TH712: Theology of God and Creation

June 27, 2026

Course Discription

In TH712 Theology of God and Creation students examine who God is and what God does by exploring the doctrines of God, creation, humanity, and the Fall. This course also discusses God’s heavenly hosts and God’s providential relationship to creation, his divine knowledge, and the problem of evil. Students are introduced to the major topics, essential ideas, central issues, and doctrinal disagreements pertinent to each area of doctrine. As the first of two theology courses, students are challenged to think about the relationship between scripture and theology as well as the practical implications of biblical doctrine.[¹]

Utilizing four different Mobile Ed Courses, TH712 invites students to learn from world-renown experts in Systematic Theology. The course begins with Dr. Michael Allen, who explores the nature and purpose of Systematic Theology and the doctrine of scripture. The course then offers a survey of Trinitarian theology by Dr. Peter Leithart. Following its look at the doctrine of the Trinity, this course presents overviews of the biblical terminology for the Persons of the Trinity (God, Christ, Holy Spirit) and God’s heavenly host by Dr. Ronn Johnson and Dr. Carl Sanders. Then, the course surveys five distinct approaches to Genesis 1-2 presented by leading Old Testament scholars and theologians, who present the distinct features and biblical basis for their particular viewpoint. The course concludes by returning to lectures by Dr. Michel Allen, who discusses themes and major topics related to humanity and the Fall.[¹]

Upon successful completion, students will be able to:

• Trace the major elements in the development of Trinitarian theology
• Identify and define basic categories of Trinitarian theology
• Describe practical uses of the doctrine of the Trinity
• Discuss the theological issues concerning the existence of evil, providence, foreknowledge, and free will
• Summarize various views of creation and explain the theological implications of the various approaches to Gen 1–2
• Explain what it means to be made in the image of God and the implications of being made in God’s image
• Articulate core concepts related to the doctrine of Sin

Mobile Ed Course Lecture Content: TH111, TH215, TH102, TH331

Systematic Theology (1.1)

1.1.1. The connection between systematic theology and biblical theology
Both systematic theology and biblical theology should bring about a better understanding of the bible and obedience. Dr. Allen stresses theology should not end at understanding. The wings of systematic and biblical theology aim to give wisdom, that Christians might know and obey the will of God.

1.1.2. Comparing theologians
In the introduction of his book, Faith Speaking Understanding, Dr. Vanhoozer speaks about the purpose of theology just as Dr. Allen does. Vanhoozer writes, “Theology exists for the sake of God’s word, ministering understanding, and this for the purpose of growing disciples.”[², p.3] These are the three same points which were important to Dr. Allen. Theology helps Christians with God’s word, grows understanding and ultimately builds up Christians who live in the real world.

We need to be reminded who we are. Origin and our Christian reality matters. Being precedes doing. Theology teaches improvisation. That is, what we are to do when life throws us something new. But, if nothing is new under the sun then we are thrown something old and can learn the movements God intended us to do as we improvise our obedience.

Theology is twofold, it addresses God and man. Systematic theology is a wide view, is one study of all things.

• God
  • God’s creativity (Character)
  • God’s work of redemption (Relation to man)

1.1.3. Spiritual formation evaluation
My greatest weakness in my own spiritual formation is consistency in all things. As soon as I grow consistent in one area, another popcorns out of place. My love for God, his church and my family have all grown significantly over the course of my study at Redemption. However, I have recognized many sins that have not been solved quickly. I hope patient obedience will allow the Holy Spirit to teach my heart to love what is good and hate what is evil.

1.1.4. The transformative power of scripture
It is very important to Dr. Allen that scripture and theology transforms hearts and actions. The wisdom of scripture is important especially for the seminary student who spends hours contemplating the meaning of meanings. Study is good but we cannot end there! Because the Bible is the word of God, we cannot be passive recipients of knowledge. God’s word must shape our beliefs, including what we do!

1.1.5 Is systematic theology less scriptural?
In Dr. Allen’s lecture, he explains the supportive nature of systematic theology.[³, sec. 6] It is organized to support and draw from the other theological disciplines. Its organization around theological topics is not a failure but one of its greatest strengths. Organization speaks has much more to do with the purpose of a theological discipline rather than its scriptural basis.

1.1.6. Advantages of theological disciplines
In my opinion, the greatest strength of systematic theology is its ability to be a reference and a catechism. Its systematic nature makes it easy to look up theological concepts and to teach them to others. On the other hand, biblical theology is helpful to learn how a book or genre of the bible fits within its context and how it differs to another section of scripture.

Theological Method (1.2)

Identity is connected to a story. We get to look backwards on who God has revealed himself to be. This story has been brought from one generation to another.

Psalm 145 study

1.2.1. source and purpose of theology

• Theology focuses on God’s works: Theology is learning what God has done and what that means for us.
• God reveals himself through his works: God reveals himself in works of creation and redemption. We know who God is based on what he has done.
• Theology passed on generationally: As Psalm 145:4 says, believers pass on the knowledge of God from one generation to the next.
• Theology is for worship: The purpose of theology is to turn our hearts to worship God. Psalm 145 is a chiasm of praising the LORD.

1.2.2. Notable in Psalm 145
The purpose of Psalm 145 is to provoke praise. David motivates his listeners to praise by showing what God has done. This is exactly what Dr. Allen was talking about in his lecture. Theology exists for a purpose! David’s purpose in talking about what God has done is to motivate Israel to praise God.

1.2.3. Theology of glory
According to Luther, the theologian of glory is one who believes he has mastered sin. Luther says this is impossible because everyone is under sin while on earth. Such a theologian has been duped into calling evil good and good evil.

1.2.4. Assessing Luther’s opinion
I agree with Luther that anyone who claims to have mastered sin is under self deception or is dishonest. Scripture is plain about our sinful nature, 1 John 1:8 says, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Christ forgives our sin (verse 9) and cleanses us from our sin (verse 7).

Tradition (1.2)

The Holy Spirit uses tradition to guide today’s church. The Holy Spirit was living, active and guided previous generations. God has promised to guard truth, by the Holy Spirit (1 Timothy 1:14).

Views of tradition

The views of tradition are debated often in the power struggle between the catholic, orthodox and protestant churches. It is helpful to understand and see the many different views of tradition and how they have developed.

1. Coincidence View: Apostolic teaching guides the interpretation of scripture. There is harmony between apostolic teaching and scripture. [⁴]
2. Supplementary View: Apostolic teaching supplements where scripture is silent. This was taught at the council of Trent. [⁴]
3. The Ancillary (Subordinate) View: Early church tradition is not without error and must be compared against scripture. This was the view proposed by the reformers. [⁴]
4. Solitary View: Scripture is the only authority and there is little value in tradition. [⁴]
5. Unfolding and Contextual View: The church can develop theology over time. Some examples may include the Trinity or Immaculate Conception. [⁴]

Evaluating tradition

1.2.5.
Everyone has had a hometown where they learned to play, or parents who taught them right from wrong, or teachers who told them what to read and how to read it. When we sit before the word of God for the first time or hundredth time we come with tradition baked in. Tradition is unavoidable. If, as Anthony Lane writes, “it is impossible to read Scripture without tradition,” [⁴] then the question becomes which traditions are helpful? This curious question leads us to another, which standards judge our tradition.

• Is scripture the final authority?
• What about our churches or pastors?
• Are they the ones who have the final say?

There are many views through church history on how we should judge tradition. The coincidence view, the supplementary view, the ancillary view, the solitary view, and the unfolding view each have been the leading view at one time or another.

Two that matter greatly for our time are the unfolding view and the ancillary view. The unfolding view proposes that the church develops theology over time and doctrines may not be evident from scripture. [⁴] On the other hand the ancillary or subordinate view states that the church is not necessarily without error in her tradition. She may have erred at times and must be subjected to scripture. [⁴] If the unfolding view develops doctrine outside of scripture one must trust one central church authority or the church councils. If one views these powers as illegitimate they will be unable to subscribe to the unfolding view. Some may reject the ancillary view because they do not believe that the church can err in its councils or pontiffs. To such a person the ancillary view is unnecessary.

These views of tradition have immense consequences. Our view will determine how we weigh denominations, church polity and church history. For some, church history has little value because we already have scripture. For others, church history matters immensely because the church guides the interpretation of God’s word. For these reasons, we should reflect on what tradition we bring to our churches and who is the final authority on our tradition. The question of final authority has caused monumental shifts in history and still matters to the church today.

Mystery of the Faith (1.3)

According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, “The content of the divine mystery is painted in broad strokes in the Old Testament, takes on greater detail in the Gospels, and receives its finishing touches in Paul’s letters. In Daniel, where the term first appears, it refers to God’s understanding of the symbols in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.” [⁵]

1.3.1 Comprehending mystery
Dr. Allen quotes Tom Weinandy to demonstrate the direction of spiritual understanding. Our goal should not be to simplify the christian faith. Rather, we should be content to be lifted up to the mysteries of the faith by the Holy Spirit who teaches Christians all things concerning Christ (John 14:26). It is in his arms that we learn to love God and his promises (Ephesians 3:14-21). The Holy Spirit grows our awe and does not dilute the faith.

1.3.2. Validity of mystery
I agree with Dr. Allen because mystery preserves two truths about God. First, God is other, he is unlike us. It is impossible to know God on our own because he is transcendent. Second, God has revealed himself. God can be known, insofar as he has revealed himself to his people through the word of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit and the incarnation of Jesus Christ helps us to know the unknowable. We must learn to be comfortable with the mystery because we will never be God and therefore can never fully understand him. Even in heaven, we will still be plumbing the depths of his character and mercy toward us.

Sufficiently of Scripture (1.3)

There are diverse contexts but there are also common contexts (Romans 10:12).

Craig Bartholomew observes, “The very possibility of determinate and true readings of texts has been called into question by much postmodern literary theory” ⁶

Douglas Groothuis clarifies, “The issue is whether God speaks in ways we can understand.” ⁷

1.3.3. The Modernism and Postmodern impact on hermeneutics
Modern and postmodern philosophy have called to question the ability of moderns to read biblical texts. Both Craig Bartholomew and Douglas Groothuis agree the issue presented by modern and postmodern ideologies is whether we can even understand and interpret Biblical texts. [⁶ - ⁷] Dr. Allen says Christians should not despair in the face of postmodernism. In his lecture, Dr. Allen proposes that these new challenges have reminded the church of the importance of understanding the ancient context of scripture. [³, sec. 19]

I really appreciated Dr. Allen’s positive response to postmodernism. He embraces postmodernism so far as it turns the church to value the context of scripture.

1.3.4. Response to Dr. Allen’s view of postmodern interpretation
Christians should resist the degradation of absolute truth. It is essential to hold that God can reveal objective truth. That said, I agree with Dr. Allen’s concession of context to the postmodern perspective. Theologians, pastors and congregants must work hard to understand the original context of scripture and not read our own time into the Bible. Dr. Allen also reminds us that we do share commonalities with people of old. We have many differences but there are also common contexts which God has given us (Romans 10:12). [³, sec. 19]

1.3.5. Responding with Prayer
Oh Most Holy and Loving Father,
You are the God who stoops to look down on mankind.
You are high above. Yet, you have revealed yourself.

Oh Most Holy and Loving Father,
You have not let distance separate you from your children.
You have revealed yourself through your Word
And in these last days through your Son and his Holy Spirit.

Oh Most Holy and Loving Father,
You show us your incomprehensible character through creation.
Help us to worship you!
You show us your love through the cross of Christ.
Help us to love you!
You remind us of scripture through your Holy Spirit.
Help us to know truth!

Oh Most Holy and Loving Father,
You have hidden truth in your word.
I pray that you would bless my studies.
May I find truths hidden for kings.
Help me to understand your word.
I ask that you would grow my love.
When morning comes, may I be lost in your word.
Help me to love your words.

Amen.

Doctrine of Scripture (1.4 - 1.5)

Inspiration

1.4.1. Organic inspiration vs dictation
Dr. Frame distinguishes between organic inspiration and dictation drawing from Kuyper and Bavinck. God normatively uses organic inspiration to deliver divine truth into written form through human tone, style and emotion. Comparatively, dictation is a rare scriptural form, where God speaks specific words for biblical record. [⁸, p. 594]

Dr. Frame’s note about organic inspiration vs dictation was a helpful distinction. He described the distinction vividly and I will use his definition whenever I am talking about the subject of human authorship in the Bible.

