for example, Richard Averbeck has distinguished between different uh ways of using uh myth motives and Richard Averbeck and I agree with him mentions historical myth as one of the ways motives can be used and I do believe that for example the talking snake or the topography of the Garden of Eden, em the creation of man from the dust of the ground, are motives that are used in a historical myth way in Genesis 2 and 3, meaning that the text doesn't want us to believe that God has hands like a potter.
00:26:53.676 --> 00:27:10.010
But it is using that uh very well-known and easily understandable motive to describe uh something historical, namely that God created mankind.
00:27:10.010 --> 00:27:31.617
um And the example on the snake is a bit more challenging, but in the Gilgamesh epic, We also have a snake uh stealing eternal life from the hero uh Gilgamesh.
00:27:31.617 --> 00:27:34.340
So it's kind of the same motive.
00:27:34.340 --> 00:27:46.048
And without being too dogmatic and saying that there was no snake, I think the primary...
00:27:46.048 --> 00:28:10.270
idea is that this very well-known motive is used to describe how m God's opponent, uh later in biblical theology, the snake, em is equaled with the dragon and with Satan and the diabolos, the devil.
00:28:10.270 --> 00:28:28.373
So, m It's a way that would have made sense to the first readers in describing uh God's opponent as uh historical reality.
00:28:28.373 --> 00:28:33.296
oh Yeah, that's enormously helpful.
00:28:33.717 --> 00:28:44.526
So you're saying that when we talk about myth as a genre, then actually that has nothing to do whether it's true or not.
00:28:44.526 --> 00:28:45.655
No.
00:28:45.655 --> 00:28:51.471
Actually, it is more like this is a foundational reality for history.
00:28:51.471 --> 00:28:54.972
And in this case, it's a genre that describes how...
00:28:55.508 --> 00:29:00.049
God actually created in a way that is more understandable to us as humans.
00:29:00.049 --> 00:29:08.384
it says nothing, it actually doesn't say anything about that it's false, more that it is true, but in understandable terms.
00:29:08.384 --> 00:29:11.066
Is that correct to paraphrase it that way?
00:29:11.451 --> 00:29:31.028
And the reason why, for example, Richard Averbeck distinguishes between different types of myths is that some myths do not refer to a historical reality, but more to concepts m and archetypes.
00:29:32.403 --> 00:29:42.030
take as an example, Yisop's fables, no one would argue that it is about reality.
00:29:42.932 --> 00:29:53.780
But in the case of Genesis 2 and 3, I do think it is about reality, but not in a literal, direct sense.
00:29:53.780 --> 00:30:12.174
And some Assyriologists even argue that parts of the Gilgamesh epic is also about history because we have texts that shows that Gilgamesh was actually a historical person.
00:30:12.446 --> 00:30:27.655
Yeah, I think there lots of like the Greek epics not that they're not relating to creation but for the Greek people at the time of like the New Testament they thought that they were real in facts.
00:30:27.655 --> 00:30:39.762
They saw it as fact, they saw it as history so Homer's writings about the Battle of Troy and Odysseus' journey.
00:30:40.512 --> 00:30:42.144
they believed that that had happened.
00:30:42.144 --> 00:30:56.737
em It's a different thing how we didn't understand it today, but we need to understand what they thought about it first before we can relate it to our own oh realm of reality and how to deal with that.
00:30:56.737 --> 00:31:02.362
And now we're not talking about like Homer, but we're talking about Genesis.
00:31:02.362 --> 00:31:06.526
So let's stay on that focus and maybe I'll make something about that another time.
00:31:06.526 --> 00:31:17.778
em So, but now when we understand the genre of Genesis at least, that there are some, what you say, memethic themes...
00:31:17.999 --> 00:31:21.942
Memethic is the wrong word, isn't it?
00:31:23.003 --> 00:31:25.226
mythemes, yeah.
00:31:25.226 --> 00:31:28.067
In Genesis, an integration account.
00:31:28.449 --> 00:31:31.122
What does that actually mean for our reading of Genesis?
00:31:31.122 --> 00:31:40.506
I think understanding the genre of the text is crucial to understand the meaning of the text.
00:31:41.346 --> 00:31:43.048
Many Bible readers...
00:31:44.720 --> 00:31:57.950
become a bit anxious and apprehensive when it is argued that we need to understand the genre before we can understand the meaning of the biblical text.
00:31:58.310 --> 00:32:09.220
But in reality, we cannot read any text without understanding em how the author is using the language to convey his message.
