Plow Shears and Swords

Part II of a wonderful Discussion

Panis:

"Notice how different the order of creation is in these two chapters. Plants-beasts-man and woman vs. man-plants-beasts-woman. Was man created before or after the plants and animals? To take both as literal is bad hermeneutics."

Actually, your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is bad hermeneutics. Hermeneutical principles state that one should interpret what is written as literal narrative unless given a substantial reason not to (except for Revelation, of course, which is the other way around). There is no substantial reason to interpret Genesis 1-3 as figurative, allegorical, or "apocalyptic" (to use your own terminology) unless one holds to the JEDP theory of Genesis' authorship. Because there is not enough convincing evidence to support the JEDP theory (ask some OT profs in the seminary about this), Mosaic authorship should always be assumed.

If Moses is the author of Genesis (which he indeed is, as well as the entire Torah), then why would he write three chapters of "apocalyptic" writings that are meant to be taken any other way than literal and then conclude the rest of the entire Torah with literal narrative?

What is Genesis? It is history. Anyone who reads it from beginning to end can clearly see that. Why should Genesis 1-3 then be any different than a literal history narrative like the rest of the book?

Further evidence of your bad hermeneutics is provided by your cutoff of chapter 3. Chapter divisions in the Bible are not in the original manuscripts, as I'm sure you know. Clearly from a reading of chapter 3, one can see that the story in chapter 3 extends all the way into chapter 4 (after all, we are talking same characters with the same names here). Therefore, using your own hermeneutical principles, chapter 4 must be "apocalyptic" as well, for you have no substantial reason to make a cutoff from "apocalyptic" to narrative between chapters 3 and 4.

If you say chapter 4 is "apocalyptic," you're more than welcome to. However, as careful hermeneutics show, chapter 4 can be nothing but literal narrative, especially with chapter 5 being an entire genealogical chapter based upon chapter 4.

As for the Moses' use of wordplay substantiating your argument, it really doesn't. One can easily find wordplay in literal narrative portions of the Bible as well (take a look at the Tower of Babel narrative in Hebrew, for example).

And speaking of Hebrew, I find it particularly interesting that you neglected to indicate the Hebrew in Genesis 2:4 where the word, toledoth, is used, indicating a literal translation of: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created...," the same way the term is used later in the Old Testament in passages like “these are the generations of Terah…,” etc. It describes actual time, actual people, and actual events. It is clearly a history term. If you would like to devote some study to finding anywhere in the Old Testament where it is used to describe “apocalyptic” events, Circenses, be my guest, as I would be interested to know where such usages occur.

Lastly, you neglect the fact that the statements you alluded to in chapter 2 of Genesis can easily be taken as a more detailed account of day 6 in God's creation. This obviously makes much sense, because the creation of man is obviously the emphasis of chapter 2, not the fact that God "formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air..."

No offense, Circenses, but I don't think your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is correct (which is fine, as I'm sure you don't see mine as correct, either). You say you held to such a position concerning the chapters before you came to believe in evolution. That's fine. The fact cannot be ignored, however, that your interpretation of those chapters certainly corroborates your evolutionary beliefs.


Circenses:

"Notice how different the order of creation is in these two chapters. Plants-beasts-man and woman vs. man-plants-beasts-woman. Was man created before or after the plants and animals? To take both as literal is bad hermeneutics."

Actually, your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is bad hermeneutics. Hermeneutical principles state that one should interpret what is written as literal narrative unless given a substantial reason not to (except for Revelation, of course, which is the other way around). There is no substantial reason to interpret Genesis 1-3 as figurative, allegorical, or "apocalyptic" (to use your own terminology) unless one holds to the JEDP theory of Genesis' authorship. Because there is not enough convincing evidence to support the JEDP theory (ask some OT profs in the seminary about this), Mosaic authorship should always be assumed.

I gave quite a bit of good reasons why Genesis 1-3 should be taken as “non-literally.” Whether or not someone thinks the reasons to be substantial is relative.

And, hey, whether JEDP or not, whether Mosaic our not, Genesis 1-3 can not be taken “literally.” Parts of Daniel are narrative and parts are Apocalyptic; whether or not the book was written all by Daniel or by more than one author does not change the fact that more than one genre is present in the book as we now have.

I have asked OT professors. Those who no longer teach at certain seminaries will tell me that Moses did not right all of the Pentateuch. Those who still teach at the seminary will avoid the question. Only one prof will say, “here is the evidence, what do you think.”

Genesis mentions people groups that were not around when Moses was alive. Philistines (10:14; 12:32, 35; 26:1-18) and Chaldeans (11:31).

Genesis 14:14 mentions the geographic location of the tribe of Dan which had not located there until well after Moses death.

What about the Genesis anachronisms? 12:6 says that “at that time there were still Canaanties in the land,” which indicates that at the time of writing Canaanites were no longer in the land, thus after the death of Moses. 36:31 speaks about “before any Israelite king reigned” which means that at the time of writing, Israelite kings did reign, thus after Moses and Joshua and the Judges.