1.4.2. Theory of inspiration at St. Andrew’s
At my church, Saint Andrew’s, we believe scripture is inherent and carries a significant human element. The breadth of scripture shows that contemporary style was not a hindrance but a benefit to preserving God’s truth. God was not sterile in dictation. He used humans who lived real lives and who were influenced by real culture. These real elements do not detract from God’s word but enhance how God wanted to reveal himself. He was able to preserve his truth in human thought and preserve his truth for future generations. Our view is what Dr. Frame would describe as organic inspiration.

1.4.3. Hermeneutical Docetism
Hermeneutical Docetism is the partial or full illusion of the human element of the text. [⁹] This means that human features of the text like tone or simile are contrived by God rather than naturally included by the human authors.

1.4.4. Does affirming that the divine author intended more than the human author result in hermeneutical Docetism?
The human elements (style, tone, illustration etc.) of the text are quite plain. Furthermore, the biblical authors write with intention! They clearly comprehend what they are writing and often take aim at the evil intentions of the human heart or nation. If God is intending more than the human authors, there must be some illusion. The written work is clearly human in its features and intent. Therefore, either the human element is real or conjured by God.

1.4.5. Define collaboration
Dr. Allen believes God is in control of all things and divinely orchestrated the lives of the human authors to develop them to accurately preserve the word of God. [³, sec. 64] For example, it is important that Moses was educated in Pharaoh’s household. He learned about the Egyptian arts and history. Moses’ education was useful and influenced the written history of the Israelites. Dr. Allen also affirms no word of scripture is divinely unintentional. God has delivered and preserved his word!

Wisdom for life and godliness

1.5.1. Purpose of scripture
2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches that the purpose of scripture is to give us wisdom which is sufficient for all of life and good works! Scripture and the Holy Spirit work together to teach us how to obey God. I am reminded of the Westminster Shorter Catechism which summarizes the purpose of scripture, “The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.” [¹⁰, p. 422] Scripture guides belief and duty toward God and man.

1.5.2. Scripture is limited in scope
I agree with Dr. Allen that scripture is limited in its scope. Scripture does not aim to be exhaustive but sufficient. We are given plenty to discern the will of God (that is to discern our moral failures), recognize the supremacy of Christ and his church and to trust in him for our salvation. Scripture is unnecessary to receive common grace but it is necessary to receive grace unto salvation. Psalm 145:9 says, “The LORD is good to everyone; his compassion rests on all he has made (CSB).” Common grace is not limited to people of the book; everyone can enjoy God’s blessings of creation. For those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, scripture promises salvation (Matthew 5:6).

Thomas Lea clarifies the work of a pastor when he writes concerning 2 Timothy 3:14, “Timothy’s need was not to search out new novelties on which he might squander his energies but to remain in the truths he had learned.” [¹¹] I have realized there is just enough time for each day but endless hobbies to pursue. The work of a pastor is to remain a lover of God’s word and servant his church. These contain enough trouble for each day (Matthew 6:24).

1.5.3. Sufficiency of scripture
Dr. Allen and Dr. Frame agree scripture is sufficient and the final authority for morality and the Christians life. Frame clarifies his position of the sufficiency of scripture by writing, “Scripture is sufficient not to provide all manner of information but to provide God’s authoritative words.” [¹²] It is important to recognize that scripture does not claim to be exhaustive but enough for all of life and good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

1.5.4. Other sources
Dr. Allen receives extra biblical sources as helpful but not above scripture in terms of authority. The church, pastors and patriarchs are helpful guides for the life of the church but they must remain in their rightful place as subjects to scripture. When other authorities contradict scripture they must be informed, reformed and restored to their proper place.

1.5.5. Importance of leaders
I agree with Dr. Allen because God has given Christians the church, pastors and patriarchs (Ephesians 4:11-13). These are blessings not curses. However, every leader is under Christ, the head of church (Ephesians 4:15), and must submit to the word of God. God has given the church leaders for a reason. We need many councilors to bring us to maturity.

1.5.6. The Bible is truthful
Dr. Frame writes that the truthfulness of scripture is often presented using two terms: inerrant, that is without error, and infallible, that is without the possibility of error. [¹³] Both Dr. Allen and Dr. Frame connect truthfulness to the character of God, that he, by his nature cannot tell a lie.

1.5.7. Defining Inerrant and Infallible
I am satisfied with Dr. Frame’s definition that inerrant means without error and infallible means without the possibility of error. [¹³] The slight difference between the two is potential. Infallible includes no possibility of error.

Summary of the Doctrine of Scripture

Every word of scripture is God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) and yet, the Bible is a thoroughly human document. God authored scripture through chosen men. No word of scripture is accidental, out of place or unintentional. God authored each and every character (Matthew 5:18). Scripture also contains contemporary human style. The human element is authentic. It is not contrived by God.

Reading the whole cannon reveals a significant and varied human element. The portions written by Moses are different from David’s contributions which are different from Luke’s. Each human author is influenced by his location in time and place. This is not to say God was accidental or haphazard in his election. The God who controls all things chose men who were prepared to preserve God’s truth. The breadth of scripture shows that contemporary style was not a hindrance but a benefit to expounding and beautifying God’s truth.

The God of all beauty rarely used sterile dictation. [⁸, p. 594] God, being creative by nature, employed humans who were influenced by art and culture. The human element does not detract from God’s word but enhances how God wanted to reveal himself. God was able to preserve his truth in human expression and preserve his truth for future generations.

If scripture contains the fingerprints of man, can we trust every word? In scripture, there are many examples of scripture using contemporary imagery to preserve truths about God. For example, God used Ezekiel to show how he is greater than the God’s of the gods of Babylon using Babylonian imagery. [¹⁴ sec. 9-10] This is no accident! God has orchestrated the times and lives of the human authors of scripture to accurately record truth. I was not chosen to record Ezekiel 1 because 21st century America lacks the vivid celestial imagery. As God wrote scripture, he used specific authors who would effectively communicate what God intended.

The creative and beautiful aspect of scripture speaks to its purpose. The purpose of scripture is, in one sense, to display the beauty of God’s character and work of redemption. If we for a moment consider the sacrificial system, it is wonderfully complex. Recall even God’s law is not a list of rules. It points forward to the pinnacle of the cross. At each step toward redemption we can see God’s creativity. His relationship to humanity is not crude. God cares for his bride, the church. God cherishes his children. God cultivates wonder. As we partake of God’s story of love to us, we are motivated to love God and our neighbor. Scripture teaches us our purpose to receive God’s love and give God’s love to others.

As Peter laments in 2 Peter 3:16, scripture is not always clear even to the first century ear. Modern preachers and readers must be diligent to search out the context of scripture and discern the intent of the original writers. There are many assistants to proper interpretation. Scripture does not contradict itself. It is written by one common divine author. So we can allow simpler scriptures to help interpret unclear passages. We use history and secondary sources to help us learn the context in which scripture was written. [³, sec. 19] We have 2000 years of church history, theological and pastoral works. We also have our local elders and pastors to help guide us in proper interpretation.

A careful examination of scripture shows the beauty of God’s choice to include the human element. The fact that we can read the whole canon is a testament to God’s careful preservation. Man carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21) preserved the words of God that we might know God, love him and his children. History tells us this was no simple feat, it is an enduring example of God’s love toward future generations.

Over the course of my studies in scripture I have worked hard to see and comprehend the unity of scripture. Previously, I would not have valued the pursuits of biblical theology very much. In my studies at redemption I recognise the value of knowing how Paul thinks about his own writings, for example. It is worth studying both the unity and diversity of scripture!

2.6.1. Introducing God to myself
The Bible begins by introducing God as the creator of all things. Angels, demons, animals, people, creatures in both realms, all spiritual and physical entities were created by God. God created the earth, sky, sun, moon, stars and the heavens. Someone made all these things and that someone was God.

The character of God can be discerned through nature and the word of God. We know God because he has revealed himself in these specific ways. God has shown himself to be personal from the beginning of our time. He loved Adam and Eve, the first humans. He created them, named them and nurtured them. This relationship was not unique. God has created many, many people. He has called many of them children of God. He has nurtured so many to life and faith.

God is unlike everything he has made. His love is perfect and that is very different from our love. God is not a simple being like us. He is perfectly loving within himself. The three persons of the Trinity are perfect in their regard for one another and in their care for man. God’s love for man, which can be seen in the work of creation is chiefly found in God’s work of redemption. God is at work to make all things new (Revelation 21:5). The God who ordered the surd evil in creation is ordering all things to the glory and praise of his name.

Trinitarian Theology (2.1 - 2.2)

Christianity grew from Jewish Monotheism.

• One creator God. Plurality within the God head. “Angel of God.”
• God acted within time, in human history. God’s promises were fulfilled generations later. He is reliable from generation to generation.
• God committed himself to Abraham.

Graeco Roman gods
The Roman gods were immortal but not omniscient or omnipotent. They would treat man according to fate rather than their own morality. The gods were bound to or identified with celestial objects. [¹⁵]

2.6.2. Dr. Leithart’s distinctions of monotheism
Dr. Leithart distinguished Yahweh from the pagan gods in two main ways. He said in his lecture, Yahweh is not associated with different countries or celestial objects. Yahweh is unlike creation for he created all things. Not only is Yahweh the creator, he works within human history. The gods of the Romans and other pagan societies existed beyond time and never entered into the affairs of contemporary man. They may have believed in a high god, but he provided stability and did not intervene. [¹⁶, sec. 1]

2.6.3. Dr. Wright’s distinctions of Jewish monotheism
Dr. Wright gave three distinctions of Jewish monotheism. Jewish monotheism is creational, providential and covenental. [¹⁷, pp. 248-250]

• Creational monotheism is the idea that one God made the whole world.
• Providential monotheism is the idea that God works through natural or ordinary events not just supernatural events.
• Covenental monotheism is the idea that God has connected himself to a particular people and pledged to use them to shape and change the world for good.

2.6.4. What’s confusing about the Trinity?
Maintaining one God and three persons seems contradictory because humans are one being and one person. We it is difficult to imagine any other division of being. The Bible itself does not use the term Trinity. It is impossible to illustrate the Trinity without illustrating a trinitarian heresy.

2.6.5. The Trinity is practical
The doctrine of the Trinity is important for the church because the relationship within the Trinity informs our love. [¹⁶, sec. 2] The doctrine of the Trinity preserves God’s omnipotence when Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit were particularly present on earth. Comprehending the doctrine of the Trinity allows the church to appreciate the creeds rather than resisting their trinitarian claims.

Trinitarian examples in the NT

• The birth of Christ (Luke 1:35)
• Jesus’ baptism: God the Father spoke from heaven and the Spirit descended (Mark 1:10-11)
• Transfiguration: God the Father spoke (Luke 9:28-36)
• Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:18)
• Prayers in Paul’s letters (Ephesians 1:17)
• Changing Jewish creeds and blessings to include Jesus
• Blessings in Paul’s and Peter’s letters
• Gospel Summary in Paul’s and Peter’s letters

Assertions of Christ’s and the Spirit’s divinity

• Christ is savior.
• Christ is Lord. The word lord is the same as the word lord in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. [¹⁶, sec. 5]
• The Holy Spirit makes things holy. (1 Corinthians 6)

2.7.2. Paul modifies Jewish blessings to include Jesus
1 Corinthians 8:5-6 Peter Leithart explains that in Romans 1, Paul blesses his readers invoking not only the name of the Father but also Jesus Christ. This would have been unique to the Jewish ear, because God (the Father) is the only one who blesses. [¹⁶, sec. 4] A similar pairing can be found in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6. Paul adds Jesus Christ to the Jewish Shema from Deuteronomy 6.

Trinitarian work in the Gospel
God does not leave his creation to solve the salvation issue. He is at work creating all things new; he has always been at work!

• Only God can save us.
• God sends Jesus to save us. God does not entrust man to bring about his own salvation.
• The Holy Spirit makes the gospel effective unto salvation. God does not entrust the efficacy of the gospel to men.

1.7.4. Evidence for the Trinity
Kieth Goad declares, in his article Knowing the Trinity from Scripture, the church fathers desired to guard the trinitarian truth God had given them and clarify the doctrine so the church could worship God as he has revealed himself! [¹⁸] In the early church, there was no wish to sterilize the faith and make God palatable. Oh how simple it would have been to declare Jesus a prophet to sway the Jews or the later Muslims. Yet the church has stood firm on the doctrine of the Trinity in its scripture, creeds, confessions and fights against heresy.

