Genesis: Theology

Genesis: Theology

A. The Structure of Genesis

1. Genesis 1-11. The traditional dividing point made by commentators on Genesis is between chs. Gen 11 and 12. The first, and shorter, of these segments (ch. 1-11) has been designated as “primeval history.” The second, and much longer, of these segments (12-50) has been designated as “patriarchal history.” The first section is oriented more to the beginning of universal history, while the second is oriented more to the beginning of Israelite history.

It is obvious that the second section, that dealing with the founding fathers and mothers of Israel, occupies a much higher percentage of the biblical text than does the first. Thus, while one-fifth of Genesis (ch. 1-11) describes the history of twenty generations (Adam to Abraham), the remaining four-fifths describes the history of only four generations (Abraham to Joseph). Thus, assuming that an author will devote the greater quantity of material proportionately to that which he feels is more significant and helpful in conveying his message, it becomes apparent that the author of Genesis wishes to highlight the nation of Israel and its progenitors and progenitresses; thus, what is narrated in ch. 12-50 is more significant for the accomplishment of that intent than is the material narrated in ch. 1-11. This suggests, then, that ch. 12-50 will explain ch. 1-11 rather than the reverse, and that the primary area to be excavated in order to ascertain the theology of Genesis should be in this larger, second section.

Having said that, however, it is equally true that the message and theology of Gen 12-50 by itself is incomprehensible without ch. 1-11. Thus, ch. 1-11 have a higher role than being merely prefatory or tangential to ch. 12-50. On the contrary, they are the cradle out of which, and because of which, the theology of ch. 12-50 emerges as it does. That is, the idea of development of salvation history has for its foundation the idea and development of universal history.

Within this section of universal history (Gen 1-11) there is a general movement from “creation in harmony” (ch. 1-2) to “creation in alienation” (ch. 3-11) (VanGemeren, 39, 67). Within these broad parameters there have been several attempts made by scholars to decipher the theological focus of this unit. For example, both von Rad (1972) and Westermann (1984) advance some form of a sin-speech-punishment progression as the controlling pattern of Gen 1-11. Thus, if one examines five episodes in this unit (the Fall— Gen 3; Cain and Abel—ch. 4; sons of God- 6:1-4; the Flood—chs. 6:5- 7:24; the tower and city- 11:1-9), one discovers first the reference to the actual trespass, followed by a divine speech in which God announces the forthcoming penalty, which is then followed by the implementation of the penalty. To illustrate, Adam (—> ) and Eve's sin is mentioned in 3:6. That is followed by God's speech (3:14-19), which in turn is followed by an account of the punishment (3:22-24).

Clines (1978, 63) amplifies this observable pattern by expanding the key theological themes to four: sin, speech, mitigation, punishment. That is to say, after the speech of punishment but prior to the act of punishment, there is an action by God that underscores his capacity for grace and that balances his capacity for judgment. Again to use Gen 3 as our example, in between the speech of judgment (3:14-19) and the punishment (3:22-24) is an act of God's grace in the provision of clothing for this now vulnerable couple (3:21), prior to their expulsion from the garden.

While this observation is perceptive and creative, it is probably not adequate for describing the overall theological focus of Gen 1-11. The reason for this shortcoming is that it does not and cannot include in its grid either the story of creation or the various genealogies scattered throughout the unit.

A variation of the above outline for Gen 1-11 is to view it as developing a spread of sin, spread of grace theme. This has also been proposed by von Rad (OTT 1:154). Along the lines of Paul's phrase “but where sin increased, grace increased all the more” (Rom 5:20), this suggestion opines that for each incident in these chapters that focuses on the almost unimaginable and unrestricted ability of the human race to revolt against God, thus distance itself from God, and so provoke chastisement, there is a corresponding incident that points to a God of grace in action. Thus, Adam (—> ) and Eve are expelled, but clothed. Cain is a wandering refugee, but protected. Humanity is drowned, but Noah (—> ) and his family are spared.

The criticisms voiced against the first model are here voided by the inclusion of the creation story and the genealogies as acts of God's grace. For example, while the genealogies have an obvious chronological function, and a not-so obvious sociological function, they also contribute theologically. We can agree with Westermann (1984, 66) when he says that “they are the working out of the blessing given at creation, and that it is this same blessing which is at work in the succession of generations leading up to Abraham as well as in the line which takes its beginning from him.” Similarly, the creation narrative in Gen 1-2 describes a series of gracious divine acts that balance the series of judgmental divine acts one encounters elsewhere.

