Memory, Meaning & Faith

The Creation Order for Man-Woman Relationships: Genesis 1-2

By Richard M. Davidson

Genesis 1-2 constitutes the foundational biblical passage both for those who support and those who oppose women’s ordination. Does this passage uphold God’s ideal of the full equality of men and women, both in value before God and in egalitarian (non-hierarchical) male-female interrelationships, as those who support women’s ordination claim? Or does this passage present a creation order of ontological equality (in value before God) but of functional hierarchy (different roles involving female submission to male headship), as opponents of women’s ordination insist? In this blog, distilling some 30 years of personal research on this passage, I argue that Genesis 1-2 presents Adam and Eve not only as equal in worth before God (ontologically), but as equal partners without hierarchy (functionally).[1]

A.  Genesis 1 teaches us that male and female participate equally in the image of God, both ontologically and functionally.  “So God created man [Heb. ha’adam ‘humankind’] in His own image, in the image of God created he Him; male and female created He them” (Gen 1:27).

This foundational passage (and its surrounding context) gives no hint of a divine creation hierarchical order in the relation of man and woman. Here man and woman are fully equal, with no subordination of one to the other. Both man and woman together are blessed and given the mandate to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth; both together are given dominion over the earth, not the man dominion over the woman (Gen 1:28).

Junia the Apostle

By Nancy Vyhmeister

  “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” (Romans 16:8 NKJV)

The Name: Junia

The name of this woman, Junia, appears only once in the New Testament, in a list of friends and co-workers in Rome, to whom Paul sent greetings in Romans 16. Through the years, questions have been raised about her identity, especially her gender since original Greek manuscripts did not distinguish between the similar masculine and feminine forms of the name.  This essay will review some of the evidence found in ancient manuscripts and writings of the early Church fathers.

The Name in Antiquity 

 Junia was a commonly used female Roman name, meaning “youthful.” It derived from the goddess Juno and appears more than 250 times in Rome alone in records of the first century. The name also appears in inscriptions in Ephesus, Didyma, Lydia, Troas and Bythinia.  Were the name masculine, it should have been Junias in Greek or Junius in Latin. The masculine name Junius is well attested. According to Linda Belleville, there is, however, no attestation for the spelling Junias in any “inscription, letterhead, piece of writing, epitaph or literary work of the New Testament period.”[i]

2012 Ellen White Issues Symposium: "Can a Biblical Inspired Writer Use Literary Sources?"

 

Presentation

Jiří Moskala* presented his research on the topic “Can a Biblical Inspired Writer Use Literary Sources?” The main points of his presentation are given below.

 

Introduction

After referring to various biblical passages that affirm the inspiration of the Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15-17; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Pet 1:21; etc.) the speaker posed the question if an inspired writer may use extra-biblical literary sources, or if he/she receives everything directly from God. Moskala admitted that he grew up with a view that was similar to the dictation theory of inspiration. Yet later he learned that the divine truth is actually expressed in human language under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; hence the Bible is a divine-human combination (incarnational theory of inspiration). The biblical prophets were children of their time, place, and culture, and their written works took the literary forms of their time (narratives, prose, poetry, songs, genealogies, parables, dialogues, etc.). Some of them accepted the thoughts and ideas of previous inspired prophets and the Bible provides quite a number of examples for that. The real question is whether a true prophet may borrow thoughts and material from non-inspired, non-biblical sources. In his presentation Moskala provided categories and examples from the Old Testament and New Testament for such literary borrowing.

 

Old Testament

1. Borrowing Key Vocabulary

The speaker mentioned that Solomon frequently uses the phrase “under the sun” (Eccl 1:3, 9, 14; etc.) which is an idiomatic expression in ancient Egyptian referring to the continuous cycle of the sun. Solomon uses this expression synonymously with the phrase “under heaven” (see Eccl 1:13; 2:3; etc.) in the sense of the “vanity of our present life” since it has its limits and is temporary. Further it is contrasted with the eternal life in relationship with God, namely the life “above the sun.” 

2012 Ellen White Issues Symposium: "D. M. Canright and Inspiration: The Origin of a Crisis"

 

Presentation

Jud Lake* presented his research on the topic “D. M. Canright and Inspiration: The Origin of a Crisis”. The following exposition summarizes his presentation, rendering the main points of his findings.