The New Testament makes no arguments from silence here. The writers boldly proclaim Jesus is God! The gospels record narrative events where Jesus interacts with the Godhead in his birth (Luke 1:35), baptism (1:10-11), transfiguration (Luke 9:28-36) and commission (Matthew 28:18). Peter and Paul reference the persons of the Trinity in their prayers (Ephesians 1:15-23, 1 Peter 5:10-11), creeds (1 Corinthians 2, 1 Peter 1:10-12, 2 Peter 1:16-21) and blessings (Philippians 4:19-23, 1 Peter 1:3). The New Testament writers make it clear what they think about Jesus. They believe he is God incarnate and has sent his spirit to dwell with his Church.

Trinitarian Heresies and terms (2.3 - 2.5)

• Modalism is a trinitarian heresy which asserts there is only one God who reveals himself in different modes. Modalism undermines scripture because God would be different than he reveals himself to be. God has masked his true identity and therefore cannot be trusted.
• Monarchianism is a theological movement which held to the trinitarian heresies of Modalism or Adoptionism. [¹⁹] Zachary Lycans clarifies the danger. Monarchianism compromises salvation because the agents of salvation, the Son and Spirit, are not truly divine and therefore could not secure salvation for mankind. [²⁰]
• Sabellianism is “an alternative title for the Modalist form of Monarchianism.” [²¹]
• Patripassianism is “a form of Monarchianism…which held that God the Father suffered as the Son. It is also known as Sabellianism.” [²²]
• Arianism is a trinitarian heresy which asserts the Son was the first created being. Dr. Leithart explains Arianism was born out of Greek metaphysics. The Greeks believed their high God must be unconnected to any other person including the Christ or his supremacy was compromised. [¹⁶, sec. 9]
• Athanasius (296–373) was an early theologian who opposed Arius and his teachings on Arianism. Athanasius argued the eternal Father which is connected to Christ’s eternal sonship. The Son is the radiance of the glory of the Father and the fount of his mercy. [¹⁶, sec. 10]
• Arius (250-336) famously taught Arianism the belief that the Son is the first created being. He was opposed by Athanasius and the council of Nicaea.
• The Nicene Creed clarified the doctrine of the Trinity, resolved the Arian Controversy, and was formalized at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. Importantly, it affirmed the eternal deity of the Son as eternally begotten of the Father and of equal substance with the Father.
• The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is the 381 amendment to the Nicene Creed. It clarified the work and attributes of the Son and of the Spirit.
• Augustine recognized the limitations of his own analogy of the Father as the lover, the Son as the beloved and the Spirit binding them together. He created a series of analogies called, Augustine’s Psychological Analogy, to try to illustrate the Trinity in a more comprehensive way.
• Some make an Abstraction Critique of Trinitarian Theology believing that the medieval church abstracted the gospel through trinitarian analogies.
• Others make an Separation Critique of Trinitarian Theology saying the medieval church divided the theology of the one God from the triune God. These theologians propose it is best to begin teaching about God as a triune being.
• Unitarianism is a later Christian heresy which holds to the oneness of God and dispenses with the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.
• Socinianism goes further than the Christian heresy, Arianism, and postulates Christ was a only man who did not exist before he was born in Bethlehem. Christ ascended to heaven and is worthy of worship but he provided no atonement and is our chief example. [²³]
• Rahner’s Rule asserts God’s revelation (economic) and God’s attributes (ontological) are the same.
• Three theologians contributed to a modern Trinitarian Revival. Hegel wrote a history in trinitarian terms. Trinitarian theology begins and pervades Karl Bart’s systematic theology. Karl Rahner contributed by examining the unity of God’s revelation and attributes.
• Essence refers to the collection of divine attributes common to all persons of the Trinity.
• Person is the word the church has historically used distinguishes between the whole of the Trinity. The persons may be distinguished by their actions recorded in Holy Scripture or their relation to one another as in the Athanasian Creed. 2.9.3. The meaning of person through history
  • Ancient meaning of Person: A person meant mask or persona as an actor plays a role in a play.
  • Meaning of Person in Early Trinitarian Theology: To avoid modalism, the church fathers used person to mean more than a mask or role because God does not disguise who he is nor does he exist in different modes.
  • Meaning of Person in Medieval Theology: Medieval Theologians use the word person to mean a subsistence of the common essence. [¹⁶, sec. 16]
  • Meaning of Person in the Modern World: Moderns use person to mean an individual distinct from the whole.
    2.9.4. The changing meaning of person has effected our theology.
    The modern definition of person has confused many Christians when they try to understand the Trinity. They waffle between Modalism and Partalism. This has caused the church to have a defensive stance toward the Trinity, when previously the Trinity was a creative point of emphasis in theology. [¹⁶, sec. 14]
• The Ontological Trinity or immanent Trinity describes God’s eternal attributes.
• The Economic Trinity describes God’s revelation, his relation to creation.
• Father is God, shares in all of divine essences, eternally begets the son and eternally sends the Spirit. The Father has sent the Son and the Spirit into the world.
• Son is God, shares in all of divine essences, is eternally begotten from the Father and eternally sends the Spirit. The Son was born of Mary, died, rose and will come again.
• Spirit is God, shares in all of divine essences and eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Spirit indwells all believers.
• The Filioque means “and the son.” Arguments over the addition of Filioque in the Nicene Creed and ecclesial authority divided the western and eastern church. The eastern church holds the Filioque incorrectly divides the Trinity ontologically saying it is improper for both the Father and Son to send the Spirit.

2.9.1. Common essences found in the Athanasian Creed
The Athanasian Creed carefully communicates the common essences shared between the persons of the Trinity. It takes care to list each attribute along with each member to prevent any confusion and to emphasize the unity of the persons. The persons of the Trinity share unity and equality; they are eternal, uncreated, infinite, Almighty, divine, Lord and deserving of worship.

2.9.2. Must one affirm the Athanasian Creed to be saved?
The Athanasian Creed ends by calling Christians to believe the creed or recognise they have no salvation. In the fight against heresy the church must be clear in what its division between orthodoxy and error. The Creed makes a strong statement to ward off false belief to protect the church from error, encourage true believers and clarify the Trinity. The Athanasian Creed is a clear and true presentation of the Godhead. No one can oppose it willfully and expect salvation. However, some new or young believers may find it impossible to comprehend each element. If they trust in the persons and work of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for their salvation, they will be saved.

2.10.1. According to Dr. Leithart the Trinity matters!
The Trinity matters because God’s eternal nature requires each divine attribute to be eternal as well. Dr. Leithart gives four examples of eternal attributes that are only possible in a plurality of persons.

1. God has always been love in the relationship between the persons.
2. God has always been righteous in the relationship between the persons.
3. God has always been holy being consecrated by the other persons of the Trinity.
4. God has always been glorifying the other persons of the Trinity. [¹⁶, sec. 20]

2.10.2. The Trinity strengthens God’s consistency
When we think about the attributes of God we can see the importance of the relationship between the persons to preserve the eternal attributes of God. Maintaining God’s eternal nature is important to his creative power, authority and revelation. If God is malleable than he was probably created and does not have ultimate authority. Of grave concern to us, a God who changes, compromises his consistent, truthful revelation to mankind. It is very important God is the same yesterday, today and forever. The Trinity allows the persons of the Godhead to practice their attributes in communion with one another which preserves God’s power, authority and revelation.

2.10.3. Monadic God
Dr. Leithart notes that unexercised attributes are exactly that potential attributes. He goes on to say unexpressed or potential attributes are dependent on creation for expression. [¹⁶, sec. 21] A God who has no active eternal attributes is a changing God, a dependant God and ultimately a God who is not a God at all.

2.10.4. Employing an idea of a Monadic God to apologetics
The idea of a Monadic or singular God could be used in an apologetics illustration. Imagine a baby who has the potential to love. This potential love is dependant on others before it can be actualized or expressed. Until a baby’s love has an object, he only has the potential to love. The baby’s love is clearly not eternal. So it is with God. If God has no object to love, his love cannot be expressed and only has the potential to love. Therefore this God’s love cannot be eternal. For God to have an eternal unchanging love, he must have an eternal object to love or he will be no God at all. In Christianity, this object is the persons of the Trinity.

2.10.5. Triune Ontology
The Triune God is always expressive. The Father has always been expressing himself by the Word of God. The Word was in the beginning with God (John 1:2). It is the same with humans and the world. We were made in the image of God and so we exist expressively. [¹⁶, sec 22] God has also been relational. The Father loves the Son who loves the Spirit. When we were made in the image of God, we were made to love.

2.10.6. Definition and purpose of perichoresis
Perichoresis means mutual indwelling; the Father indwells the Son who indwells the Father (John 17:20-21). [¹⁶, sec 23] Jesus wants the disciples to be unified just as the Father and Son are unified. Practically, we should welcome and make room in our lives for one another. The best marriages follow this trinitarian pattern and make room for one another including when children come! Churches too make room for all sorts of unsavory people. Missions is about going out and welcoming the outsider in. Nations too are called to serve strangers. We image God because he has made room for the church within his communion.

2.10.7. a perichoresis outlook changes my perspective
Dr. Leithart has helped me make a connection between life together and the life of the Trinity. To be like God means to be hospitable, welcoming and present with my wife, children, church and community. When the church cares for its members, we demonstrate the love found in the Trinity. If Dr. Leithart’s vision holds water, we should be spending a lot of time serving one another!

The unity of the Trinity is very important because it allows those who have seen Jesus to have seen the Father! We are better by indwelling of the Spirit, our indwelling in the world, the indwelling of art. Life is echoes life. Writers echo other writers. The past indwells the present. The present anticipates the future. These are one of many perichoretic aspects in our world. [¹⁶, sec. 23-24]

Write a 300-400 word summary of how the God of the Gospel has revealed himself as Triune in the Old and New Testaments.
God has revealed himself as the creator of all things, a Triune actor in human history and a Divine Communion who dwells with his people. God has always been expressing his divine attributes within the persons of the trinity. He has also expressed his attributes in history. God created all things. God intervened in human history. God dwells with his people. None of these expressions are novel to his character; they are extensions of how God has already expressed his character within the trinitarian communion.

John 1 introduces the Word of God as creator. The creation of the world included the three persons of the Trinity. God created through the Son. Even in the beginning of our time, the Godhead was at work. The work of creation has continued throughout the history of the world as God seeks to make all things new (Revelation 21:5). This recreation includes all persons of the Trinity. The Father sent the Son and the Spirit.

God’s work of recreation means he a Triune actor in human history. God has revealed himself to man through the Word of God by the Spirit of God. Not only has God revealed himself in history, he has been working to shape and change human hearts, institutions and nations. By no means is the God of the Bible silent or stagnant.

In God’s revelation he has dwelled with his people. God dwelt with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. When their communion was broken, God acted to restore the relationship between God and man. He spiritually dwelt in tents and temples until the coming of Jesus Christ who physically dwelt with man. When Christ finished his ministry on earth. The Spirit of God dwelt and continues to dwell inside of the people of God.

In this brief summary of human history, we can see how God has revealed himself in creation, history and his incarnation. God is three persons and the Holy Scripture emphasizes this point. All persons of the Trinity have been working to be with man.

Construct an outline of the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity, including the main challenges to the doctrine.

• The writing of the New Testament contained Trinitarian Creedal language without using the word Trinity. (50 AD)
• Modalism blurred the distinctions between the persons of the Trinity. (100 AD)
• Arianism proposed the Son as the first created being. (250 AD)
• The Nicene Creed and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed defended the orthodox position of the Trinity. (325 and 381 AD)
• The Chalcedonian Creed canonized the hypostatic union. (451 AD)
• The Athanasian Creed clarified the work and attributes of the Godhead. (~ 500 AD)
• Socinianism goes further than Arianism postulating Christ did not exist before he was born of Mary. (1500 AD)
• Unitarianism dispenses with the Trinity and divinity of Christ and only holds to the oneness of God. (1500 AD)
• Christianity experienced a modern Trinitarian Revival thanks to Hegel, Bart and Rahner. (1800 - Present)

The Doctrine of God (3.1 - 3.2)

Presupposing God
It is sometimes difficult to explain the difference between God is everywhere (‘Twoism’) and God is everything (‘Oneism’). Berkhof gives a concise statement about the Christian’s presupposition of God, “There is a self-existent, self-conscious, personal Being, which is the origin of all things, and which transcends the entire creation, but is at the same time immanent in every part of it.” [²⁴, p. 21] The difference between being all things and with all things is very important.