Close to the above is Cline's suggestion (1978:73-76) of a creation - uncreation - re-creation in Gen 1-11. If ch. 1-2 represents the creation aspect of this pattern, then ch. 3-6 is the story of humankind's undoing of creation, as a result of which God removes the fixed boundaries in ch. 1 in order to allow the waters to flood the earth. The Flood can be restrained only by the reimposition of boundaries. (Flood)

There is a subsequent move to uncreation evidenced by the strife in Noah's family and the builders of the city. The Flood has delayed, but not destroyed, humanity's capacity to uncreate what God has re-created. And now God must respond to this act of uncreation, in wrath and in mercy. Thus, Clines (76) concludes: “No matter how drastic man's sin becomes, destroying what God has made good and bringing the world to the brink of uncreation, God's grace never fails to deliver man from the consequences of his sin. Even when man responds to a fresh start with the old pattern of sin, God's commitment to his world stands firm, and sinful man experiences the favor of God as well as his righteous judgment.”

To summarize, Gen 1-11 provides instances of humankind in fellowship with God and out of fellowship with God, living under divine mandates and trying to ignore divine mandates—instances of equilibrium and disequilibrium. It also provides many illustrations of a God of grace and a God of judgment. On the judgment side, we read of a God who expels the disobedient and lawless from his presence (Adam, Eve, Cain), lowers life spans (6:3), drowns degenerates (6:5ff.), and confuses and scatters city and tower builders (11:1-9). On the grace side, we read of a God who gives hope to hopeless human beings with his promise of “the seed of the woman” to vanquish the serpent (3:15), clothing for the primal couple (3:21), a protecting mark on Cain (—> ) to deter revenge seekers (4:15), the renewal and restoration of order and predictability to nature so recently overwhelmed by chaos (8:22), and a covenant promise never again to annihilate humankind with a deluge,—a promise sealed by the placement of a bow in the sky as a reminder to himself of his promise (9:8ff.).

But are these acts, gracious and beneficial as they are, adequate to solve completely humankind's dilemma? Is something else needed in addition to coverings, forehead markings, and a divine oath about a veto on a second flood? I suggest that all these redemptive acts of God move toward and are harbingers of the major divine action against sin and corruption. And that is, of course, the calling and election of Abraham (—> ), the titular head of one family by whom all of the other families of the earth will be blessed. Gen 12-50 do not reintroduce us or re-create for us the pristine world of ch. 1-2. Rev 21-22 will do that. But they do resolve, or at least are designed to resolve, the messy problem of escalating trespass, for which a lasting and bonafide solution is sorely needed.

2. Genesis 12-50. There is at least a hint of this tie-in between Gen 11 and 12 by the fact that unlike the earlier narratives in ch. 1-11, there is no word of grace following the Babel incident addressing the chaotic situation created there. This absence causes the primeval history in von Rad's words “to break off in shrill dissonance.” Has God permanently severed all relationships with the families of the earth? Will anything salvific be forthcoming from God? It is on the heels of this situation that the account of Abraham's election and blessing occurs. As von Rad (1973, 154) says, “The question about God's salvation for all nations remains open and unanswerable in primeval history. But our narrator does give an answer, namely, at the point where sacred history begins.... All at once and precipitously the universal field of vision narrows; world and humanity, the entire ecumenical fullness, are submerged, and all interest is concentrated upon a single man.”

The genealogy of Shem (Gen 11:10-26), and then the genealogy of Terah (11:27-32), act as the bridge between primeval and patriarchal history, with the former acting as a genealogical superscription to the second, much as the genealogy of Ishmael (25:12-18) is the genealogical superscription to the genealogy of Isaac (25:19-26), and the genealogy of Esau's descendants (36:1- 37:1) is the genealogical superscription to the genealogy of Jacob (37:2) (Steinberg: 43). In the case of these three genealogical superscriptions (Shem, Ishmael, Esau), each is about an individual “placed outside the limelight given to the characters who are named in the genealogical narratives associated with the chosen Israelite heritage” (Steinberg, 45).

The second of these genealogies, that of Terah, does more than give us the identities of two generations of a family. Implicitly it paves the way for one of the major theological foci of the rest of Genesis—heirship. With Terah's son deceased and with another son, Nahor, left behind in Ur with his family, only Abraham remains as the link through which Terah's family may continue. But there is an obstacle in the way. Sarah is barren (v. 30). Terah's only grandchildren, besides Lot, are daughters (Milcah and Iscah). Thus, Lot is the one male grandchild, and the fact that a later text (12:4) reports Lot's accompanying Abraham when the latter set out from Haran is, as far as plot is concerned, “the teasing motif of the presumed heir” (Silberman, 19).