00:32:09.836 --> 00:32:25.888
And em I do believe that God inspired the biblical authors to use a plethora of genres well known to the first audience to reveal himself.
00:32:25.888 --> 00:32:32.875
um And the problem is that many of the genres we know.
00:32:32.875 --> 00:32:36.172
We know what a parable is.
00:32:36.172 --> 00:32:48.785
We know what poetry is, but once you dig deeper, there are many genres used by the biblical authors that are more difficult to understand.
00:32:50.026 --> 00:33:03.089
And especially in Genesis 1 through 11, I think we have become alienated from the cultural context.
00:33:03.557 --> 00:33:11.095
to such an extent that we miss some of the deeper meanings of the text.
00:33:13.150 --> 00:33:24.063
I'm not arguing that the main point of Genesis 1-11 cannot be understood by reading a good translation.
00:33:25.563 --> 00:33:31.444
But I do think that there are depths to uh the meaning.
00:33:31.605 --> 00:33:41.426
We only see if we understand how the author used the language to convey his message.
00:33:41.587 --> 00:33:42.373
Yeah.
00:33:43.288 --> 00:34:15.648
You can compare it to em my children would not know how to use a rotary dial phone because they went out of use long time before they were born and they only know how to use a cell phone um and and it's It's sort of the same thing with genres.
00:34:16.150 --> 00:34:27.483
If you never have read a text like this, uh you need to dig deeper and find out um what's going on.
00:34:27.902 --> 00:34:29.943
Yeah, that makes very good sense.
00:34:29.943 --> 00:34:34.454
I've seen one rotary dial phone in my life and the one that was actually used.
00:34:34.454 --> 00:34:40.255
I might have seen one in a museum, few of them in museum, but I actually had a friend when I was like small.
00:34:40.255 --> 00:34:42.155
They had one in their house.
00:34:42.155 --> 00:34:45.146
But that's also almost 30 years ago.
00:34:45.146 --> 00:34:46.867
Yeah.
00:34:47.668 --> 00:34:49.568
So that's quite a long time ago.
00:34:50.009 --> 00:34:51.349
And if you're born...
00:34:51.775 --> 00:34:58.096
if you compare to Genesis, we are way back.
00:34:58.757 --> 00:35:02.581
Not only 30 years, but three millennia.
00:35:02.581 --> 00:35:03.581
Yeah, exactly.
00:35:03.581 --> 00:35:04.222
this is a...
00:35:04.222 --> 00:35:07.275
Yeah, at least.
00:35:07.456 --> 00:35:10.998
So it's quite a long, long time and a lot of cultural context.
00:35:10.998 --> 00:35:13.501
And actually, sague to the next question.
00:35:13.501 --> 00:35:19.646
so why is it important to understand the creation story, as the original readers would have understood it?
00:35:19.715 --> 00:35:54.766
The main reason is that em if we believe that God inspired the author to write a text that made sense em not only to us but also and primarily in the sense em that they were the first readers, em I think it's obvious that we need to understand first how the original reader would have understood the text.
00:35:55.208 --> 00:36:13.222
And again, it doesn't mean that we don't get the main idea in the text, but if we walk the extra mile and...
00:36:13.222 --> 00:36:17.369
try to find out how the original readers would have understood the text.
00:36:17.369 --> 00:36:23.297
We see more of the meaning of the text, I believe.
00:36:23.400 --> 00:36:29.690
Yeah, and what kind of, what does that understanding of the original readers actually shine off?
00:36:29.690 --> 00:36:33.625
What kind of light does it shine on our understanding of the creation narrative?
00:36:36.018 --> 00:37:04.784
One of the things, one of the most important discoveries I made, well, I didn't make it myself because many other scholars uh have seen it, but I made it in terms of reading the text more and more like the original reader.
00:37:04.949 --> 00:37:13.775
But one of the most important discoveries is the understanding of the creation of man and the image of God.
00:37:13.775 --> 00:37:27.340
I'm quite convinced that em any original reader would have understood the term image of God in terms of the temple.
00:37:27.900 --> 00:37:35.715
Because that's where the images of gods were located and situation.
00:37:35.715 --> 00:37:56.740
So um the original reader would immediately understand that when man is made in the image of God and placed in creation, we should not look into the temples for images of God because it is man himself.
00:37:56.740 --> 00:37:58.782
who is the image of God.
00:37:58.902 --> 00:38:11.268
And that's a point I didn't understand before I realized that this is how the original reader would have understood it.