3.11.1 What role does the doctrine of God play in theology and in the Christian life?
The doctrine of God informs what we assume and believe about God. Our doctrine tells us who God is and who God is not. We can never comprehend fully who God is and speak of him in human terms.

What Christians reject

• Atheism: There is no God.
• Agnosticism: Agnosticism is the belief that one cannot know if God exists. Agnosticism is the common child of postmodernism. If one cannot know anything, then it follows one cannot know God.
• Dualism: There are equal powers of Good and Evil.
• Polythiesm: There are many gods.
• Panthiesm: Panthiesm is the belief that everything is God and God is everything. Pantheism, also called ‘oneism,’ is the prevailing belief of the new age.
• Diesm: God is the distant creator.
• Idolatry: God can be contained in physical.
• Fetishism: God is contained in your physical idol.
• Pop theology: God exists to serve us.

Finding the God of the Bible (Dr. Johnson’s two-step method) [²⁵, sec. 3]

1. Finding the what the Bible says about person of God
   • Elohim: Divinity or beings beyond the horizon of our world.
   • Theos: Divinity or beings beyond the horizon of our world.
2. Comparing this God to other beings in the universe

Why is “Finding the God of the Bible” is more difficult than it seems and describe how the Bible Sense Lexicon can help you identify the meaning or sense of the terms Elohim or Theos.
In scripture there are many deities (in Hebrew: Elohim and in Greek: Theos). Because the word deity is a general term, it might not always refer to Yahweh in scripture. The Bible Sense Lexicon is helpful to look up in what Elohim or Theos sense the word is used.

Names of God

• Elohim: Divinity
• Yahweh: God’s revealed name
• El Shaddai: God Almighty

Berkhof records his mentor’s distinctions between the names of God. These distinctions are helpful to organize a discussion or teaching about how Christians should address God. “Dr. Bavinck bases his division of the names of God on that broad conception of them, and distinguishes between nomina propria (proper names), nomina essentialia (essential names, or attributes), and nomina personalia (personal names, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).” [²⁴, p. 48]

3.12.1. Examination of Genesis 15
Names matter! God gives specific instructions to how humans are to use his name and how they are not to use it. Additionally the meanings of names show us the character of God. Yahweh interacting with Abram emphasizes his condescension.

• The LEB personalizes Abram’s address to the LORD. We interpret situations differently depending on what name is used. I am both Jesse, Papa, Honey, a father, a husband and a son and what I am called can change the tone of a conversation.
• The ESV translates both YHWH and Adonai to LORD/Lord which would cause readers to think those YHWH and Adonai were the same in Hebrew.

3.12.2. How does the Creator relate to the Controller?
Dr. Johnson argues that creating gives God the authority to control all things. [²⁵, sec. 6] We operate similarly. Parents do not have to claim authority over their children, they have it already. Artists do not have to copyright their work, they own it inherently.

Doctrine of Creation (3.3)

Permissive views of creation

• Young Earth Creationism
• Progressive Creationism
• Theistic Evolution

Contradictory views of creation

• Natural Evolution (God is not involved)
• Dualistic Theory (God and matter are co-eternal) [²⁴, p. 138]
• Emanation Theory (God must create the world) [²⁴, pp. 138 - 139]

God’s involvement

• God created Ex Nihilo, Out of nothing.
• God created everything.
• Creation is a work of the Trinity.
• Creation has a purpose.
• Creation is good.
• Humanity is the capstone of creation.
• God cares for creation.

3.13.1. Bara
The Bible Word Study is helpful when studying specific cases of a word across all of scripture. I studied bara and read through every use in the Old Testament. God is the one who alone is the Bara. I noted one reference, Psalm 51:10, God is the clean heart creator. The use of bara emphasizes that only God can cleanse the heart of man.

Dr. Carl Sanders uses God’s involvement to argue against natural evolution. The Bible makes it clear God is active in creation. If the Bible is accurate, any view of creation that removed God’s direct involvement is false.

3.13.2. Doctrine of Creation
God begins his revelation, in Genesis chapter 1, by presenting the Doctrine of Creation: God created all things by his word and power.

The Doctrine of Creation is important because it teaches the church about the character and disposition of God as well as the purpose of the world. Creation accounts matter to humans because they show us who we are.

The might of God is evident in his creative work. As creator, it follows that he has authority over all things. We assumed that parents have authority over their children and artists hold copyright to their work. Even more so, because God creates from nothing, [²⁶] has total authority over the world. Our ownership does not supersede God’s law because our creations are derived from his creation. We should not resent God’s authority because God preserves and protects his creation. God is not absent from his kingdom. He called his creation good (7 times in Genesis 1) and blessed humanity (Genesis 1:22, 28). His preservation extends across the scope of his creation and to the end of time (Revelation 21:5).

Many other essences of God’s character can be observed in creation.

• God is loving.
• God is preeminent.
• God is eternal.
• God is all knowing.
• God is all powerful.
• God is everywhere.
• God is distant from creation.

The Doctrine of Creation matters because it informs who we are as created beings. Genesis 1 distinguishes humans from the animals as the capstone of God’s creation. [²⁵, sec. 10] The Bible reminds us over and over that humans were created for a purpose. Humans were created to fill the earth with the glory and praise of God. We were not made to live for ourselves, we are called to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Our God is not distant. He wasted no time in speaking to Adam and Eve and he has wasted no breath in preserving the creation account for our benefit. We are his people; the sheep of his pasture!

The Doctrine of Creation restricts other disciplines such as the sciences focused on theories of creation. The views consistent with the evangelical doctrine of creation are Young Earth Creationism, Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolutionism. [²⁵, sec. 9] Other popular theories of creation contradict the revealed character of the Christian God such as, Natural Evolution (God is not involved), the Dualistic Theory (God and matter are co-eternal) and the Emanation Theory (God must create the world). [²⁴, pp. 138 - 139]

Central Bible Texts

• Genesis 1:1 - 2:4
• Psalm 139:14-18
• Ezekiel 34:25-31
• John 1:1-3
• Colossians 1:15–17
• Hebrews 1:10-12
• Revelation 21:5

Recommended Resources

• R. Johnson, C. Sanders, and M. S. Heiser, TH102 Introducing Bible Doctrine II: The Triune God and His Heavenly Host. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013, sec. 8-17.
• L. Berkhof, Systematic theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938, pp. 126 - 164.
• N. L. Geisler, “Creation, Views Of,” Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 174, 1999.
• W. A. Grudem, Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine. Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 2004, pp. 262 - 310.
• W. A. Elwell and B. J. Beitzel, “Creation, Doctrine Of,” Baker encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 1. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 539–540, 1988.
• J. Lindsay, “Creation,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, vol. 1. Wm. B. Eerdmans, pp. 800–801, 1988 1979.

Free Will (3.4)

Total control

• God plans all things
• God controls all things

Partial Control

• God plans all things
• God controls some things

I find it difficult to articulate my view of the will. I found Grudem writing immensely helpful especially here where he crystallizes the orthodox view of the will of man, “Scripture nowhere says that we are “free” in the sense of being outside of God’s control or of being able to make decisions that are not caused by anything…But we are nonetheless free in the greatest sense that any creature of God could be free—we make willing choices, choices that have real effects. We are aware of no restraints on our will from God when we make decisions. We must insist that we have the power of willing choice; otherwise we will fall into the error of fatalism or determinism and thus conclude that our choices do not matter, or that we cannot really make willing choices.” [²⁷, p. 331]

3.14.1. Definition of will
Will is a conscious choice or action. Christians debate the ability of a human agent to choose in relation to an omnipotent being.

3.14.2. Christian views on the human will
Christians often hold one of two views on the will. One, that we are completely free to choose our own actions (not abilities). Dr. Sanders calls this Libertarian Free Will.” Another, that we are shaped by our environment to choose predictable patterns. Dr. Sanders calls this “Voluntary Free Will.” [²⁵, sec. 13]

3.14.3. what God’s sovereignty means and what other theological issues The New Dictionary of Theology proposes three essential elements of God’s sovereignty. God has ownership over the world because he created it. He has divine authority and control. The dictionary goes on to say, “God is master of his universe. At times he is displeased with it and at times angry. But it never baffles or frustrates or threatens him.” [²⁸] God’s control can often seem in conflict with human agency. Many Christians have dispensed with one in favor of the other. The Bible is not simple in this power struggle. It asserts God rules all things and humans are responsible for their actions.

3.14.4. Comparing Divine Partial and Total Control
There is an acute difficulty in synthesizing divine control and human agency. The church, theologians and scripture often seem to diverge and contradict when answering the question of divine control. Conservative Christians not wanting to dispense with biblical truth have to receive both Pharaoh’s hard heart and God’s heavy hand (Exodus 7-9). Both the views of partial control and total control assert that God has control over the world and humans are responsible for their actions. To reject these assumptions would be to divert from orthodoxy. The two views diverge when estimating how much control God has or how much freedom humans have.

The total control view maintains that God is in total control of all things. Subscribers would point to verses like Ezekiel 36:27, Song of Solomon 1:4 and John 6:44 Of course those who hold to a view of partial control would not dispense with these verses. They would point instead to others like Genesis 2:16, John 3:16 and Romans 7:23. The partial control view maintains that God is working all things for good but has left space for unforced human agency.

The partial control position leaves room for doubting ones salvation for if a person can enter the covenant he can certainly leave it. I find great hope in the perseverance of the saints because I know I deserved hell and desired sin and am only separated by that fate by the continual work of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, although I recognize God could restrict his control, I see his actions as present and constantly intervening for the sake of the patriarch of old and Christians today. I believe he uses me to bless others just as others have brought God’s blessing to me. Its a complex world out there and God is making all things new (Revelation 21:5) and nothing is going to stop him from fulfilling that promise across the whole world.

3.14.5. A study in Ruth
Ruth contains no recorded actions or dictations from God. The people attribute blessings and curses as if they were from God. This is consistent with the Israelite understanding that both blessings and curses come from God. Naomi believes God is in control and has cursed her (Ruth 1:20-21).

I must be careful to attribute control to God because the story ‘worked out’ for Ruth and Naomi. It certainly did not for Elimelech, Mahlon and Chilion. Even so, it is evident God is at work when Naomi decides to return to the land of promise. Ruth finds a husband who brings a grandson, a picture of hope, for Naomi. It is so easy to read in ones perspective but this story is consistent with the promises in God’s law (Deuteronomy 6:20-25) so I will say that God brought about what was promised!

Ruth is a clear demonstration that God works through many circumstances (famine and death) and people (Ruth, Orpah and Boaz) to bless his servant.

Open Theism (3.5)

• Rejects foreknowledge
• Advocates libertarian free will
• God acts responsively

Notes on nacham (regret)
The Hebrew word Nacham (Genesis 6:6: God regretted) is used with YHWH as the subject in four different ways:

• regret (x2)
• pity (x1)
• relent (x6)
• comfort (x4)

With Elohim as the subject, it is only used to mean relent (2x).

An open theist may use these verses to defend their position that God changes his mind. An unchanging being cannot not change his opinion and these verses indicate that God does change his mind many times.

3.15.3. How would you respond to an Open Theist who claims that Open Theism is a pastorally sensitive approach that is based on scriptural evidence
In creation, we can see God’s invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature (Romans 1:20). The Creator has eternal power over creation and his divine nature is distinct from humanity. The Open Theist is appalled at the idea that God foresees evil but does not restrain evil. For the Open Theist, a God who reacts to evil is better is more glorious than one who allows it. The important question is for both the traditionalist and the Open Theist is how does God fight against evil and what will end evil? The Open Theist would say that God reacts to evil and is far from causing it. The traditionalist would say that God has foreseen all evil. He has been working efficaciously from the beginning of time to eradicate evil through the cross of Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit and the redemption of the church. The traditionalist would appeal to Revelation 21:5 as a reliable promise because God is able to see all future things and is able to achieve that future. Is not a reactionary God who saves the day more glorious? He would not be more glorious because to accept Open Theism, God surrenders his sovereign and immutable nature and his omniscience and omnipotence. [²⁹] These attributes display God’s glory and to relinquish them would make God more like man and less capable to achieve the annihilation of evil.

Prayer of adoration
O Lord of All Creation,
In the beginning you made all things. You made the heavens and the earth, the dry land and the sea, the sun, moon and stars. You made all living things. You made all that swim in the sea, fly in the sky and crawl on land. You made man and breathed life into him.