There is a consensus among biblical scholars (e.g., von Rad, Westermann, Clines, Kaiser, VanGemeren) that the theological theme that unites at least Gen 12-36 is that of divine promise to the individuals Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (I shall argue below that the Joseph story [ch. 37-50] perpetuates this same theme, albeit in a somewhat different fashion.) Thus, one might quote a statement by von Rad on Gen 12ff., for whom Genesis is a patchwork of different literary traditions, in which he says, “The whole has nevertheless a scaffolding supporting it and connecting it, the so-called promise to the patriarchs. At least it can be said that this whole variegated mosaic of studies is given cohesion of subject matter ... by means of the constantly recurring divine promise” (1962-65, 1:167). Similarly, Brevard Childs states that the promises to the patriarchs in Genesis provide “the constant element in the midst of all the changing situations of this very checkered history” (1979, 151).

One notes, for example, that the lives of both Abraham and Jacob, which are clearly the preoccupation of the narrator (who gives only one chapter [26] exclusively to matters involving Isaac), are replete with divine visitations. In particular, in both instances God's first and last speech to the patriarch is one of promise. Thus, God's first spoken word to Abraham is a series of “I will's” (12:1-3), in which the movement is from imperative (v. 1) to indicative, future tense (vv. 2-3). God's final word to Abraham also starts with an imperative (22:1) and ends with an indicative, future tense (22:15-18).

Similarly, God's first word to Jacob (—> ) is a word of promise (28:13-15, but for obvious reasons there is no introductory imperative here, as in 12:1), and his last word is also a word of promise (46:3-4). As in Gen 22:1 ff. the pattern is imperative (46:3 b) followed by indicative, future tense (46:3 c, 4 ab). Abraham receives his initial revelation outside the Promised Land (either in Haran or in Ur, depending on whether one translates the Heb. vb. in 12:1 a as a perfect [“said”] or as a pluperfect [“had said,” NIV; cf. Acts 7:2]), but on his way to that land. Jacob, by contrast, receives his initial revelation while he is on his way to Haran (Gen 28:10) away from the Promised Land. One might also note that in Abraham's case the revelation occurs right at the threshold of the scriptural account of Abraham's life, although he is already a septuagenarian. In Jacob's case, on the other hand, the revelation occurs subsequent to Scripture's narration of several family incidents involving Jacob, each of which involves Esau his older brother (25:26; 25:27-34; 27:1 ff.). Thus, in Abraham's case the reader has no insight into what kind of person or character he is when ch. 12 starts. In Jacob's case, the reader has had ample opportunity to make some judgments on Jacob's character before God speaks a single word.

Three items need to be mentioned about these promises at the outset. First, and this I will discuss summarily, is whether or not all these promises are original to the narratives in which they appear, or whether they were inserted later in editorial fashion for one reason or another. Much of OT scholarship leans to the second of these two options. But an examination of the instances where a promise appears makes it quite possible, indeed likely, that the promise pericope is not an addendum. For example, if one deletes the promises to Abraham in 22:15-18 as secondary to the original narrative, a position adopted by many exegetes, then one has vitiated the narrative in 22:1-14. That is, we would have in effect a truncated narrative in which Abraham's faithful obedience to take Isaac to Moriah has no positive result, i.e., that Abraham will now have many descendants who will possess their enemies’ cities.

The second item to be mentioned is the number and content of these promises. There is disagreement among scholars as to how many distinct promises there are. Westermann (1980) discerns seven originally independent promises and identifies them as the promise of: (1) a son; (2) a new territory; (3) aid; (4) the land; (5) increase; (6) blessing; and (7) covenant, the first three of which he believes are rooted in the patriarchal period, and of these three, the first one, the promise of a son/heir, is the primary form of the promise tradition. VanGemeren (104-8) lists four distinct promises to the patriarchs, identifying them as: (1) seed; (2) land; (3) personal blessing and; (4) blessing to the nation. Clines (31-37) mentions only three promises: (1) descendants; (2) relationship; and (3) land.

All three agree on the promise (1) of offspring (Westermann: a son and increase; VanGemeren: seed; Clines: descendants), (2) of land, and (3) of blessing, both personal and mediated. I would like to argue that this last promise, the promise of mediated blessing, if not foundational to the other promises, is at least the capstone of the other promises. Four times a patriarch (12:3), a patriarch and his seed (28:14), or a patriarch's seed (22:18; 26:4) is promised that he/they will be a means of blessing to the families of the earth.

The first of these four passages, Gen 12:3, demonstrates through the syntax of the verse the climatic focus of this phrase: “and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” This unit (12:1-3) begins with an imperative (“leave!”), continues in vv. 2, 3 a with a number of first singular imperfects/cohortatives (“I will make you ... I will bless you ... I will bless those ... I will curse,” and an imperative with a conjunctive waw (v. 2 d, lit., “that you may be a blessing”)—all of these forms indicate purpose or intention. The unit climaxes with a perfect (“will be blessed,” Wk¢r“b]nI). The stunning force of the perfect is tantamount to causing one to read this last phrase as a result clause, “so that all peoples on the earth will be blessed through you” (IBHS, 530; Miller, “Syntax,” 474).