00:38:11.268 --> 00:38:24.289
Yeah, and I think it was also quite a revelation to me when I understood this as well, for me it was like, then it makes sense why God is saying, do not make any images.
00:38:25.088 --> 00:38:36.688
But it also makes sense why God gets so angry when people rebel, because the images are meant to represent who God is.
00:38:36.688 --> 00:38:39.788
So when we sin, then we say God are like this.
00:38:40.259 --> 00:38:41.668
And that is obviously...
00:38:42.010 --> 00:38:57.958
I think normally sometimes in evangelism I will make that point and say like, so what do you feel like, I will say to the person, what do you feel like if someone who knows you misrepresents you and your character to someone else?
00:38:59.179 --> 00:39:02.302
And the question is not very pleasant.
00:39:02.822 --> 00:39:04.362
Maybe you get angry.
00:39:04.764 --> 00:39:05.983
Maybe you...
00:39:06.063 --> 00:39:07.445
And for good reasons.
00:39:08.291 --> 00:39:11.094
if they have slandering you or something like that.
00:39:11.094 --> 00:39:16.152
Which is, I think that that is what sin and our sin is equivalent to.
00:39:16.152 --> 00:39:18.715
Essentially to slandering God.
00:39:20.025 --> 00:39:41.538
And this is also an example on connections between texts em I didn't realize before because in the beginning the image of God is actually not just the king, but mankind.
00:39:41.538 --> 00:39:47.181
Every human person was created originally as the image of God.
00:39:47.478 --> 00:39:52.190
And then you have the fall, everything breaks down in God's creation.
00:39:52.190 --> 00:40:09.315
we have the calling of Abraham and his descendants as a model people, symbolizing God's restoration and recreation of humankind and creation as a whole.
00:40:10.576 --> 00:40:12.297
And m in that...
00:40:13.728 --> 00:40:25.715
section of God's great salvation history it is the high priest that symbolizes the image of God in the temple.
00:40:26.516 --> 00:40:34.000
But when you come to the New Testament, you have Jesus identifying himself as the temple.
00:40:34.360 --> 00:40:45.389
And you have Paul saying that every believer, in Christ, m actually becomes a temple of the Spirit.
00:40:45.750 --> 00:41:05.538
So em after the Christ event, any believer, that is em every human being who comes to Christ and believes in him em is an image of God, just as man was in the beginning.
00:41:05.719 --> 00:41:10.793
So you have this idea come full circle.
00:41:10.793 --> 00:41:11.637
Yeah.
00:41:11.637 --> 00:41:19.231
when you see the connections in a biblical theology of the image of God.
00:41:19.231 --> 00:41:24.570
Yeah, and you said that in Christ you become an image of God.
00:41:24.570 --> 00:41:27.842
So how does that different from the created image of God that we...
00:41:27.842 --> 00:41:29.478
that all humans bear?
00:41:30.047 --> 00:41:48.027
Well, em the author of Hebrews uh says it, I believe, because in Hebrews 1, Christ is described as a human being where we most clearly see what it means to be an image of God.
00:41:48.059 --> 00:42:01.996
looking to Christ and believing in Christ Being in Christ transforms em our lives to be more and more Christ-like.
00:42:01.996 --> 00:42:13.266
um as Christians, we are, every day, becoming Christ-like, becoming more and more m like the image of God.
00:42:13.266 --> 00:42:24.990
And, of course, em being a Lutheran, em I believe that This is a process that has to take place every day.
00:42:25.692 --> 00:42:36.121
I will, every day, the rest of my life, remain a sinner, but also justified in Christ.
00:42:36.121 --> 00:42:43.476
coming to Christ every day, receiving forgiveness for my sins, is...
00:42:43.646 --> 00:43:01.440
creating or recreating me as um a new person and that process will only be ultimately em perfected in new creation.
00:43:01.581 --> 00:43:12.994
So it is only a new creation that believers in Christ will fully become the image of Christ, the image of God.
00:43:12.994 --> 00:43:13.195
Yeah.
00:43:13.195 --> 00:43:13.896
So you see this.
00:43:13.896 --> 00:43:24.625
So, so what you say is that, by being in Christ, you become a more accurate image of what it means to be like who God is so to speak.
00:43:24.625 --> 00:43:25.085
Yeah.
00:43:25.085 --> 00:43:40.822
So that when you are not a follower of Christ, then you're still an image of God, but because of our sin, which is in all of us, as you just pointed out, that distorts the image of the image bearing.