O Lord of All Creation,
You are the fountain of wisdom. You did not leave man alone on earth. You visited him and instructed him how to live. You blessed him with a beautiful wife. You gave him food and everything he needed to live well. You did not neglect his spiritual needs for you walked with him in the garden.

O Lord of All Creation,
You are the fountain of grace. When man fell and rejected your commands, you did not kill him. You clothed him. You provided life outside the garden, precious children whom brought joy to a broken home. Even then you did not leave man to his own devices. You continued to teach man not to kill or lie. You provided even for the murderer and liars.

O Lord of All Creation,
You are the fountain of protection. You have preserved your creation, even when man deserved death in the garden or by the flood or in the wilderness. You have proven yourself as the defender of life. You have promised that you will preserve creation to the end. Even as creation groans for salvation you are at work.

O Lord of All Creation,
You are the fountain of personality. I thank you for your care for me. You are a personal God who cares for each of his children. Thank you for preserving me when I have hated you, wanted nothing to do with you and turned away from you. Thank you for your patience toward me. I know I am stubborn and resistant to your love. Thank you for preserving my life.

Amen.

Prayer of adoration evaluation
I began my prayer thinking about the creation account in Genesis chapter 1. I love the whole book of Genesis and especially the very beginning because it is foundational and foreshadows much of God’s future work. The creation account is much of what this week of study was about. Both the lecture materials and readings used the Genesis account as their foundation for discussing God’s character [²⁵] and arguments against new forms of theology. [²⁹] Whenever we introduce God, I think we should be willing to introduce God as he introduces himself, as the creator of all things. It immediately sets the stage for his authority and preservation of the world. Paul begins this way in Acts 17:24 when addressing the Areopagus. Patterned after Paul’s address this prayer would be useful after an evangelistic sermon.

Dr. Sanders emphasized in his lectures that we can see the attributes of God in creation. [²⁵, sec. 10] Taking his example I focused on five elements of God’s character. God is creative, wise, gracious, protective and personal. I appreciated Dr. Sanders’ perspective because we can easily have shallow thoughts about God’s actions in Genesis 1. Because everyone knows the Christian creation account, we can move past it quickly. But I agree with Sanders that God was intentional with how he introduces himself in the Bible. God wants to teach us something about himself!

Introduction to the Problem of Evil (4.1)

Frame says the problem of evil the most difficult theological problem. [⁸, p. 282]

Summary of the Problem of Evil

1. The creator God authored natural or moral evil
2. The all powerful and good God does not prevent natural or moral evil
   • Calvinists have the problem that God ordains evil
   • Armenians have the problem that God knows evil is coming but does not prevent it
   • Open Theists have the problem that at some point God could react to evil but he does not
3. Other religions do not have this problem “Atheism affirms the reality of evil and denies the reality of God. Pantheism affirms the reality of God but denies the reality of evil.” [³⁰] Evil is a Christian problem because in our framework evil exists, God is all powerful and all good.

4.16.1. Definitions related to evil

• Logical Problem of Evil: The logical problem of evil challenges the Christian God with the argument, if evil exists God either does not or He is limited in power or knowledge.
• Emotional Problem of Evil: The emotional problem of evil challenges the Christian God with the reality of personal suffering.
• Theodicy: Theodicy attempts to resolve God’s “divine justice” with the problem of evil. [³¹]
• Evil: Evil, natural or moral, is the absence of divine good.
• Natural Evil: Natural evil is the destruction of creation done by the natural order of the world.
• Moral Evil: Moral evil is the commission or omission of the law of God which injures God’s creation.
• Author of Evil: The author of evil refers to the one or ones who first caused evil.
• Permission of Evil: Permission of evil occurs when an omniscient or all-knowing being allows evil.
• Cause of Evil: Evil is caused anytime a being’s actions results in evil.

Approaches to the Problem of Evil (4.2)

The Baker Encyclopedia has good examples which show how good and evil are entangled. Good can have an evil byproduct (the early bird gets the worm; the worm dies), and God can make evil out of good (Joseph). [³⁰]

God does prevent, limit and overrule evil (example: Sarah in Egypt, Job, Joseph. Jesus endures evil). Jesus shows us that a God who suffers is greater than a God who does not. Jesus calls us to suffer.

• The suffering servant is foretold.
• The suffering servant endures the cross.
• The suffering servant empathizes with our weakness (Matthew 6:30-33, The Lord’s Prayer).

The conquering God is also greater.

• God conquers surd evil in creation.
• God conquers moral evil.
• God conquers death.
• God conquers Satan.

St. Augustine “redefined evil as an absence of good.” [³¹]

The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary gives eight reasons for the existence of evil. [³²]

• Evil allows free will.
• Evil allows God to punish sin.
• God uses suffering to make us more like Christ.
• As Christians endure suffering, true faith is revealed and confirmed.
• Evil reveals positive aspects of God’s character.
• Evil allows a redeemer.
• Evil allows Christians to trust God even when they do not understand why.
• Evil allows God to have final victory and consummation.

4.17.1. Relationship between Evil and Suffering
Romans 5:18 connects the original sin of one man to the righteous act of another. Adam brought sin and suffering into the world while Christ suffered and brought righteousness into the world. Adam suffered an awful punishment for his sin. He lost his innocence knowing both evil and nakedness. He was kicked out of the garden. He was forced into hard labor. He watched the pain of his wife and loss of his children. For Adam, little was better outside the garden other than the hope of his children to crush the serpent. None of Adam’s children were without suffering. Even Christ suffered. From the very beginning sin was connected with suffering.

We should not dismiss God’s intimate relationship to suffering and evil. We affirm christian God is not distant like the gods of Greece or Rome. God created the world and allowed Satan to dwell with man. God gave Adam the command and saw when Adam and Eve broke his law. He was not far from the cause of evil and could have prevented it. God prescribed the punishment of suffering to Adam, Eve and their children. This punishment extended to the Christ who took the sins of Adam on himself and suffered their punishment on the cross! On the cross, God wrestled evil to the grave. He rose as the victor on the third day claiming victory over evil, sin, death, Satan and the world. God has never been far from evil. He did not cause it but he conquered it, in the most intimate way possible.

4.17.2. Summary of approaches to the problem of evil
Logical approach
The problem of evil is often presented as a logical problem:

1. If God is all good, all powerful and all knowing, he must know that evil exists and want to and have the ability to prevent (any) evil.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, either this God does not exist or he is not all good, powerful or knowing.

Theologians have presented many solutions to the logical problem of evil. Dr. Carl Sanders, in his lectures, gives five potential logical solutions. [²⁵, sec. 23]

• **Freewill theodicy: Evil is necessary to enable free will.
• Soul building theodicy: Evil can strengthen us.
• Best of all possible worlds theodicy: Evil enables ours to be the best possible world.
• Warfare theodicy: God is able to conquer evil.
• Mystery/Eschatological theodicy: We trust God that he is in control of all things and will work to end evil.

My approach I would call a “best of all possible Gods theodicy.” This approach is similar to the ontological argument for the existence of God. It begins by asserting that the God who exists is the maximally best God. He exists because he is greater than all other potential Gods. The existence of evil allows God to be a greater God. So much of God’s character is connected to the inverse or absence of evil that he is greater because evil exists.

• This God is greater because he restrains evil in creation (surd evil).
• This God is greater because he conquers evil, death and Satan.
• This God is greater because he redeems man.
• This God is greater because he judges evil.
• This God is greater because he loves the adulterer.

Biblical approach
The problem of evil can also be approached using the Bible. The Bible shows how Satan and man bring sin into the world in Genesis 3. Immediately after the incarnation of evil, God promises its destruction and begins to work against evil. He restrains evil in the time of the patriarchs. God gives his law to outlaw and punish evil men. God suffers at the hand of evil on the cross and brings righteousness into the world. The book of Acts shows how God uses the church to rescue man from sin and suffering. Revelation promises, like Genesis, a future where evil is totally conquered and restrained.

Pastoral approach
Pastors can provide great hope to congregants who suffer and despair from sin. They can show using the biblical approach how God has been at work to restrain and conquer evil in the world. They can encourage their congregation to live morally and revive the blessings promised in the law. Congregants can examine their own lives and see how God has used evil to shape their character and strengthen their faith. Pastors can remind their congregations to remember that God works good for all those who love him (Romans 8:28).

Literal View of Creation (4.3)

Dr. Joseph A. Pipa Jr.

4.18.1. Current interpretation of Genesis 1-2
Genesis 1:1 is a summary of Genesis 1:2-2:3; these verses are literal and written consistently with the contemporary Jewish cosmological understanding at the time of the Exodus. The telos of Genesis 1-2 is not to give us a scientific understanding of creation, it is meant to teach us who God is and who creation is. Genesis 2:4 introduces the first toledot of Genesis. Genesis 2:5-25 is another presentation of the creation account. It is not time bound and is written poetically.

Triads of Creation (Genesis 1) [³³]

1. Progress from heaven to earth
2. Inhabitants rule over corresponding spheres
3. Distinguished by degrees of movement

Days 1-3: Form	Days 4-6: Fill
1. Light	1. Light
2. Firmament, Sky, Seas	2. Inhabitants: Fish, Birds
3. Dry Land, Vegetation “and God said…” 2x	3. Land Animals, Humans “and God said…” 2x

John Anderson, in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, points to the strength of the dual creation accounts. He writes, “Read in isolation, the accounts present a partial picture of ancient Israel’s understanding of creation and the Creator. When read together, however, they present a much fuller articulation of creation and Creator. Several points complement each other (Birch, Theological Introduction, 40):

• Both accounts envision God as the sole Creator who purposely, and of His own volition, undertook to create this world.
• Both give humanity a place of honor in the structure of creation.
• Both envision the human, embodied as male and female, to possess a social character.” [³⁴]

Dr. Pipa’s issues with a non-literal creation [³⁵, sec. 3]

• God’s work is supernatural and strengthens his claim to the throne.
• The first man matters.
• Perspicuity of scripture is undermined.
• A non-literal creation violates exegetical principles.
• Non-literal approaches are arbitrary.
• Non-literal approaches depart from orthodoxy.

Genesis 1:1

• God’s creation is the beginning of time.
• God created ex nihilo everything from which he created everything else.

Genesis 1:2

• The earth was dark, uninhabitable, uninhabited.

Dr. Pipa’s structure of creation in Genesis 1 [³⁵]

1. Work of creation
2. The declaration of fulfillment
3. The statement of purpose
   • God names things to reveal their purpose.
   • God gives expressed purpose.
   • God’s blessings reveal purpose.
4. The expression of delight
   • God’s proclamation of goodness includes both the physical and spiritual
5. The record of time
   • According to Dr. Pipa ‘yom’ can never mean a vast span of time. [³⁵, sec. 7]
   • It typically means twenty four hour period or daylight.
   • A non-literal use requires extra context or grammar.
   • When used with ordinal numbers, ‘yom’ always it always means twenty four hour days.
   • The phrase “evening and morning” strength to the claim of whole days.

4.18.2. Grammatically possible translations of Genesis 1:1
According to Dr. Hamilton in his commentary Genesis 1:1 can be translated grammatically in four different ways. [³⁶, p. 102]

1. Genesis 1:1 can stand independently as a complete sentence.
2. Genesis 1:1 can be used to introduce time: “At first God created…”
3. Genesis 1:2 can be a description of verse one “When God began to create…”
4. Verse one can be used as a clause combined with verses two and three: “When God began to create…–the earth…–God said…”

4.18.3. Dr. Pipa’s examination of possible translations
According to Dr. Pipa, only one translation is grammatically and theologically correct: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” [³⁵, sec. 4] Grammatically he recognizes both “In the beginning, God…” and “In the beginning, when God…” However, he claims that including “when” obscures the fact that God is outside of time. I find his theological claim to be consistent with Dr. Hamilton’s commentary and my own conservative theological opinion that God is before all things. [³⁶, p. 106]

4.18.4. Summary of Dr. Pipa’s approach to Genesis 1
Dr. Pipa, in his lectures, explains the traditional view of Genesis 1. He begins by presenting the views on Genesis 1:1 and asserts that Genesis 1:1 teaches us two things about God. God was before the beginning of time and created all things from nothing. [³⁵, sec. 4]

The structure of creation was also discussed. For Dr. Pipa, Genesis 1:2 contains the empty world which God fills. The earth was was dark, uninhabitable, uninhabited. [³⁵, sec. 4] In the rest of chapter 1, God will create light, make the earth inhabitable and fill it with inhabitants. Moving to God’s detailed creation, Dr. Pipa gives five repeated points for each day of creation. Moses includes the work of creation, a declaration of fulfillment, a statement of purpose, an expression of delight, and a record of time.