This promise both looks back to earlier chapters in Gen and to later chapters and incidents as well. The phrase “peoples of the earth” certainly embraces the post-Noahic nations mentioned in ch. 10. They are to find and experience God's blessing through the mediation of this one blessed family. Hence, God makes it clear to Abraham and to his seed that they are chosen for the sake and well-being of the nonchosen.

The same promise also finds a partial fulfillment in some of the later episodes in Genesis. So Laban of Aram-Naharaim can say to his son-in-law Jacob, “The LORD has blessed me because of you” (30:27). The household of the Egyptian Potiphar is blessed because of Joseph (39:5; Joseph). Not only was Jacob's household saved from death by starvation because of the presence of Joseph in Egypt, but so was the country of Egypt itself. To be certain, these isolated incidents do not exhaust the fulfillment of this promise to the patriarchs. But they are hints, or initial fulfillments, of a promise by God, affirmed either by an outsider (30:27) or by the narrator (39:5), that point eschatologically to an even grander fulfillment in ages to come.

The third area that needs to be mentioned is the basic nature of these promises. One notices that overwhelmingly these promises are made by God unconditionally. The absence of the word “if” in Genesis is as striking as its presence in Exodus, at least from ch. 19 on (“Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant...,” Exod 19:5). This element of unconditionality is sounded clearly both in the promises themselves and in the covenant God makes with Abraham, and by extension with his descendants (instituted in Gen 15:1-21 and confirmed in 17:1-27).

Nowhere does God ever add a conditional if clause to any promise he makes to Abraham or Jacob that suggests that obedience or faithfulness is a sine qua non for the fulfillment of that promise. Note that God's first word to Abraham is a command, not a conditional clause, and that pattern continues throughout Genesis. This means, for one thing, that the Genesis narratives are not so much primarily about the faith of the patriarchs as they are about the faithfulness of God.

This does not mean that in Genesis obedience or faithfulness is inconsequential. On the contrary, they are important and acceptable to God. After all, the text does record that Abraham believed God's promises (15:6), his questions borne of disappointment and disenchantment notwithstanding (15:2, 8). Here is the appropriate response to a word from God. Again, at the conclusion of the Moriah incident Abraham is told, not once but twice that “because you have done this ... because you have obeyed me” (22:16, 18), God's blessing will be on his descendants. Thus, faithful, obedient living is one of two ways in Genesis in which one exercises spiritual influence. The other way is intercessory prayer (18:16-33).

It is well known that the patriarchal figures of Genesis engage in activities that are morally dubious to the modern reader of the text. On two occasions Abraham encourages his wife to be dishonest about her real relationship to Abraham as his wife (12:10-20; 20:1-18), thus placing her in the vulnerable position of possibly becoming an adulteress. And is it not true that were somebody to possess Sarah sexually, she would be excluded from the role of being the chosen wife, the mother of the true heir? At Sarah's suggestion Abraham cohabits with another woman and fathers a child by her (ch. 16).

Isaac (—> ) mimics his father's duplicity when he too finds himself a vulnerable alien on foreign soil (ch. 26). Jacob (—> ) exploits his brother (25:29-34), deceives his aged and handicapped father in order to obtain a blessing under false pretenses (ch. 27), and even subsequent to his encounter with God at Peniel and the renaming that takes place there, still lies to Esau (33:12-18).

Judah fathers twins by his disguised-as-a-harlot daughter-in-law (ch. 38), and Joseph launches charges (“You are spies,” 42:14) against his brothers that he knows are not true, and later acts clandestinely (having the money slipped into their grain sacks, 42:25) to make it appear that they are thieves or are trying to sidestep having to pay for the grain he has distributed to them.

What separates these activities from similar transgressions perpetrated by, say, a David or a Solomon? In the case of the latter individuals each culpable sinner pays a high price for licentious living. But the patriarchs escape prosecution. Never are they taken to task for any immoral living. And this is quite the opposite of Gen 3-11, where Adam and Eve, Cain, the contemporaries of Noah, and the city builders pay a terrible consequence for their aberrant activities. The only exception to this in patriarchal history would be the Lord's words to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say...?” (18:13). (Is Sarah's disposition at all influenced by the fact that her husband is the only believer she has known, and she has witnessed his inconsistency? If the only believer one knows acts the way Abraham did in 12:10-20, how is one to think about his God?) One might also add the death of Onan (38:8) after his failure to fulfill levirate responsibilities to his deceased brother and surviving sister-in-law. So there is a “Why did Sarah laugh?” but there is no “Why did Abraham lie?” or “Why did Jacob deceive?” or “Why did Joseph frame?”