 

Introduction

Dudley M. Canright (1840–1919), formerly a well-known Seventh-day Adventist minister, became the most significant detractor of Seventh-day Adventism and Ellen White during the late 19th century and early 20th century. One year after Canright left the Church he published the first edition of Seventh-day Adventism Renounced (1888). In this book he laid down six reasons for his rejection of Ellen White’s prophetic gift and divine inspiration: (1) she rewrote statements she had originally written; (2) her husband made suggestions which she incorporated in her writings; (3) she employed editorial help; (4) she used the writings of others in her books; (5) she suppressed some passages from her earlier works; and (6) when the Testimonies were revised in 1885, approximately 24 “changes” of words were made on each page. Lake concluded that these points show that Canright obviously had a mechanical view of inspiration. In the course of his presentation the speaker looked at the pertinent models of inspiration, the broader 19^th-century background, the role of the French theologian Louis Gaussen and his reception in Adventist publications, the Adventist crisis in the mid-1880s, Ellen White’s own views of inspiration in comparison to Gaussen’s view, and the origin of Canright’s conceptions.

 

Models of Inspiration

Lake gave three definitions of divine inspiration that are relevant to his study: (1) the verbal-plenary model of inspiration—while it distances itself from the mechanical view of inspiration, it nevertheless declares that it is the entire biblical text with its verbal relationships that is inspired; (2) the dictation model of inspiration—while there was some overlap with the first view of inspiration, it declares primarily that the Bible was dictated word for word by God, a view that was obviously used by Canright to critique Ellen White; and (3) the whole-person model of inspiration—this view focuses on the inspiration of the whole person rather than only the words or the thoughts of the prophet, a view that was espoused by Ellen White.

 

2012 Seminary Scholarship Symposium: "The Authoritative Hermeneutics in Irenaeus and Tertullian"

Presentation

Adriani M. Rodrigues, Ph.D. student (Theological Studies) at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, MI presented his research paper with the title: "The Authoritative Hermeneutics in Irenaeus and Tertullian". The following exposition summarizes his paper, rendering the main points of his findings.

Background 

Adriani Rodrigues pointed to the fact that between A.D. 90 and 150 the Scriptures were interpreted with an approach called "functional hermeneutics" (David Dockery), which basically means that the text was applied to the reader's own situation wihtout giving attention to the original situation and context in which and for which it was written. Heretical movements however (many of them labeled today as gnostic movements) led to a closer analysis of Scripture interpretation. Who has the right to interpret Scripture and how should it be done? Gnostics were convinced that salvation can just be achieved when one has access to a certain secret teaching, which was passed down orally from the apostles and found in a hidden form in the Bible. Consequently, "only those who knew how to read the Bible in a certain way could gain access to this knowledge" [1], and thus, to salvation. With that said, the hermeneutical approach used so far was of no help against gnostic movements. Rodrigues argued that during this time the transition from a functional to an authoritative hermeneutics took place, mainly in and by the writings of Irenaeus (c. 115-202) and Tertullian (c. 160-225). To describe their approaches was the subject of his paper.

The Authoritative Hermeneutics in Irenaeus 

Irenaeus was very much concerned with the right interpretation of Scripture and tried to develop an approach that differed from the allegorical approach that was used so far. According to Rodrigues, there have been two main concepts that marked Irenaeus' method: a) the notion of the rule of truth/faith and b) the role of tradition.

Adventists and Ecumenism: The Good and the Bad

By Dr. Nicholas Miller (Department of Church History, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University)

• This article renders the response of Dr. Nicholas Miller to Dr. M. Kinnamon's address "The Ecumenical Movement and Why You Should Be Involved" at the Seminary Scholarship Symposium, February 2, 2012 at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, in Berrien Springs, MI. 
• M. Kinnamon is the former General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. A summary of Kinnamon's address can be found here. 
• N. Miller is professor at the SDA Theological Seminary and director of the International Religious Liberty Institute. 
• Please note: Since Miller responded to Kinnamon directly, terms like "you/your" are directed at Kinnamon, not at the audience and not at the readers of this blog. 

 

Adventists and Ecumenism: The Good and the Bad

A Response to Dr. Michael Kinnamon

Thank you, Dr. Kinnamon, for your challenge to our complacent and even lazy thinking about interchurch fellowship. As Adventists, we all too often show apathy towards other Christians and their churches, and mentally justify it on vague theological grounds, such as “standing for the truth” or avoiding “compromise.”

But all too often it is simply an unwillingness to move beyond the familiar and the predictable of our comfort zones. You have challenged us to think carefully about our view of God’s church, in both its visible and invisible aspects. We need this challenge, because in many Adventist circles, “ecumenical” has become a dirty word.    

Caution is needed on this topic, but too many of us throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is, I believe, a positive ecumenism, and a problematic ecumenism. I would like to explore both the positive and the problematic in reacting to your paper.   

The Lost and Found World of Genesis 1

By Roy E. Gane (Old Testament Department, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University)

 

 Here I would like to respond to the January 30, 2011 post by my friend and colleague Nicholas Miller (Department of Church History, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University) titled: “The ‘Found’ World of Genesis 1: Is Theistic Evolution a Meaningful Option for Seventh-day Adventists?” Dr. Miller was reacting to the Friday evening and Sabbath afternoon presentations at Andrews University on January 21-22, 2011 by my friend John H. Walton of Wheaton College, author of The Lost World of Genesis One. On Friday evening, Dr. Walton presented his approach to comparative methodology: how to understand the Old Testament within its ancient Near Eastern context. On Sabbath afternoon, he applied his approach to Genesis 1, proposing that this account of the Creation week (of literal days) recounts God’s assignment of functions to components of Planet Earth and its environment to inaugurate it as a cosmic temple in which he took up residence and began his rule.   