00:43:41.461 --> 00:43:46.541
that's also what the problem that we were talking about before, that's why God gets angry with us.
00:43:46.822 --> 00:43:50.862
Yeah, because we are misrepresenting him, we are slandering him.
00:43:51.561 --> 00:43:56.501
That's very helpful to look at it this way.
00:43:56.621 --> 00:44:08.242
I think it would be helpful because I think for many people it's quite new information that the Genesis account should contain temple metaphors.
00:44:08.905 --> 00:44:10.226
temple imagery.
00:44:10.226 --> 00:44:21.793
you mentioned one, It I should say evidence with the image, but are there any other evidence em and what does that make of a difference to one understanding of the text?
00:44:28.112 --> 00:44:51.362
I've been quite challenged myself by the idea of Genesis 1 and 2 being uh templifications of creation or temple texts, because why have no one told me that?
00:44:51.978 --> 00:44:53.148
before.
00:44:53.148 --> 00:44:56.059
I've never heard about it in my upbringing.
00:44:56.659 --> 00:45:09.632
I'm born in a Christian family and went to Sunday school and have been taught the Bible all my life.
00:45:09.632 --> 00:45:17.244
until I became a student, I never come across this idea.
00:45:18.206 --> 00:45:19.806
But I do think it's...
00:45:21.795 --> 00:45:23.556
It's because of tradition.
00:45:23.556 --> 00:45:41.228
em Because if you go to other traditions, for example the Orthodox Church m and even to Judaism, you find this understanding as a very prominent idea.
00:45:42.128 --> 00:46:01.503
And you can only wonder why it hasn't been more prominent in our tradition because em when you read about new creation in John's Revelation, it's clearly a temple.
00:46:03.965 --> 00:46:06.086
So why did we miss that?
00:46:06.188 --> 00:46:12.311
And I don't have a clear answer, but I am convinced that there are clues in the text.
00:46:12.326 --> 00:46:22.882
that points us in that direction and invites us to read Genesis 1 and 2 in light of the symbolism of the temple.
00:46:25.463 --> 00:46:41.632
there is an important discussion here uh chronologically because you can argue that em God inspired the biblical author to uh write Genesis 1 and 2.
00:46:41.864 --> 00:46:48.469
using the original readers' understanding of the temple.
00:46:49.429 --> 00:47:07.489
Or you can turn it upside down and say, uh well, the narratives about the construction of the tapernacle and the temple, um God inspired the authors to write those narratives.
00:47:07.882 --> 00:47:10.793
on the basis of the creation history.
00:47:10.974 --> 00:47:21.601
So it's possible to argue for both views on which text came first.
00:47:21.824 --> 00:47:36.344
I do believe that um temple symbolism, that is the understanding of what a temple was, was so clear for such a long period.
00:47:36.344 --> 00:48:01.605
We are talking about a period from the third millennium, even up to the first millennium after Christ, where people were completely aware that temples were a microcosm of creation as a whole, and that everything that took place in the temple.
00:48:01.605 --> 00:48:28.416
em The temple's design, em rituals, architecture, everything was designed to uh emulate first creation so that people who entered the temple would have this, wow, this is how...
00:48:28.416 --> 00:48:30.657
creation was in the beginning.
00:48:30.657 --> 00:48:39.126
That understanding of the temple em was basic to all the cultures of the ancient Near East.
00:48:39.126 --> 00:49:20.871
when we also find clues in the biblical text of temple language and the temple design, I actually do believe that God inspired the biblical author to write about creation in temple language because people would readily understand that you cannot describe creation in literal, even scientific language because em how God created the world is indescribable.
00:49:21.690 --> 00:49:32.153
So you have to use analogies em that is understandable for us as humans.
00:49:32.393 --> 00:49:44.697
So it makes so much sense for me that God inspired the biblical author to use temple language, especially because temples were uh miniature versions of creation as a whole.
00:49:45.184 --> 00:49:54.414
There are clues in the texts as well that invites us to em take that approach to Genesis 1 and 2.
00:49:55.177 --> 00:50:22.347
I've already mentioned these very literal connections between Genesis 1 and the construction of the tabernacle and the temple. And I think that em those connections invite us to at least look at the together so that the temple can throw light on creation and creation can throw light on the temple.
00:50:22.387 --> 00:50:45.916
In Genesis 2, that's very interesting actually because liberal theologians, or as we say, historical critical scholars of the Old Testament have always described Genesis 2 as a non-priestly text.