Furthermore, there are places in Gen 12-50 where outsiders are punished by God for sin. Pharaoh's inadvertent taking of Sarah is met with plagues (12:17). The four titanic kings from the East are humiliated and defeated by Abraham with his modest force of 318 men, all because they abducted Lot (ch. 14). Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed because of their depravity (ch. 19). The Lord closed the wombs of the women in Abimelech's kingdom because Sarah was taken by Abimelech (20:18). But there are no corresponding episodes in which the patriarchs are afflicted. Sarah's womb too is closed, but not because of either her own sin or that of her husband.

To take the “wife-as-sister” stories in Genesis as an example, they certainly raise ethical questions—e.g., why would God punish an innocent man, and why does God allow gifts to be lavished on Abraham, making them to appear almost as a reward or a pay-off for his duplicity? But theologically, the episodes function at a different level. Will the recently given promise of nationhood via Abraham still be in effect when the recipient of that promise appears by his behavior to place the promise in jeopardy? Will the nations of the earth really be blessed by a man such as this? Does God have a back-up plan? Is God's plan for redemption on the verge of abortion? What will come of God's promises when the greatest threat to the promises of God are the bearers of those promises? The theological answer to these questions is “that even the folly of a believing man will not in the final analysis jeopardize God's promise” (Martens, 32). God has no intention of scrapping this chosen family, their moral inadequacies notwithstanding, as an object of his blessing and as the light and salt of the earth's nations, any more than he is tempted to scrap the new covenant equivalent of the chosen family of Abraham, i.e., the ejkklhsiva (G1711), in spite of her long list of turpitudes.

G. Coats (1980) has suggestively drawn attention to the high number of incidents in Genesis in which the constant theme is (1) intimacy (2) that is ruptured by strife, (3) which in turn may or may not be resolved by reconciliation. This pattern first surfaces in the opening three chapters of Genesis and continues throughout the Joseph (—> ) narrative, where the dissension between Joseph and his brothers is much like the family fractures one reads about in Gen 3-4. In all of these narratives the theme of intimacy-strife-reconciliation is fundamental, and in many of them the promise theme is marginal, if present at all.

This pattern is quite evident in the Jacob narrative and is one that Coats fully explores in order to buttress his idea. There is brother against brother, father and brother against mother and brother, brother against father, wife against wife, son-in-law against father-in-law, and vice-versa. Present are recurring motifs such as exploitation, deception, deep resentment and anger, sleeping with somebody other than one's wife, polygamy, the beautiful woman, jealousy, manipulation, thievery, lies, rape, and violence.

In most of these incidents Jacob's behavior is central. In only a few is his own involvement peripheral. It is of no little interest, however, that in the four theophanies that Jacob experiences (28:10-22; 32:22-31; 35:9-13; 46:2-4), God never once raises a question about any of Jacob's behavioral patterns. What he does hear is a litany of unconditional promises from God to bless him, to give him a plethora of descendants, to give these descendants land, and to bless the families of the earth through these descendants.

The absence of any negative comment on the patriarchs continues through the historical books (e.g., Josh 24), the Prophets (e.g., Mal 1:2-3), the Psalter (e.g., Ps 105, 106), and into the NT (Acts 7; Rom 9; Heb 11; James 2). (Hos 12:2-4 provides one of the very few times a prophet condemns the behavior of a patriarch.) What we find in the remainder of the OT canon and in the NT is a theocentric interpretation of Gen 12-50. Unholy acts do not sidetrack the holy, decretive will of God. What Genesis teaches, and what later biblical formulations repeat, is that the patriarchs are the chosen of God, chosen to be blessed and to be a blessing, as well as the recipients of a covenant first made to Abraham and later confirmed to Isaac and Jacob. As Childs (1985, 215) states, “It is astonishing to see the extent to which the ethical difficulties of the Genesis story are completely disregarded. The narrative is read to illustrate something entirely different, namely the faithfulness of God.”

The Joseph story (Gen 37-50; Joseph) focuses completely on the fortunes of Jacob's son Joseph, except for chs. 38 and 49:1-28. The common element in these two exceptions is the presence of Judah, Joseph's brother. The first passage depicts a Judah who is unappealing, given his relationship with Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and as such is contrasted with the faithful, moral Joseph of ch. 39. Yet, in Jacob's words in 49:8-12 about Judah, Judah is to lead his brothers, who will “bow down” to him. Judah will possess “the scepter” and the “ruler's staff.” Like his father before him, his obvious foibles and follies in his dealings with others apparently do not eliminate him from being a chosen conduit through whom God will bless all the peoples of the earth.