Yom, the Hebrew word for day, is of particular interest to interpret the length of creation. Dr. Pipa emphatically declares that yom cannot mean a vast span of time. [³⁵, sec. 7] He arrives at his conclusion because yom’s default rendering is daylight or a twenty four hour period. Without any extra context, which is absent in Genesis 1, Dr. Pipa concludes that yom can only mean a twenty four our period. He gives further evidence saying both the inclusion of the ordinal numbers and the phrase evening and morning restrict the meaning of yom to day not a vast span of time. It is important that the days of creation are sequential. Dr. Pipa gives the example that animal life is impossible without light. Furthermore, the sequential pattern of creation is consistent with Moses’ record of the flood and plagues. [³⁵, sec. 8]

Literary Framework View of Creation (4.4 - 4.5)

Dr. Mark Futato

4.19.1. Dr. Futato expects scripture to teach theology
Dr. Futato begins his lecture series by setting his student’s expectations. He says we should expect scripture to teach us theology not science or astrology. [³⁵, sec. 10] The Bible is for equipping the saints for every good work (1 Timothy 3:16-17).

Examples of dischronology

• Temptation of Jesus (Matthew, Luke)
• Jesus cleansing the temple and curses the fig tree (Matthew, Mark)

According to Dr. Futato, Day 1, Light and Dark, and Day 4, Sun and Moon, would have been read by ancients as another rendering of the first creative act. [³⁵, sec. 12] Job 38:4-7 casts doubt on a literal reading of Genesis 1: the stars were there when God created the dry land.

4.19.2. Dischronology
Dischronology is a narrative which is intentionally out of chronological order. I am reminded of two modern examples in Nolan’s filmography, Momento and Tenet, which liberally use dischronology to add emphasis and suspense. Examples of dischronology in the Old Testament include Genesis 1 when compared to Job 38:4-7.

4.19.3. Importance of literary genre
Understanding the genre of a text is important to understanding any text including the Bible! A punchline should be distinguished from a deposition or a news article or one risks much misinterpretation or application. Genesis 1 is not a prescriptive epistle to the church, nor a prayer, it is a historical account to teach believers who created all things and where they should place their hope.

4.20.1. What does Genesis 1 teach us about God
It is important for Dr. Futato that readers of Genesis learn who God is not a scientific understanding of creation. From Genesis 1, we see God alone is the creator of all things. He created them from nothing and existed before time. Because he created all things, God is sovereign. All of creation, including mankind, must submit to him. Genesis also teaches us we need to trust in God, like the farmers of old, to provide for all of our needs. [³⁵, sec. 13]

4.20.2. Definitions of imagery

• Anthropomorphism is a description of God as if he has human characteristics or as if he was working in a human way.
• Phenomenological: Ordinary or experiential imagery. The appearance of things vs. the scientific reality.
• Old World Imagery: Imagery which is consistent with how the ancients thought about the world or body.

4.20.3. Role of anthropomorphic imagery in scripture and examples
God is uncreated yet he describes his character or actions according to human form. When God rests in Genesis 2:2, we are not to think of him as needing rest, for he does not have human restraints or needs. God’s example teaches us that his work was finished and that like his example we need rest. [³⁵, sec. 18]

4.20.4. Summary of Dr. Futato’s approach to Genesis 1
Dr. Futato begins his lecture series by reminding his students that the scriptures principle teach theology (see Westminster Shorter Catechism 3). He says we should expect scripture to teach us theology not science or astrology. [³⁵, sec. 10] This emphasis is consistent with 1 Timothy 3:16-17 which is a demonstration of the narrow focus of scripture.

The repeated structure of Genesis 1 leads Dr. Futato to think that the days are repeated twice. He says days one (Light and Dark) and four (Sun and Moon) are repeated renderings of the first creative act and would have been read this way by ancient Israel. [³⁵, sec. 12] Futato’s goal is not to overthrow theistic science but to remind his listeners that Genesis 1 exists to teach about God not science. He adds weight to his argument by quoting Job 38:4-7 which casts doubt on a literal reading of Genesis 1: the stars were there when God created the dry land. Dr. Futato calls this example a dischronology, that is when a narrative is intentionally presented out of order for emphasis. The macrostructure of Genesis 1 reminds the people of God that He made both light and dark and the sun, moon and stars. The creator God provides everything an agrarian society needs: light, land and living things. [³⁵, sec. 14-17]

The ancient understanding of the world is different from our scientific perspective. We know the earth is round, it orbits the sun and there are many lands and seas. Scripture was written with ancient imagery and cosmology. Christians should not expect Genesis 1 to speak in terms consistent with a modern scientific perspective. This is not God’s intention. He speaks in contemporary imagery to teach contemporary people about who he is. We have extra work to do but we should be willing to see Genesis 1 through ancient eyes. [³⁵, sec. 18]

Two things that Dr. Pipa and Dr. Futato agree on

• Both Dr. Pipa and Dr. Futato have pastoral concerns. They believe it matters how pastors interpret Genesis 1 because it informs other parts of their theology.
• Both Dr. Pipa and Dr. Futato believe there is a three day repeated structure in Genesis 1.

Two things that Dr. Pipa and Dr. Futato disagree on

• Dr. Pipa’s first concern is biblical inerrancy. He demonstrates how forgoing the traditional interpretation can lead to other false doctrines.
• Dr. Futato’s first concern is that the purpose of scripture is to teach us theology. To read it a modern scientific understanding asks the text to do something it was not written to do in presenting scientific fact.
• Dr. Pipa believes Genesis 1 is 6 literal days. Dr. Futato believes the three day structure in Genesis 1 is three days or perspectives repeated twice.

Whose approach did you find more convincing

• I sympathize with both approaches and especially their pastoral concerns. Dr. Pipa does not want to see Christians compromise the inerrancy of scripture. Dr. Futato does not want Christians to expect more from the Bible than it promises. Both concerns should be valid for the watchful pastor.
• I found Dr. Pipa’s approach to be consistent with orthodox teaching, references and a plain reading of the text.

Other creation myths (5.1)

5.21.1. Genesis 1-2 is like other Ancient Near Eastern creation myths.
Bruce Waltke writes that the Biblical creation account differs from other Ancient Near East accounts in its purpose and clarity. [³⁷] Other accounts have a complex pantheon of gods. Their throne long gone is found in the grave. The monotheistic God is simpler and speaks clearly. God’s purpose in the Genesis account was to reveal his character. This God has real power and, as Waltke says, his is not bound to any occult rituals. [³⁸]

Even as moderns wonder at our scientific world, we can still be impressed by the claims of the Bible. Increasingly the evidence points to an ex nihilo creation. Genesis is written to an ancient audience and communicates using old imagery but the truth about God’s work and character is evident. When Bruce Waltke compares the accounts he writes, “In contrast, the creation myths present a debased theology and an even more debased morality.” Dr. Waltke brings up an excellent point, the resulting morality of Genesis is positive and helpful. Creation accounts ultimately teach us who we are and why we are here. On those merits alone the creation account found in Genesis should be the one we call “our story.”

Creation myths from Baker’s Encyclopedia of the Bible (B. Waltke) [³⁷]

• Sumerian Creation Myths
  • Naturalistic Polythiesm
  • Sea Goddess Nammu gave birth to heaven-earth. The Air God Enlil separated heaven and earth. The water God Enki gave life to the world.
• Akkadian Creation Myths
  • Babylonian and Assyrian
  • Enuma Elish
  • Marduk
• Egyptian Creation Myths
  • The god Atum produce lesser gods who fill the world with life
• Levantine Creation Myths
  • Polythiestic
  • El was the creator god
  • Baal brought life giving storms

John C. Collins finds parallels between the structure of Genesis 1-11 and other ancient Near East creation accounts. These accounts include the Sumerian King List, the Atrahasis Epic and the Sumerian Flood Tale. [³⁸]

Analogical Days View of Creation (5.1)

John C. Collins

5.21.4. Summary of the Analogical Days view
The Analogical Days View of creation analogizes the Jewish work week, that is, six days of work and one day of Sabbath rest. The view is centered around the fact that Genesis records that God works during each day and rests during the night and on Saturday. It is important to remember the Israelites who were the likely audience of Genesis before they entered the promised land. God was teaching them how to work and rest. Genesis demonstrates the sabbatical rhythm relies then not on natural law but on God’s character.

Dr. Collins noted the liturgical pattern of God’s craftsmanship. God works repeatedly on each creative day. The creative work culminates in the creation of man. In Collins’ lectures, we were asked to observe ordinary names employed for God and man. The naming convention for rest of creation points to their subsistence. All of creation exists to benefit man, even the lights which mark the liturgical calendar. [³⁵, sec. 25]

There is little value placed on the length of days because of their analogical connection to the work week. Furthermore, Dr. Collins is convinced there is a gap in creative work between Genesis 1:2 (the creation of the universe) and the rest of Genesis 1 (the filling of the universe). [³⁵, sec. 27]

5.21.2. Relationship between Genesis 1 and 2
One way to view the relationship between Genesis 1 and 2 is that Genesis 2:4-25 is a detailed presentation of the sixth day of creation. Dr. Collins writes that rabbinic tradition includes Genesis 2:4-25 as an expansion of the sixth day and points to Jesus as additional evidence. Jesus read the two creation accounts together in Matthew 19:3-9. [³⁸]

Evolutionary Creationism View of Creation (5.2 - 5.3)

Tremper Longman III

5.22.1. Genre matters!
Genre matters because it informs how a text should be interpreted. For example, a codified law should be read differently than a magazine article. If we understand the genre of a passage, we are that much more likely to interpret according to authorial intent.

Theological Historical Genre Evaluation of Genesis

• Toledot formula
• Waw consecutive verbal form
• Genealogies

Tremper Longman holds that God created all things, humanity was created innocent and sin introduced death. He says these do not violate Evolutionary Creationism. To reject these three tenants would put one outside of orthodoxy. [³⁵, sec. 32]

Simple outline of Genesis

1. Creation history (Genesis 1-11)
2. Covenental history (Genesis 12-50)

toledots of Genesis
Genesis is broken up into toledots. A toledot is a generation. Each toledot in Genesis is a generation of the Jewish patriarchs.

1. Creation (Genesis 1-4)
2. Generations of Adam (Genesis 5)
3. Generations of Noah (Genesis 6-9)
4. Generations of the sons of Noah (Genesis 10)
5. Generations of Shem (Genesis 11:10-26)
6. Generations of Terah (Genesis 11:27-25:11)
7. Generations of Ishmael (Genesis 25:12-18)
8. Generations of Isaac (Genesis 25:19-35:29)
9. Generations of Esau (Genesis 36)
10. Generations of Jacob (Genesis 37-50)

5.22.4. Structure and genre of Genesis
Genesis is structured in two halves. The first half is creation history and includes the whole history before the patriarchs (Genesis 1-11). The second half is covenental history (Genesis 12-50). The Noahic Covenant is excluded from covenental history because it applies to all men, not just the people of Israel.

Genesis can also be split into ten toledots. The toledots are the strongest evidence that Genesis is a historical account. Moses includes the names of each generation and tells what happened to them. Another indication of the historicity of Genesis are the Hebrew waw, which indicates “and then this happened,” is used often. Genesis includes several genealogies which also point to the fact that Genesis is a historical account. [³⁵, sec. 32]

Figurative Language
Tremper Longman cites Origin who says that days were not possible without the sun. [³⁵, sec. 33]
Dr. Longman repeats, “It doesn’t tell us how God did it!”

5.23.1. Summary of Theological Truths
Dr. Longman identifies many theological truths in Genesis 1-2. He believes that primarily Genesis 1-2 exists to reveal the character of God. God created all things and therefore he has no rivals. God is transcendent (above creation) but immanent (at work in creation). Humans are the apex of creation. Humans were created morally innocent and they rebelled. [³⁵, sec. 34]

5.23.2. Comparing God to other deities
Dr. Johnson’s two-step method is first finding what the Bible says about the person of God and then second comparing this God to other beings in the universe. [²⁵, sec. 3] In Genesis 1-2, Dr. Longman has already identified the person of God and compares what he has found with the beings we know or imagine. It is helpful to compare God against “lesser deities” because it clearly contrasts his nature. Dr. Longman’s examples are very effective at communicating who God is. He is unlike anyone in the pantheon. God created all things and therefore he has no rivals. God is unique, because he is transcendent (like some “gods”) but immanent (unlike “them”). In these two ways, the God of Genesis is very different from contemporary formulations of deities in the ancient near east.