00:50:46.177 --> 00:51:07.315
But in recent years, more more scholars have realized that the topography or geography of the Garden of Eden resembles the temple precinct so much that the author probably...
00:51:07.737 --> 00:51:16.713
most likely describes first creation as a temple and Adam as the first high priest so to speak.
00:51:17.295 --> 00:51:51.367
Meaning that in my view there was a garden and there were the two first humans but we should not read the geography too literally because it's very clear that In the same way you have the Holy of Holies in the temple and the Holy and the courtyard where the Holy of Holies of course symbolized God's presence.
00:51:51.367 --> 00:52:04.398
um The Holy place, the main hall in the temple symbolized um the cultured world.
00:52:04.592 --> 00:52:10.623
whereas the courtyard symbolized the rest of the world.
00:52:11.164 --> 00:52:29.168
And you have the same structure in the Garden of Eden, the middle of the garden where God is present all the time through the Tree of Life and the other tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
00:52:29.168 --> 00:52:44.731
And then you have the garden which is Adam and Eve's place, but you also have the rest of the world that has yet to be conquered or cultivated.
00:52:45.052 --> 00:52:59.764
So um both in Genesis 1 and 2, I do think we are invited to understand historical creation through the lens of temple symbolism.
00:53:00.853 --> 00:53:05.192
because that connects to how God is present in our world.
00:53:05.425 --> 00:53:06.646
Exactly.
00:53:07.146 --> 00:53:32.900
And again, uh I don't want to jump to conclusions, but if we go to Revelation, you have the same mixture of God creating uh the natural world and a description of how God is present uh with man in that recreated natural world.
00:53:33.128 --> 00:53:52.465
So, um it's uh both about how God created, literally, the natural world, cosmos, but it is also describing in temple language how God relates to man in those worlds.
00:53:52.465 --> 00:53:59.351
And in John's description, we have the New Jerusalem as one grand temple.
00:53:59.351 --> 00:54:02.876
em in new creation.
00:54:03.277 --> 00:54:16.690
But you also have, and that's way of describing how God is everlastingly present with his people in new creation.
00:54:16.690 --> 00:54:22.925
But you also have the gates that are open all the time, all the day, and there is no night.
00:54:22.925 --> 00:54:35.603
So the gates to the rest of the natural world are open all the time so people can access God's presence whenever they will.
00:54:36.380 --> 00:54:39.465
Which is quite unusual, isn't it?
00:54:39.465 --> 00:54:42.527
That was not how people approached it.
00:54:42.527 --> 00:55:09.179
No, and in the period of the fall, so to speak, in biblical theology, uh between Genesis 3 and the Christ event, em you know, when Jesus died on the cross, the curtain on the temple was tear apart uh from top to bottom, symbolizing that.
00:55:09.384 --> 00:55:16.777
Now access to God was available to everyone who believed in what Christ did.
00:55:17.737 --> 00:55:37.110
But in that period from Genesis 3 to the death of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus, you have this curtain or this barring of the access, direct access to God.
00:55:37.110 --> 00:55:52.510
in that period it has to be mediated by the high priest and only on the day of atonement the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies.
00:55:52.710 --> 00:56:05.045
But that curtain, that barring is gone in a new creation and that must have been extremely even provocative.
00:56:05.045 --> 00:56:06.085
Yeah.
00:56:06.418 --> 00:56:09.068
in ancient Jewish readers.
00:56:10.646 --> 00:56:29.806
But I guess even to Greeks and other people in ancient Mesopotamia, now crossing through different cultures, it must have been mind-boggling that you would be able to access God's presence just without any cleansing or anything like that.
00:56:30.226 --> 00:56:35.045
But more on the language bits, how do we see...
00:56:35.045 --> 00:56:37.686
Why do you say they are temple metaphors?
00:56:37.945 --> 00:56:38.777
Because...
00:56:38.777 --> 00:56:43.532
It's what are the kind of clues when you read, for example, Genesis one.
00:56:43.907 --> 00:56:57.128
I've already mentioned these very literal passages with the God doing and saying, etc.
00:56:57.489 --> 00:56:59.592
But you also have the number seven.
00:56:59.592 --> 00:57:01.014
Description of creation.
00:57:01.014 --> 00:57:19.722
oh is a six plus one day and in the construction of the tabernacle and the temple the number seven occurs at several points.
00:57:19.722 --> 00:57:33.307
In Solomon's dedication of the temple in first Kings eight for example Solomon prays seven prayers Or his prayer can be divided into seven parts.