Numbers 12:3 states, “Moses was the most humble man on the face of the earth.” Obviously Moses did not write this or he would not be the most humble man on the face of the earth.

Numbers 21:14 refers to the Book of Wars, suggesting that sources have been used.

Deuteronomy 34 deals with the Death of Moses.

That is just the intra-biblical evidence.

The Talmud writes, “Moses wrote his book AND the passage dealing with Balaam and Job.”

2 Esdras makes it clear that Ezra wrote and arranged much of the Pentateuch.

Nowhere does the Pentateuch claim that Moses is the author. His authorship is a purely traditional view. It usually comes from the desire of believers to know who wrote a certain book. If the author is not known then the main character is assumed to be the author (see Jonah).

Also, here is an excellent essay on JEDP. This theory has gotten much bad wrap from the really conservative, though most conservative scholars hold to it. The theory was not devised to discredit the Pentateuch but to defend what seemed to be apparent contradictions in the text. The scholars who devised the JEDP theory were trying to defend the Scriptures. And they did.

Regardless, inspiration and accuracy does not rest upon Mosaic authorship. The Holy Spirit spoke through the authors regardless of whether they were Moses or not. I happen to believe that Moses wrote a good deal of the material with immediate help from others. Other material was written later at different times by different people. At some point the material was brought together into what we have today. This whole process was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It’s just like evolution and the creation of man. It’s not the clean process we wish it was but the Holy Spirit is doing it none the less and the end result is wonderful.


If Moses is the author of Genesis (which he indeed is, as well as the entire Torah), then why would he write three chapters of "apocalyptic" writings that are meant to be taken any other way than literal and then conclude the rest of the entire Torah with literal narrative?

See my above comment on Daniel.

And how about Revelation? Apocalypse, Epistle, and Prophecy all rolled into one.


What is Genesis? It is history. Anyone who reads it from beginning to end can clearly see that. Why should Genesis 1-3 then be any different than a literal history narrative like the rest of the book?

History is it? It’s not a “date book”, it’s not a “science book”, but it is a “history book”? Why do you believe that? Where does it call itself a history? Do you believe that because it refers to historical events? Okay, so do many prophetic books, but we do not call them history. The book of Daniel refers to history and it’s apocalyptic. Revelation is historical in nature, albeit it’s a history that many believe has not yet occurred. It’s not “literal.”

Look at the Gospel of John. It is a gospel, right. It is a “history of Jesus”? It begins by talking about Jesus as a “word” and a “light” that “‘tabernacles’ among us” (1:14). John uses these same terms for Jesus in Revelation. Is Jesus a “literal” “word”? Is He a “literal” “light”. Is the Lord a whole bunch of electrons that can be warped by gravity? Or is it a figurative term to describe a truth of Jesus? John begins his gospel in pre-history, in eternity. No one was around to witness this event and so we have this incomprehensible relationship and event in a manner in which we can understand it.

Heck, look at chapter 2 of John’s gospel. He has Jesus cleansing the temple at the beginning of his ministry. All the other gospels have it at the end. John has reshaped the chronology of the event to suit his theological purposes.

But let us say that Genesis is history. What type of history is it? Why does it mention what it mentions? Why does it not mention other things? I believe that if we call it “salvation history” then we have a better grasp of what is going on. Heck, I think the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is “salvation history.” Even the apocalyptic passages of Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah and Revelation are apart of “salvation history.” It is interesting that the Bible begins and ends with an apocalyptic format. Pre-history and post-history are given in apocalyptic forms because no one was there or is there to see it. The events have to be theologically symbolized for the audience.

I have been in discussion with believers who object to my preterism. They do not believe that my apocalyptic interpretation of Revelation is correct. They wish me to take it “literally” at face value. I tell them that I am. I say that the genre is apocalypse, epistle, and prophecy and I interpret it in like manner. I ask them to interpret the 7-headed beast “literally” and they say “it symbolizes this.”

I actually do interpret Genesis 1-3 literally (notice the absence of quotes). The literature is apocalyptic history and I interpret is as such.

Further evidence of your bad hermeneutics is provided by your cutoff of chapter 3. Chapter divisions in the Bible are not in the original manuscripts, as I'm sure you know. Clearly from a reading of chapter 3, one can see that the story in chapter 3 extends all the way into chapter 4 (after all, we are talking same characters with the same names here). Therefore, using your own hermeneutical principles, chapter 4 must be "apocalyptic" as well, for you have no substantial reason to make a cutoff from "apocalyptic" to narrative between chapters 3 and 4.

That’s right. I take the entire 1-11 of Genesis to be apocalyptic. The only reason that I didn’t mention any other chapters but 1-3 was because we were speaking of evolution as it relates to creation, which means 1-3.

If you say chapter 4 is "apocalyptic," you're more than welcome to. However, as careful hermeneutics show, chapter 4 can be nothing but literal narrative, especially with chapter 5 being an entire genealogical chapter based upon chapter 4.