There are no divine speeches, no theophanies or epiphanies in Gen 37-50, so one will not find any promises spoken by deity to anybody in this part of Genesis as there were to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Yet in its own way the Joseph narrative contributes to the theological thrust of Gen 12-36. It surely, as much as the patriarchal narratives, affirms the faithfulness of God. Joseph himself affirms as much in his famous words of 45:8 and 50:19-21.

Gen 37-50 also highlights the people of God in dangerous circumstances that might snuff out their lives. Unlike Abraham, who could head to Egypt to escape a famine in his homeland, and Isaac, who could flee to neighboring Philistia in similar circumstances, Joseph will find, shortly after he is abducted to there, that Egypt too is famine-prone. In Abraham's case, his own security, so he thought, was in doubt (12:10-20). Sarah is unable to bear a child. And later Abraham is asked to place the long-awaited true heir, the child of promise, the laughing one, on the altar of sacrifice (22). Will God's promises overcome these threats or unencouraging circumstances? Yes, God's promises are sustained. In the Joseph story, we wonder, will God's people survive this devastating famine? Will the descendants of Abraham, now in the embryonic stage of becoming like the sands of the seashore and the stars of the sky, be wiped out prematurely? Or will a faithful God keep his promises alive, and thus through some means save his chosen people from death by starvation? The Joseph story answers that question affirmatively. It also makes it transparent that even in excruciating circumstances, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob can use his own to bring blessing to a family of the earth—the Egyptians, in whose territory they are temporarily residing.

But Egypt must never become a domicile. Thus, Jacob's final words to his sons, in the form of a prophetic blessing, point to what is to happen to them “in days to come” (49:1). And Joseph's final word to his family is a testimony of God's faithfulness to his own to lead them out of Egypt and into the land he promised to the patriarchs (50:24-25). In ch. 1-11, we read of individuals who had land, but are either losing it or being expelled from it. In ch. 12-50, the emphasis is on individuals who do not have land, but are on the way toward it. One group is forfeiting; another group is expecting (Brueggemann, 15).

B. Theological Themes

1. Creation. Both the OT and other ANE literature know of only four methods of creation: by speech, by action, by sexual activity, or by combat with forces of evil. Gen 1 highlights the first of these, while 2:4-25 focuses on the second of these. Thus, creation is the result of what God says and does. For obvious reasons, number three is totally absent from Scripture; indeed, the absence of a spouse for God, who himself transcends all sexuality (which is a structure of creation), is one phenomenon distinguishing the OT from its ANE thought patterns. There are later scattered references, all in poetry, that connect creation with God's vanquishing the monster (Ps 74:13-15; Isa 51:9-10), but none are present in the creation chapters of Genesis (ar:B;, create, H1343).

To say that the world is God's creation is to make certain theological affirmations. (a) To call God “Creator” and everything else “creature” is to affirm God's total otherness and transcendence. The line of demarcation between Creator and creature cannot be erased or confused, nor can the two ever blend into a form of pantheism or mysticism.

(b) On the other hand, to call God Creator is also to affirm God's generous, welcoming, loving nature. God does not create in order to fulfill some unmet need in his life. Rather, creation is necessary because God is a God of love, who delights to share life with others. Thus, the Scripture teaches both creation by grace and salvation by grace.

(c) In saying that everything except God is creature, we are affirming that the creature is radically dependent on the Creator for life and sustenance and that the fulfillment of that God-given circumstance is only realized when the creature readily concedes his finiteness and contingency. The serpent in paradise's garden (Gen 3) succeeds in convincing the primal couple that such dependence is not a freedom but a shackle.

(d) In spite of its contingency and finitude, creation is good (but not perfect). In the thinking of Genesis “dependent” and “finite” are not synonyms for “sinful.” Rather, to call creation “dependent” and “finite” suggests the possibilities of risk and growth. Intriguingly, God's creation moves to a climax not in the making of humanity, but in rest and celebration (Gen 2:1-3). The days of actual work are called “good,” but the day of rest and reflection upon the good is called “holy” (2:3).

(e) To affirm that all of God's creation is good is to state that nothing is inherently evil. Evil, sin, and Satan are not phenomena on whose origin Genesis expounds. What Genesis does state is that these realities are intrusive into God's creation and are never original.