00:57:33.307 --> 00:57:45.554
you also have all the elements of the cosmos represented in the tabernacle and in the temple.
00:57:45.554 --> 00:57:54.914
If you take Genesis 2, for example, Tree of Life is symbolized by the bread, em the showbread.
00:57:54.914 --> 00:58:05.998
em The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is represented by the two tablets with the Ten Commandments.
00:58:06.378 --> 00:58:11.132
And you have the light represented by the menorah.
00:58:11.601 --> 00:58:14.943
symbolizing God's presence in the world.
00:58:14.943 --> 00:58:29.228
the temple was ornamented with all kinds of birds and plants, symbolizing the fruitfulness of our first creation.
00:58:29.228 --> 00:58:37.498
So all the elements of creation as described in both Genesis 1 and 2.
00:58:37.498 --> 00:58:44.237
m are present in the description of the tabernacle and the temple.
00:58:44.237 --> 00:58:55.451
Yeah, I also remember you said that in Genesis 1 you move from like furthest away from God towards closer to God.
00:58:55.612 --> 00:58:59.777
through the creation, the days, you go closer and closer to the presence of God.
00:58:59.777 --> 00:59:01.197
Yes, yes.
00:59:01.298 --> 00:59:16.467
And in Genesis 2, I forgot to mention that, humankind is called to serve and keep עָבַד(avad) and שָׁמַר (shamar) in Hebrew.
00:59:16.786 --> 00:59:29.422
And when these two verbs occur in other places in the Old Testament, they are used for the Levite service in the temple.
00:59:29.422 --> 00:59:48.722
um Another Hebrew word, the word הָלַךְ (halakh) 'to walk' in its hithpeal form, מִתְהַלֵּךְ (mithalakh), is used about God's walking in the garden in Genesis 3.
00:59:48.907 --> 00:59:55.588
And precisely the same word is used about God's walking with his people.
00:59:57.530 --> 01:00:08.297
A description of God God's relation to his people, God's presence with his people throughout all the covenants of the Bible.
01:00:09.820 --> 01:00:22.016
And of course, God's presence is nowhere more important than in the Yeah, it's very fascinating.
01:00:23.257 --> 01:00:27.222
maybe it'd be worth, I have quite a few questions I could ask.
01:00:27.222 --> 01:00:33.065
em I'm conscious that we might not be able to take all of them.
01:00:33.487 --> 01:00:42.882
One of the things is that I often hear the people who know a little bit about em the ancient Mesopotamian or the ancient Near East.
01:00:42.882 --> 01:00:50.164
They would say, Genesis is a copy paste of the other, like Gilgamesh, we already mentioned that.
01:00:51.027 --> 01:00:58.934
Or other like Egyptian or other creation theology.
01:01:00.016 --> 01:01:04.518
but this is not necessarily untrue, but how?
01:01:04.518 --> 01:01:06.117
Yeah.
01:01:06.630 --> 01:01:26.538
I mentioned earlier literary scholars' new definition of myth in functional terms, and I believe that's a good approach to this issue as well because...
01:01:27.715 --> 01:01:38.219
There can be no question that there are similarities between especially Genesis 1 through 11 and ancient Near Eastern texts.
01:01:38.219 --> 01:01:50.507
There is a discussion whether the most similarities should be found in Mesopotamian texts or whether we also should look to Egyptian texts.
01:01:50.507 --> 01:02:02.496
But I do think that uh the Mesopotamian texts are those with most potential, so to speak.
01:02:02.496 --> 01:02:08.898
So this is not an issue really, because those similarities are there.
01:02:09.619 --> 01:02:13.099
The question is, how do the texts differ?
01:02:13.240 --> 01:02:27.376
And if we describe the similarities through the language of mythemes or motives, how are they used?
01:02:27.641 --> 01:02:31.523
in the Mesopotamian texts and in the biblical text.
01:02:32.003 --> 01:02:46.969
And this is where things become very interesting because em despite all the similarities, and if you, for example, take the flood account, there are very detailed similarities.
01:02:47.710 --> 01:02:53.492
The birds, for example, that Moses sent out, sorry, Noah sent out.
01:02:54.713 --> 01:02:56.673
But there are also...
01:02:56.778 --> 01:02:58.981
major differences.
01:02:58.981 --> 01:03:10.088
The most prominent, of course, being that in the Mesopotamian texts you have many gods and in the Hebrew text you have only one god.