5.23.3. Berkhof’s critique of Theistic Evolution
Berkhof argues an evolutionist cannot have both the God driven generation of creation or the eternity of matter. [²⁴, p. 139]

5.23.4. An evolutionist’s response to Berkhof
An evolutionist, like Dr. Longman, might respond by differentiating between the origin of the universe and the development of life. Longman takes no issue with the fact that God created all things, including matter. However, he subscribes to the evolution of life until humans were crowned the pinnacle of creation.

5.23.5. Summary of the Evolutionary Creationism
Like many of the other lecturers, Dr. Longman was quick to point out that the concerns of Genesis were primarily theological. Genesis teaches who God is and why the world was created. Because theology is the primary impetus, science is not the aim of the author. [³⁵, sec. 33-34]

Dr. Longman holds to essential orthodox doctrine. He holds that God created all things, humanity was created innocent and sin introduced death. His view of evolutionary creationism does not force him to stray into theological error. Longman’s view is more nuanced than Theistic Evolution in the past which Berkhof claims is incompatible with orthodoxy. [²⁴, p. 139] Dr. Longman’s developed view does not compromise the origin of the universe, his evolutionary claims are concerned with the development of life. He maintains that God created all things and yet life evolved into man who is the apex of creation. [³⁵, sec. 32] Like several of the previous views, the days of creation like much of the imagery in Genesis 1 is figurative. Dr. Longman claims that the creation account is consistent with the language used in apocalyptic writings and should be viewed figuratively. [³⁵, sec. 34]

Identity Accounts View of Creation (5.4 - 5.5)

John H. Walton

5.24.1. Aim of Genesis 1-2
Dr. Walton say Genesis 1 communicates cosmic identity and Genesis 2 communicates human identity. These are the two identity accounts found in Genesis 1-2. [³⁵, sec. 37] Genesis 1-2 are the liturgical ordering of God’s sacred space with the Garden of Eden its temple. The days may be actual days as seven were often the time it took to ordain a king. [³⁵, sec. 42]

5.24.2. Dr. Walton and the perspicuity of scripture
Dr. Joseph Pipa claimed in his lectures that nonliteral approaches to scripture compromise the perspicuity of scripture. [³⁵, sec. 3] Dr. Walton makes a different claim. To Dr. Walton, a “plain” reading of the text is impossible for moderns because scripture was written by ancient writers to an ancient audience. The aims of the biblical authors were not to speak to us but to their original audience. To get at the prevailing truth then, an interpreter must understand the audience of the Bible to see what is intended and only then can he interpret that intention to a modern audience. The historical artifacts and secondary sources matter most when interpreting the text because they help us see the ancient culture in a way the text is incapable of revealing on its own. [³⁵, sec. 37-39] This method of comparing and contrasting is what Dr. Roy Zuck advocates for when dealing with biblical artifacts of culture. [³⁹, p. 96]

Dr. Roy Zuck gives guidelines for evaluating and bridging the cultural gap between our culture and the cultures who first received the Bible. He writes, “First, see if the behavior in the biblical culture means something different in our culture… Second, if the behavior does mean something different in our culture, then determine the timeless principle expressed in that practice. Third, determine how the principle can be expressed in a cultural equivalent.” [³⁹, p. 96]

God’s rest means rule
God’s rest has the same imagery of a king sitting to rule his kingdom.

5.25.1. Psalm 104 and creation
God is the master of creation in ways like man and in ways far beyond man. He is cloaked with lights and rides the clouds like chariots. Like a man working the field the earth submits to God and produces fruit. His work is not limited to the ground. He makes the sun and moon rise and set. Something no man can do. There are ideas of submission, rebellion and dominion in Psalm 104. We are to worship God (Psalm 104:1) and submit to his rule (Psalm 104:35).

5.25.2. How has Identity accounts shaped my reading
Dr. Walton’s lectures have emphasized the ancient purpose of the Bible. The purpose of Psalm 104 is to speak to the farmer to demonstrate how God is the great worker of the world. He takes his cloak of light when he rises from the earth and rides around in a divine chariot to make life spring from the earth. His power is not limited to grain or grapes, although it includes them. God farms the whole earth and is the animal husbandman to all its creatures.

An Archetypal View of Adam
The Lexham Bible Dictionary summaries the Identity Accounts Archetypal View of Adam, “Some people today interpret the figure of Adam existentially, understanding Adam as an “every man,” an exemplary illustration of what happens to each man. Under this interpretation, this illustration helps us to understand the universal significance of sin and salvation.” [⁴⁰] Adam is a representative understanding of the first man. His name is representative.

5.25.3. Summary of the Identity Accounts View of Creation
Dr. John Walton began his prevention of the Identity Accounts View of creation by capturing the intent of Genesis 1-2. He said the intention of Genesis 1 is to reveal the cosmic identity and the purpose of Genesis 2 is to reveal the human identity. It is important to Dr. Walton that readers of the Bible not go beyond the original intention of the human author. The human authors were single minded in their intention. If we want to capture God’s ancient truth we need to comprehend the ancient purpose of the Bible. [³⁵, sec. 37-39]

Genesis 1-2 is not relevant to modern science. Moses presents creation to shape the ancient Israelites’ understanding of God and man. Genesis 1 demonstrates God is distant from all ancient deities; he orders all things and is master of them. Psalm 104 demonstrates how God rules and cares for the world. The world exists to serve God. Dr. Walton distinguishes ordering from creation. He proposes God ordered the world in six days and sat down to rule on the seventh. This model is consistent with ancient coronations. Adam is archetypal and demonstrates our fallen nature. Humanity is unable to fulfill the calling of God on our own. Creation should cause us to worship God (Psalm 104:1) and submit to him (Psalm 104:35). [⁴⁰]

My approach to Genesis
The purpose of Genesis 1-2 is to introduce God and humanity and inform of us of our history. Genesis 1-2 is a true historical account written to a Jewish audience during the Exodus and explains creation according their cosmological framework.This starting point is shared with many of the lecturers in Perspectives on Creation who emphasize the point of Genesis 1-2 is to teach us something about God and humanity. They may disagree on what it is trying to teach but they generally agree the goal is not to teach science. [³⁵]

The days of creation are seven sequential literal twenty four hour periods. I agree with Dr. Pipa who emphatically declared the word “day” means twenty four hour period unless it includes some modification. [³⁵, sec. 7] In my reading and conversations within my denomination, the PCA, this is the prevailing conservative view. Like Dr. Pipa, I worry if a pastor does not hold to the conservative view, he may surrender biblical inerrancy altogether. However, the other views presented in Perspectives on Creation demonstrate that one can hold to orthodoxy and non-literal view of the days of creation. [³⁵, sec. 32]

I sympathize with many of the other views but still hold to literal days. I believe that God is demonstrating how we should work. This is for our benefit not because he stopped working. [³⁵, sec. 20-28] I believe that Genesis 1 is liturgical and God shows us how we order our lives around worship. [³⁵, sec. 36-45] These do not have to exclude the literal days of Genesis and I would like to claim them as well. They are beneficial perspectives and show scripture is multifaceted.

Although, I take a literal view of the days of Genesis there are many other elements in Genesis 1-2 which are figurative and consistent with the ancient understanding. Moses wrote according to the Jewish cosmological understanding of the cosmos. This is what is being described in Genesis 1 and Psalm 104. Moses demonstrates God by describing his whole world as he knew it. God made the lights in the sky (not balls of gas), and set the earth secure and bound the waters. Moses is boldly proclaiming God made everything in his native tongue. [³⁵, sec. 34]

Genesis is structured in two halves. The first half is creation history and includes the whole history before the patriarchs (Genesis 1-11). The second half is covenental history (Genesis 12-50). The Noahic Covenant is excluded from covenental history because it applies to all men, not just the people of Israel.

The structure of Genesis shows that creation history is distinct from the history of the patriarchs. The time gap given to each early chapter is massive when compared to the narrow focus on the lives of the patriarchs. All of Genesis is history. Genesis can also be split into ten toledots. The toledots are the strongest evidence that Genesis is a historical account. Moses includes the names of each generation and tells what happened to them. Another indication of the historicity of Genesis are the Hebrew waw, which indicates “and then this happened,” is used often. Genesis includes several genealogies which also point to the fact that Genesis is a historical account. [³⁵, sec. 32]

It is important that readers understand the genre of Genesis 1. Genre informs how we should accurately read and understand each book and section of the Bible. Because Genesis is a historic account, we can, like the Israelites, view Genesis 1-2 as our origins and the creator God as our God. God introduces himself as the creator in history. He is not a distant deity like those in the pantheon. God creates and participates in history (consider his love for the patriarchs). [³⁸]

Angels (6.1 - 6.2)

• Biblically Significant
• Angels are subject to cultural/religious evolution
• Difficult to define
• “Immaterial…based upon scriptural statements that angels are spirit as opposed to matter (Matt 8:16; 12:45; Luke 7:21; 8:2, 30; 11:26; 24:39; Eph 6:12; Heb 1:14).” [⁴¹]

6.26.1. How does our congregation think about angels?
It is impossible in our pictogramatic moment to imagine fearsome angels without wings and without harps. Our time does not see angels as Mary the mother of Jesus did. Their primary purpose is to be helpful and protective.

6.26.2. Why should scripture be our starting point?
Scripture should be our starting point because scripture cannot be changed or made inaccurate by tradition. When we want to know the truth about angels. We should learn what scripture has to say about them because our reality is clearly inaccurate when compared with what God has to say about angels.

Defining Angels

• Created Spirit
• Messenger or representative
• Angel is transliterated from Latin and Greek which originated from the Hebrew word mal’ak. Dr. Ronn Johnson notes that when a word is transliterated we should assume the translators do not know and have not assumed the meaning. [²⁵, sec. 26]

6.26.3. Examining the translation of mal’ak
When the word mal’ak appears to be sent by God it is usually translated with angel. When it appears to be sent by man it is translated messenger.

6.26.4. How does meaning of ‘angel’ affect our understanding
I hear it repeated often that angel means messenger. Even if, I still carry the images of pop angels into every text, it is important to recognize that angels are from God. They represent him to our world.

6.26.5. How should ‘angel’ be translated? In my opinion, we should translate consistently when possible to maintain double meanings, allusions and wordplay. These elements are often lost in translation when translators try to determine what meaning goes where. Because angel means messenger and angel carries no special meaning we should translate it messenger and allow pastors and readers to discover what was meant in its non-obscured form. [⁴²], [⁴³]

Created Spirits

• ruach
• ruachim
• tsavaoth
• qedoshim
• elohim
  • “Yahweh, the lesser gods, angels, demons, and the disembodied dead are all rightful inhabitants of the spiritual world. They may cross over to the human world, as Scripture informs us, and certain humans may be transported to their realm (e.g., prophets; Enoch), but their proper domain and humanity’s proper domain are two separate places. Within the spiritual world—as in the human world—there are differences of rank and power. Yahweh is an [elohim], but no other [elohim] is Yahweh. This was what an orthodox Israelite believed. Yahweh was not one among equals; He was unique.” [⁴⁴]
• cherubim
  • Depicted on the ark and the temple curtains
  • Typically had a body resembling a lion, wings like a bird and a human face.

What do Created Spirits do?