(f) To read faithfully Gen 1-2 is to make certain affirmations about humanity that distinguish it from the rest of creation. Only humankind is created with the divine image and likeness (Gen 1:26-27). So the differences between humankind and the rest of creation are qualitative, not just quantitative. But what does imago Dei mean? Does it refer to posture, to imagination/creativity, or, as is so often assumed, to the ability to reason? This latter one is the one that has dominated Western Christianity. Its weakness is that in focusing exclusively on intellectual capacities of humanity, it correspondingly devalues other aspects of human existence, such as emotion. A fourth suggestion is to understand imago Dei relationally. Gen 1 and 2 seem to support this. To bear the image of God is to be capable of living in proper relationship with God, with others, with the rest of creation, and with oneself. The tarnishing of that image is occasioned by the soiling of those relationships.

2. Election. The Heb. vb. for election or choice, rj'B; (H1047), occurs only once in Genesis, and there it describes a human act: “The sons of God ... married any of them they chose” (Gen 6:2). The infrequent use of the vb. or its derivatives in Gen is in contradistinction to Deut and Deut-related OT books, where the vb. is much more popular. But while the vocabulary of election is virtually absent from Genesis, incidents involving God's election of peoples and individuals abound. They begin in primeval history with the birth of Seth (Gen 4:25) as Abel's successor, and with Noah, whose life purpose was announced shortly after his birth (5:29). They continue with the call of an Abram to leave his homeland and kin (12:1), come to a climax with the choosing of Isaac over Ishmael (21:12) and Jacob over Esau (25:23), and move to a conclusion in the story of Joseph, who was “sent” by God to Egypt (45:5, 7-8) “to preserve a remnant” of the elected family (45:7).

In light of these stories, and coupled with NT reflections (e.g., Rom 9-11) on them, what theological affirmations may be made about election? (a) Election emphasizes the element of divine sovereignty. God is sovereign both as Creator and Redeemer. Humanity cannot dictate to him the condition for his creation or redemption. This is determined by God alone. One of the things God has sovereignly determined is that human beings become what they are. It is impossible to follow a certain pattern of life and choose our destinies irrespective of our pattern of life. Thus, ultimately, God determines humanity's destiny.

(b) God is sovereign with regard to the decision to redeem by grace. This could not be initiated by humankind. Moreover, God is sovereign to determine the condition for grace. And the condition for grace that God has sovereignly set is faith (Gen 15:6).

(c) God is sovereign with regard to determining who meets his condition. Humanity cannot make this determination for himself or herself. Furthermore, this determination is made beforehand, from eternity. Why does God not only determine this but reveal it in advance (Gen 25:23)? The reason is simply to emphasize that all this is based on mercy rather than on works-righteousness. It removes any idea of election from the category of wages or earnings and places it fully in the category of mercy.

(d) Election in Genesis (and elsewhere in the OT) is related to function and not primarily to the individual's salvation and relationship with God. The chosen are chosen for the sake of the unchosen, “to be a blessing to the peoples of the earth” (to use the language of Genesis), “to be a light to the nations” (to use the language of Isaiah). Thus, election was designed “as a particularistic means towards a universalistic end” (Vos, 77).

3. Revelation. Three Heb. vbs. are especially prominent in the OT's language of revelation: (a) hl;G: (H1655), used mostly in the ni. or hitp. with God as subject; (b) ha;r: (H8011), either in the q. with human beings as subject, or in the ni. with God as the agent of revelation; (c) [d"y: (H3359), in the ni. as a reflexive.

(a) hl;G: (ni.) occurs only once in Gen 35:7, “Because it was there that God revealed himself to him [Jacob] when he was fleeing from his brother.”

(b) ha;r: (ni.) with Yahweh/Elohim as subject is used more often (“Yahweh appeared to X”). See 12:7; 17:1; 18:1 [to Abraham]; 26:2, 24 [to Isaac]; 35:9; 48:3 [to Jacob]. (Gen 46:29 demonstrates that the ni. of ha;r: may also describe a meeting between people: “As soon as Joseph appeared before him” [Jacob].)

(c) [d"y: (ni.) does not appear in Genesis in a revelation context, but cf. Exod 6:3, “I appeared to (ha;r:, ni. + la,) to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known ([d"y:, ni.) to them” (NIV).

Given the fact that all three of these vbs. are used frequently in the OT in secular contexts, and specifically that each of them may refer to sexual intercourse, one might suggest that the terms used by the OT to describe God's self-revelation to his people are borrowed from the erotic and marital relationship between spouses. Whether it is God speaking to Abraham or a man engaging in sexual congress with his wife, each is revealing himself to another.

It would be difficult, however, to extract from Genesis that by divine revelation is meant “self-disclosure.” After all, the great Moses was privileged to see only God's back but not his face (Exod 33:18-23). When we read that “the LORD would speak to Moses face to face” (33:11), but just a few verses later, “You cannot see my face” (33:20), we are not faced with a contradiction. The first reference suggests there was direct verbal exchange between God and Moses, while the second reference suggests that Yahweh's identity remained veiled to Moses.