Well, if we do take these genealogies as literal then the creation of Adam was just 6,000 years ago. That is going to come as quite a shock to the Egyptians, Indians, and Chinese.


As for the Moses' use of wordplay substantiating your argument, it really doesn't. One can easily find wordplay in literal narrative portions of the Bible as well (take a look at the Tower of Babel narrative in Hebrew, for example).

See above. Yep, Tower of Babel is apocalyptic.

And speaking of Hebrew, I find it particularly interesting that you neglected to indicate the Hebrew in Genesis 2:4 where the word, toledoth, is used, indicating a literal translation of: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created...," the same way the term is used later in the Old Testament in passages like "these are the generations of Terah" etc. It describes actual time, actual people, and actual events. It is clearly a history term. If you would like to devote some study to finding anywhere in the Old Testament where it is used to describe "apocalyptic" events, Circenses, be my guest, as I would be interested to know where such usages occur.

I neglected many things out of space and time. My objective was to show how plausible is my interpretation that chapters 1-3 are not “literal.”

Toledoth does not indicate a literal translation. It’s a book or chapter title. If we take the term “literally” then it designates that this book (5:1) is about the descendants of Adam, or it designates these particular people are the descendants of whomever (6:9, 10:1, 10:32, 11:10; etc.).

But what about the verse you, Panis, referred to? "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created..." (2:4) Wow, who are the descendents there? How can the heavens and the earth have descendents? I guess we can’t take that to “literally” mean that the heavens and the earth have “literal” descendents. My NASB translates this verse “this is the account.” My NIV does the same. The NRSV and KJV translates the verse “literally” as you have.

Genesis 1:1 says the book is about beginnings. Notice toledoth does not appear at the beginning of chapter one. Toledoth can mean “descendants, results, proceedings, account of, generations, genealogies. It appears to depend on context whether it refers to actual “descendents” or “an account of” something.

Let’s look at Revelation. 1:1 clearly states that this book is an Apocalypse. Therefore, we must assume the whole book to be an apocalypse. But in 1:3 it is said to be a prophecy. In 1:11 it is suggested to be a letter.

It’s quite dubious to claim that toledoth designates “actual time, actual people, and actual events”.

But let us say that toledoth is a history term. That the historical event has been given in an apocalyptic manner does not negate its historic truthfulness. Look at Revelation. It is an apocalypse and is historically true (see above). That Revelation has been given as an apocalypse does not negate that it is true in a historical sense.

Lastly, you neglect the fact that the statements you alluded to in chapter 2 of Genesis can easily be taken as a more detailed account of day 6 in God's creation. This obviously makes much sense, because the creation of man is obviously the emphasis of chapter 2, not the fact that God "formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air..."

Even if we accept your view that chapter 2 is more detailed account, the details are not in “literal”, chronological order. So what you must say is that chapter one is the correct chronological order but chapter two is for emphasis not in the correct chronological order. So Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, rearranged the material in chapter two to make a theological point rather than a literal point. Because, according to chapter one, man was not literally created first but, for theological emphasis, he was created first in chapter two. Regardless, the author is not being “literal.”

Some professors have told me that chapter 2 is the correct chronological order but chapter one has been theologically structured and not “literal”. So there is a variety of opinions on the matter on all sides.

No offense, Circenses, but I don't think your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is correct (which is fine, as I'm sure you don't see mine as correct, either). You say you held to such a position concerning the chapters before you came to believe in evolution. That's fine. The fact cannot be ignored, however, that your interpretation of those chapters certainly corroborates your evolutionary beliefs.

Don’t worry, Panis; no offense taken. Like I said, as long as people understand the theological truths of the story, I do not care whether they believe it to be "literal" or not. It’s like that OT verse that talks about the Day of the Lord when soldiers will beat there swords into plow shears. The passage speaks about a time when peace will be upon the land. Many, many have taken this verse to be about the millennial kingdom where all the promises made to racial and political Israel will be fulfilled. This verse specifically refers to the ancient practice of those preparing for war to beat their plow shears into swords. When the Day of the Lord comes, the reverse will be true. Now many, many people take this verse "literally" and say that “yes, by that time we will be using swords and plow shears. And if anyone thinks that we won’t be using swords for war then they don’t believe the Bible to be true.” It’s a poetical principle, that’s it! Is it truth? Yes, when the Day of the Lord comes war will cease. That’s all it means. And whether one interprets the verse "literally" or figuratively, that is the meaning that comes through to all. But we quibble over swords and plow shears. And people lose their jobs.

My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view of man as pinnacle of God’s creation. My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view that male and female are equal by creation and that only the fall of man has changed this. It is Chris that redeems this creation (yes, women can be pastors). My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view of man as a holistic being of body, soul, and spirit. My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view that there is no intermediate state in heaven for believers after they die and until the resurrection. We just lay in the ground and turn to dust. My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view that evolution, gravity, strong force, weak force, light, electro-magnetism, atoms and strings, are so wonderful that there existence only make sense if there is a God who ordained them.