01:03:10.088 --> 01:03:23.438
um And the gods in the Mesopotamian texts are really a projection of a human family.
01:03:23.666 --> 01:03:36.235
em into a very stylized, divine version of what we experience on earth.
01:03:36.235 --> 01:03:50.144
You have the gods quarreling, cheating on each other, slandering each other, everything that you'll find in a normal human family.
01:03:51.610 --> 01:03:53.951
you can never rely on the gods.
01:03:53.971 --> 01:03:56.893
They are capricious.
01:03:56.893 --> 01:04:16.282
Whereas uh God in the Hebrew text is described with integrity, uh moral integrity, and with existential consistency.
01:04:16.282 --> 01:04:27.690
um He is in the very basic meaning of the word; supernatural, superhuman.
01:04:27.771 --> 01:04:36.728
He is much more than humans, though he created humankind as male and female.
01:04:36.728 --> 01:04:39.619
He's neither male nor female.
01:04:39.641 --> 01:04:41.943
is supra-sexual.
01:04:41.943 --> 01:04:46.126
He is above human sex.
01:04:46.525 --> 01:04:51.356
So it's a completely different...
01:04:51.356 --> 01:04:55.527
description of a deity than we find in the Mesopotamian texts.
01:04:55.527 --> 01:05:16.284
The reason why people get a bit anxious when the similarities are mentioned is, of course, when the argument goes that em the biblical texts are just later uh copies or copycat.
01:05:16.286 --> 01:05:20.168
versions of the Mesopotamian texts.
01:05:20.168 --> 01:05:46.018
And we have to acknowledge that the extant manuscripts we have of the Mesopotamian texts and the biblical ones um are far apart in time because the Gilgamesh epic, for example, exists at least in a version from around 2000 BC.
01:05:46.065 --> 01:05:53.231
whereas the oldest extant manuscript of Genesis is from the third century BC.
01:05:53.231 --> 01:06:05.902
So we have, let's say, 1700 years between the earliest Mesopotamian copy or version and the oldest extant biblical one.
01:06:06.443 --> 01:06:19.501
But again, the biblical texts were most likely seen from a historian's perspective, copied for centuries.
01:06:20.161 --> 01:06:42.092
But even if the biblical version of Genesis 1 and 2 and the flood account Genesis 6 and 8 were only written down in, at the time of Moses, for example, in the 13th, 14th century, there could have been oral tradition.
01:06:42.978 --> 01:06:44.409
preceding that.
01:06:44.889 --> 01:07:09.952
But even if um God only revealed or inspired the biblical author to write the text at that time, it doesn't mean that it has to be less historical just because it was revealed to them later than it was remembered by the Mesopotamians.
01:07:09.952 --> 01:07:20.278
And I do believe, for example, as far as the flood account is concerned, that all the accounts go back to em a singular event.
01:07:20.278 --> 01:07:26.202
em It is a memory of something that happened in the distant past.
01:07:26.202 --> 01:07:31.547
And the question is, again, similarities, differences.
01:07:32.088 --> 01:07:35.230
And at the end is what do you believe?
01:07:35.230 --> 01:07:48.597
Do you believe that God has inspired the biblical author to write this particular account with those details, but also those differences via-via the Mesopotamian ones?
01:07:48.597 --> 01:07:54.880
oh Yeah, and that's very helpful to think about it that way.
01:07:54.880 --> 01:08:03.467
thinking the same is that they also written in some ways polemically and saying like these a critique of these like, no, your gods are too human.
01:08:04.489 --> 01:08:05.900
God is more superior than that.
01:08:05.900 --> 01:08:06.730
Yeah.
01:08:07.990 --> 01:08:09.583
Is that a correct way looking at it?
01:08:09.583 --> 01:08:31.729
Yeah, when you realize that the gods, and that goes both for the Mesopotamian pantheon, but also for the Greek, when you realize that it's actually a projection of human families, um then you...
01:08:31.729 --> 01:08:36.532
uh Well, it's...
01:08:36.532 --> 01:08:56.784
um a sign that here we are dealing with people's ideas about the gods, an attempt to describe the divine world on the basis of human life and human experience.
01:08:58.126 --> 01:09:24.470
And when in the Hebrew text you meet a completely different deity, you need to ask — where did this come from because it is not uh modeled on human experience and it is something transcendent so it's i think it's um...
01:09:24.530 --> 01:09:40.939
it's encouraging because it could be taken as evidence of the revelation em no man ever thought of describing a god like this because it couldn't be modeled on any human experience.