If we look at some of the accounts of revelation in Genesis we observe essentially the same things as in Exodus, i.e., that God reveals himself to human beings not for his own sake, but for humanity's sake. For example, when Adam and Eve (Gen 3:9-13, 16-19) or Noah (7:1-4; 9:1-7) experienced divine revelation as representatives of humanity, the purpose is not only intimate, personal communion between God and Adam/Noah, but in order that each may hear a directive from God regarding the future of the human community.

Similarly, God's revelation to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3, 7; 15:1-5, 7, 9-21; 17:1-22, etc.) and to Jacob (28:10-22; 32:22-32; 35:9, 10) is not a private unveiling of God for the benefit of the patriarchs. Right in the middle of these revelations is a God who acts and who will act. He is, with Abraham and Jacob, starting something redemptive that neither one will live to see. Thus, the original revelation to an Abraham or a Jacob is finally a word of revelation to the community formed by their progeny.

Bibliography T. D. Alexander, “Genealogies, Seed and the Compositional Unity of Genesis,” TynBul, 1993, 255-70; B. W. Anderson, “From Analysis to Synthesis: The Interpretation of Genesis 1-11,” JBL 97, 1978, 23-39; W. W. Brueggemann, “David and His Theologian,” CBQ 30, 1968, 156-81; idem, “Kingship and Chaos (A Study in Tenth Century Theology),” CBQ 33, 1971, 317-32; idem, The Land, OBT 1, 1977; idem, “Genesis L 15-21: A Theological Exploration,” in Congress Volume: Salamanca, SVT 36, 1985, 40-53; B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament As Scripture, 1979; idem, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context, 1985; D. J. A. Clines, “The Theology of the Flood Narrative,” Faith and Thought 100, 1972-73, 128-42; idem, The Theme of the Pentateuch, JSOTSup 10, 1978; G. Coats, From Canaan to Egypt: Structural and Theological Context for the Joseph Story, CBQMS 4, 1975; idem, “Power and Obedience in the Primeval History,” Int 29, 1975, 227-39; idem, “Strife Without Reconciliation—A Narrative Theme in the Jacob Traditions,” in Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments, FS C. Westermann, 1979, 82-106; idem, “Strife and Reconciliation: Themes of a Biblical Theology in the Book of Genesis,” HBT 2, 1980, 15-37; idem, “The Curse in God's Blessing: Genesis 12:1-4a in the Structure and Theology of the Yahwist,” in Die Botschaft und die Boten, FS H. W. Wolff, 1981, 31-41; B. T. Dahlberg, “On Recognizing the Unity of Genesis,” TD 24, 1977, 360-67; E. Fox, “Can Genesis Be Read as a Book?,” Semeia 46, 1989, 31-40; T. E. Fretheim, Creation, Fall and Flood: Studies in Genesis 1-11, 1969; W. H. Gage, The Gospel of Genesis, 1984; D. Garrett, Rethinking Genesis, 1991; V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, NICOT, 1990; A. J. Hauser, “Genesis 2-3: The Theme of Intimacy and Alienation,” in Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, JSOTSup 19, 1982; W. L. Humphreys, Joseph and His Family, 1988; W. C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology, 1978; D. Kidner, Genesis, TOTC, 1979; W. S. Lasor, D. A. Hubbard, and F. W. Bush, Old Testament Survey, 1982; E. A. Martens, A Focus on Old Testament Theology, 1981; P. D. Miller Jr., “Syntax and Theology in Genesis XII 3a,” VT 34, 1984, 472-75; J. Navone, Towards a Theology of Story, 1977; G. von Rad, OTT; idem, Genesis, OTL, rev. ed., 1972; J. H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 1992; idem, “Genesis,” A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, eds., L. Ryken and T. Longman III, 1993, 108-20; L. H. Silberman, “Listening to the Text,” TBL 102, 1983, 3-26; G V. Smith, “Structure and Purpose in Genesis 1-11,” JETS 20, 1977, 307-19; M. Steinberg, “The Genealogical Framework of the Family Stories in Genesis,” Semeia 46, 1989, 41-50; S. Talmon, “Revelation in Biblical Times,” HS 26, 1985, 53-70; S. Terrien, The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology, 1978; W. VanGemeren, The Progress of Redemption, 1988; G. Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, 1948; C. Westermann, The Promises to the Fathers, 1980; idem, Genesis, 3 vols., 1984-86; L. Zachman, “Beobachtungen zur Theologie in Gen. 5,” ZAW 88, 1976, 272-74; W. Zimmerli, “Promise and Fulfillment,” in Essays on Old Testament Interpretation, 1963, 89-122.

Victor P. Hamilton

Sumber: NIDOTE