1. Appear in pantheon
2. Support/oppose God’s causes
3. Have limited earthly authority
4. Messengers
5. Have limited Authority in New Testament
6. Parallel human sin/salvation

6.27.2. Lesson plan concerning angels

1. Origins
   • Angels are created spiritual beings (Psalm 148:1-5, Colossians 1:16
   • Some think they were created before the universe (Job 38:7) [²⁴, p. 144]
   • From (Genesis 2:1, Exodus 20:11, Job 38:7, Nehemiah 9:6) one can infer they were created before the seventh day. [²⁴, p. 144]
2. Etymology
   1. Defining relevant Hebrew and Greek words
      • angelos
      • mal'ah
      • ruach
      • tsavaoth
      • qedoshim
      • elohim
   2. Their relation to the God of the Bible: “Yahweh, the lesser gods, angels, demons, and the disembodied dead are all rightful inhabitants of the spiritual world. They may cross over to the human world, as Scripture informs us, and certain humans may be transported to their realm (e.g., prophets; Enoch), but their proper domain and humanity’s proper domain are two separate places. Within the spiritual world—as in the human world—there are differences of rank and power. Yahweh is an [elohim], but no other [elohim] is Yahweh. This was what an orthodox Israelite believed. Yahweh was not one among equals; He was unique.” [⁴⁴]
   3. Perspective of the Church Fathers and others in church history, read Berkhof’s Systematic Theology pp. 141 - 142
3. Purpose (Watch Ronn Johnson’s lecture) [²⁵ sec. 28]
   1. Appear in pantheon
   2. Support/oppose God’s causes
   3. Have limited earthly authority
   4. Messengers
   5. Have limited Authority in New Testament
   6. Parallel human sin/salvation
4. OT Appearances in Scripture (Examine Hebrew word)
   • Genesis 1:1-2 (elohim)
   • Genesis 16:7-16 (mal’ah)
   • Exodus 3:2
   • Numbers 22:22-35
   • 1 Samuel 23:27
   • 2 Samuel 11:25
   • Malachi 3:1
5. NT Appearances in Scripture (Examine Greek word)
   • Matthew 1:18-25
   • Matthew 2:13-13
   • Acts 5:19
   • Acts 7:30
   • 2 Corinthians 11:14
   • Galatians 1:8

Image of God (6.3 - 6.5)

6.28.1 What does it mean to be made in the image of God
Being made in the image of God means humans are like God. Humans communicate, create, desire relationship, have immortal souls and a spiritual nature. Humans are involved in a divine relationship where we can glorify God and enjoy him forever (WSC Answer 1). In the Garden, humanity was tasked to rule the earth as representatives of God.

Key Verses

• Genesis 1:26-27
  • Made in the image of God maintains its importance because it is included in the creation of man, even if it only appears in Genesis [³, sec. 50]
  • “The first thing God wants us to know is we are made in his image.” [³, sec. 51]
• Genesis 5:1-3
• Genesis 9:6

How are we most like God?

• Ontological View: Human rationality or reason (Church Fathers, Medieval Scholastics)
• Moral View: We are moral and called to be righteous (Luther, Calvin)
• Functional View: Ambassadors who are to be fruitful and multiply (Modern View)
• Relational View: The human race exists interdependently (Karl Barth, Pope John Paul II)

6.28.2 Categorize my articulated view
My view that humans are like God based on their relational ability, immortal and spiritual nature is closest to the “Relational View.” I emphasized our ability to relate to one another and to God which is of first importance to the Relationalists.

6.28.3 Insights from the lectures and readings
Dr. Heiser challenges the idea of the image of God being tied to physical attributes. He writes, “If the image of God is said to [attributes of requiring physical maturity], the human only potentially bears the divine image until those attributes are possessed. This means that one must either deny the human personhood of the embryo or produce a more coherent alternative for defining the image of God. Even after birth, these options would mean that a severely retarded or brain-damaged child does not bear the divine image. Such definitions, if held consistently, would result in the loss of the image for some human beings.” [⁴⁵] Dr. Heiser’s is a significant insight because we cannot have a shallow view of the image of God. According to Genesis, God created the representatives of humanity in his image, so all people must be included even babies, children and the mentally handicapped. My view could use some sharpening based on Dr. Heiser’s critique.

The Functional View, then, must gain its meaning not based on God’s command to be fruitful and multiply. It must simply state that humanity represents God which is not based on our ability. The Ontological View is similarly challenged. I’m not sure if a pre-born baby without a developed brain can exhibit reason.

6.28.4 What does the image of God teach us
According to Dr. Allen, the image of God teaches us that we are created relative to God. We are created in relation to him. He has created humanity unique to the other animals and for a specific purpose. God has defined who we are and who we ought to be. [³, sec. 50 - 51]

6.28.5 Comparing Approaches: Dr. Allen and John Calvin
Dr. Allen demonstrates how knowledge of ourselves begins with God. When we are introduced to humanity it is on God’s terms. In his introduction to The Institutes, John Calvin begins by distinguishing the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves. Calvin shows in his paragraph how one leads the other. When we consider our miserable state we perceive there must be a perfect life. Both Dr. Allen and Calvin point to the interconnected nature of God and man.

Depictions of Idolatry and Faithfulness [⁴⁶]

1. The exclusive love of a husband and wife (Hosea)
   • Idolaters love another
   • Idolaters have no reason to be faithful
2. The trust and confidence in a king. (1 Samuel 8)
   • Idolaters trust another
   • Idolaters have no reason to obey the king

6.28.6 What is the relation between God, worship and idolatry
In the first few chapters of Genesis we are introduced to God, worship and idolatry. Humans are created like God and called to love and trust him. When idolatry entered humanity’s heart they loved and trusted another. They saw no reason to be faithful or to obey God. Rightly ordered worship maintains our love and trust of God. When we surrender our worship for idolatry it is easy to sin because we no longer love and trust God. We lose our reason to guard our morality. [⁴⁶]

6.29.1 Responding to Nogouchi Reese
When concluding her article on race, Nogouchi Reece writes, “The unity of the human race should not be understood as antagonistic to its diversity.” She means that being unified does not mean that humanity should squash or ignore its differences. Earlier in her article she notes how Christians show love despite their diversity (Galatians 3:28) and later she reminds us that the nations will enter the kingdom of God (Revelation 21:26). [⁴⁷]

6.29.2 How does stewardship relate to faith, worship and humility
According to Dr. Allen, wise and faithful stewardship copies attributes from how we relate to God. We are called to be wise and faithful believers and worshipers of God. In the same way, we are called to serve the world which God has given us. Just as God cares for humanity, we are to care for the world. [³, sec. 54]

6.29.3 Identify at three ethical implications that flow from being made in the Image of God

1. We are called to be righteous. (1 John 3:7)
2. We are called to represent God to the world. Just as God cares for us, we are to protect and preserve creation, including vulnerable people and nature. God cares for us because we are made in God’s image. (Matthew 6:25-34)
3. The sixth commandment derives from the fact that we are made in the image of God. (Exodus 20:13)

6.29.4 How am I living out God’s mission?
I have had children in part because God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. We already have three boys who have the potential to do far more for the kingdom of God than my wife and I.

6.29.5 How am I invited to participate in God’s mission
I was struck by Dr. Rosner’s article where he makes the connection between love and faithfulness and trust and obedience. I need to direct my love so I have a reason to be faithful to God. I need to direct my trust so I am motivated to obey God who provides all things. God never has these out of order. Worship helps direct our love and trust which greatly helps direct the rest of our lives toward God. [⁴⁶]

Jesus images God perfectly

• Hebrews 12:2

The Covenant (6.5)

6.30.1 The Bible’s central message
According to Dr. Allen the Bible’s central message is God’s relationship to humanity which he calls the covenant. God dwells with man in the Garden of Eden and also in Revelation. The relational impetus of scripture is a union between God and mankind. [³, sec. 56]

6.30.2 Do I agree with Dr. Allen
I would agree with Dr. Allen that the central message of scripture is summarized in the covenants and God’s expressed purpose to dwell with man. His reasoning is sound that the Bible begins and ends with God’s union. This is the Presbyterian perspective that God has worked through the covenants and preserved his relationship with his people. In spite of our sin, God entered into a covenant of Grace to deliver us. [¹⁰, WSC Question 20]

Definitions

• Dr. Allen defines covenant as a defined, formal relationship. [³, sec. 57]
• Scott Hahn defines covenant as “A sacred kinship bond between two parties, ratified by swearing an oath.” [⁴⁸]
• Covenant of Redemption: The Covenant of Redemption is the ordered, personal relationship between the persons of the Trinity. [³, sec. 59]
• Covenant of Works: Adam and Eve were under the Covenant of Works in the Garden of Eden. Their relationship with God depended on their perfect obedience of God’s commands. [¹⁰, WCF VII.II.]
• Covenant of Grace: The Covenant of Grace was promised in Genesis 3:15, developed in the covenants to Noah, Abraham, Moses and David, and fulfilled by Jesus Christ in his birth, obedience, death and resurrection. The Covenant of Grace brings divine forgiveness and salvation for everyone who believes in or looked forward in faith to the finality of Christ’s work. [¹⁰, WCF VII.III.]
• Differences: “In the covenant of works God appears as Creator and Lord; in the covenant of grace, as Redeemer and Father. The establishment of the former was prompted by God’s love and benevolence; that of the latter, by His mercy and special grace.” [²⁴, p. 272] The covenants given to Noah, Abraham, Moses and David build on one another and demonstrate God’s grace. The new covenant too builds on previous covenants by foreshadowing Christ and blessing for all people.
• Kinship: A kinship covenant means both parties swear jointly with equal repercussions for both parties. [⁴⁸]
• Treaty: A vassal treaty is sworn only by the lesser party to pledge allegiance to the greater party. The Biblical example is circumcision. [⁴⁸]
• Grant: A grant is sworn only by the greater party who takes complete responsibility including the repercussions in case of failure. The Biblical examples include God’s covenants with Abraham and David. [⁴⁸]

The Law

• Moral
• Civil
• Ceremonial

6.30.6 Why distinguish the law?
Dr. Allen demonstrates it is helpful to distinguish between parts of the law so we can show with consistency which laws ought to be obeyed after Christ’s perfect fulfillment. We can also appreciate the depth of Christ’s obedience. Christ not only obeyed the moral law. He lived perfectly in the civil and religious spheres.

6.30.7 Does Dr. Allen’s theological framework work
I subscribe to Dr. Allen’s because I am Presbyterian and because it is a good summary of God’s relational development with humanity. The reformers provide great clarity when discussing the covenants and the law. Their categories help us distinguish between the major periods of history and the development of God’s grace toward all of humanity. We can see this in the law as well both to the praise of Christ and our clarity to teach future generations how to obey God.

What it means to be made in the image of God
To be made in the image of God means we represent God. God has created humanity to be moral and loving. This view is categorized as the Moral View, held by Luther and Calvin, and the Relational View, held by Karl Barth and Pope John Paul II. [³, sec. 50] It is difficult to separate our morality from our relational nature. For as the Westminster Confession says, we were created to worship God and enjoy him forever. In our purpose there is both love and the way we should love, which could be categorized as morality.

It is important that all humans are able to engage in morality and relationships. According to Genesis, God created the representatives of humanity in his image, so all people must be included in this image even babies, children and the mentally handicapped. Dr. Heiser, in his article Image of God, writes “If the image of God is said to [attributes of requiring physical maturity], the human only potentially bears the divine image until those attributes are possessed. This means that one must either deny the human personhood of the embryo or produce a more coherent alternative for defining the image of God. Even after birth, these options would mean that a severely retarded or brain-damaged child does not bear the divine image. Such definitions, if held consistently, would result in the loss of the image for some human beings.” [⁴⁵] Heiser’s critique is important to keep in mind. Everyone is made in the image of God. Even those who are on the margins of society are made in the image of God.

There are many ethical conclusions which come from the fact that all people are made in the image of God. We are called to love everyone, even those that persecute us (Matthew 5:44). We do not have the freedom to murder anyone because everyone is made in the image of God (Exodus 20:13). Because we ourselves are made in the image of God, we are called to be righteous as God is righteous (1 John 3:7). The fact that we are made in the image of God matters. It is a major theological component of how we honor God and treat the world. Although it is not mentioned much, it is fundamental because it is mentioned at the creation of man. Being made in the image of God is foundational to who we are.

Learning Objectives (Unit 6)

• Describe the difficulties related to the doctrine of Angels and identify why Scripture needs to be the starting point for defining angels
• Describe the roles of created spiritual beings in Scripture
• Explain what it means to be made in the image of God and the implications of being made in God’s image
• Describe and explain covenant theology

Bible Licenses

Most Bible translations, like the ESV, are extremely restrictive in their licensing agreements for free and open websites like mine. Please support projects like the Open Bible website and the Open Source Bible.

• The CSB has been made available through the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license. Read the CSB ad free at https://read.csbible.com/.
• The FBV has been made available through the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. Download your copy of the FBV here http://www.freebibleversion.org/.
• The OEB has been made available through the Creative Commons Zero license. Read the OEB ad free here here https://openenglishbible.org/oeb/2025.6/read/.

Endnotes