01:09:41.690 --> 01:09:42.780
Exactly.
01:09:42.841 --> 01:09:59.033
And when you go across any kind of creation story, stories about the gods, all of the gods, like whether they're Greek, Egyptian, em Babylonian, em Persian, they're all very human.
01:09:59.033 --> 01:09:59.713
Yeah.
01:09:59.713 --> 01:10:03.015
And they are very morally flawed.
01:10:03.015 --> 01:10:03.377
Yeah.
01:10:03.377 --> 01:10:17.920
eh And the only book – the only books – that sticks out are the books that are in the biblical canon, the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament.
01:10:17.920 --> 01:10:32.073
em Which is quite an unusual feature that the God described in these texts, em which we come to know as the Bible.
01:10:32.073 --> 01:10:42.667
is very different and enormously superior both in moral and capabilities to all the other gods.
01:10:44.467 --> 01:11:04.417
So I have tons of questions I would love to ask you but I think we come to this point in the episode where we ask the question that how can each listener or viewer of this podcast apply what we've been talking about today their everyday walk with Christ.
01:11:04.510 --> 01:11:07.291
um A couple of things.
01:11:09.951 --> 01:11:57.420
I find it extremely encouraging that God actually has revealed himself in a manner that is immediately understandable for every human being. Even when we are reading his word in a good But at the same time, he also uses genres understandable to the original readers, meaning that when we dive into the way the ancient authors were inspired to use those genres, we get a deeper understanding of God's Word and God's revelation.
01:11:58.077 --> 01:12:32.471
Another thing is that the connection between the creation text in Genesis 1 and 2, all the way through the Bible to John's vision of a new creation, I think is extremely helpful in seeing how God originally created man with this high value and worth.
01:12:32.471 --> 01:12:39.752
No one threatened God, pressured him to create man.
01:12:39.752 --> 01:12:46.351
God did that because he wanted to.
01:12:46.351 --> 01:12:50.912
Because he found a reason in his heart to create man.
01:12:51.192 --> 01:13:08.404
And he bestowed upon man, every man, ah that worth and dignity and also that task of bearing his image into uh creation.
01:13:09.225 --> 01:13:33.193
And when you end up with Jesus saying that I am the image of God, I am the temple, by looking at me and by believing in me, you become what God created you to be in the beginning.
01:13:33.193 --> 01:13:44.719
And because ah we as believers are the temple of the spirit, we actually um are temples wherever we are.
01:13:44.939 --> 01:14:02.161
And I think it's a fascinating thought that everything that the temple symbolized, namely, a way of securing or trying to recreate God's first creation.
01:14:02.681 --> 01:14:05.623
That's our calling wherever we are.
01:14:06.524 --> 01:14:16.591
I am called to be that temple em in relation to my family and all the people God has placed me among.
01:14:17.194 --> 01:14:40.671
Yeah, that's a beautiful way of looking at it, like how God has revealed himself to us and how that relates to us through creation, through temple, through worship, through how we relate to God in basically every sphere of our life.
01:14:41.515 --> 01:14:47.176
is how that's reality what creation is doing to us that we get to see how God is relating to us.
01:14:47.176 --> 01:14:48.595
Is that correct?
01:14:48.595 --> 01:14:49.275
Yeah.
01:14:50.136 --> 01:14:54.595
Yeah, that's fascinating and wonderful and glorious.
01:14:55.395 --> 01:14:58.176
Yeah, thank you for joining me on the podcast.
01:14:59.235 --> 01:15:01.055
Thank you very much.
01:15:01.055 --> 01:15:03.231
My pleasure is all mine.
01:15:03.231 --> 01:15:04.815
No, no, no.
01:15:05.159 --> 01:15:08.912
I was so glad to participate in this, so thank you.
01:15:08.981 --> 01:15:09.644
Yeah, absolutely.
01:15:09.644 --> 01:15:11.216
You're absolutely welcome.
01:15:11.292 --> 01:15:14.302
And to you guys out there, I'll see you in the next one.
01:15:14.895 --> 01:15:20.430
But before you go, if you enjoyed this podcast and you want more people to see it, please subscribe and leave a like.
01:15:20.430 --> 01:15:23.011
It really helps us create more episodes like this one.
01:15:23.011 --> 01:15:24.002
I really appreciate it.
01:15:24.002 --> 01:15:24.893
Thank you.
01:15:24.893 --> 01:15:27.095
Have a great day and I'll see you in the next one.