Miller raised a number of issues that deserve clarification and further discussion. I will not attempt to provide solutions to all the problems he raised, but will try to identify some productive directions in which we can make progress regarding (1) understanding comparative methodology, (2) what is at stake regarding a comparative approach to Genesis 1, and (3) the role of Andrews University in hosting scholarly debate.

I agree with Miller on several important points, including the need to pay careful attention to methodologies and philosophies behind them, the assessment that theistic evolution is not in harmony with Seventh-day Adventist teaching, and the opinion that we at Andrews University need further thinking and discussion concerning choices and formatting of opportunities for live interaction with scholars who are impacting the wider academic community in some ways that may be challenging to us. However, my perspective differs from that of Miller in some ways, at least partly because we work in different disciplines: While he is a church historian, I am in the area of Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern studies, like Walton.

Higher-Critical Thinking and Its Effects (Part VI)

To read Roy Gane's previous suggestions regarding the relationship between Genesis and science, click here.

 

This series on what I call “Higher-Critical Thinking” has discussed a number of strategies by which people attempt to alter the meaning of Scripture so that its divine message does not impinge upon their beliefs and lifestyle. Here is another one:

Make the Bible conform to political correctness.

I have become aware of this approach when some individuals have taken offense to written or oral presentations in which I was simply presenting what the Bible unambiguously says. While they were ostensibly objecting to what I said, it was obvious that their real quarrel was with the Bible.
The first such occasion that I recall came after publication in 1996 of my adult Sabbath School lesson study guide (quarterly): Judges: Deterioration and Deliverance. A few months later, I received a letter from a woman who blasted me because I had insulted her by referring to the obesity of Eglon, the repulsive ancient king of Moab who oppressed Israel and was assassinated by Ehud, the Israelite deliverer (Judg 3). It was clear that to her, mention of obesity was “off-limits” because it placed a pejorative value judgment on a person.

Arminianism and Adventism: Zechariah 3 And The Day Of Atonement

The paper I presented for breakout session three is entitled, "Zechariah 3 and the Day of Atonement." Since it is difficult in the extreme to summarize ones own work, I'm going to simply attach the paper to this post and give you the opportunity to read it in full. Beyond that, I want to say that this paper originally grew out of a sermon (with the invaluable assistance of Dr. Roy Gane), and so my concern in writing it is primarily pastoral. I believe that Zechariah 3 is the only picture the Bible gives us of what actually takes place during our final judgment, and so my prayer for this paper is that your picture of the judgment will be one of Jesus taking your filthy garment and exchanging it for his robe of righteousness.

Download Zechariah 3 and the Day of Atonement (Hamstra)

Arminianism and Adventism: Doctrine Of Sinning In Adam

Dr. Stephen Bauer, of Southern Adventist University, presented a paper during Breakout Session 1 on the "Historical Backgrounds of the Doctrine of Sinning in Adam." He introduced the paper by saying it arises out of being baptized by fire as a young pastor by Robert Wieland and Jack Sequera theology. He will be presenting a Part II to this paper at the next ATS meeting of the historical background of the idea that justification comes before faith.

The doctrine of sinning in Adam presents an intersting challenge to Arminian soteriology. This is because the doctrine of sinning in Adam involves guilt without a choice. Bauer argues that this doctrine arose due to a faulty doctrine of man based on Platonic theology. He explored this historical development and then examined the key text that mentions sinning in Adam.

Higher-Critical Thinking And Its Effects (Part IV)

Thus far we have found that strategies for attempting to change Scripture in order to avoid allowing its system of divine principles to guide belief and lifestyle (against 2 Tim 3:16-17) include the following: cutting out what you don’t like, supplementing Scripture, treating it as obsolete, (Part I) and treating at least some of it as merely human through historical criticism (Part II, Part III). Dr. Younker (see quotation) provides an example of another approach that has gotten quite a bit of attention lately:

Adjust its interpretation to make it harmonize with science.

This is vastly broader than the Genesis creation issue. For example, another locus of such harmonization would be the tendency of some behavioral scientists (or those influenced by them), who regard homosexual orientation as innate and unalterable, to try to explain away biblical passages that condemn homosexual practice (e.g., Lev 18, 20; Rom 1). In postmodern society that seeks to nurture and enforce social justice according to norms of relativized morality, this has also become an issue of “political correctness.” Since a future post will concern political correctness, I will focus the present piece on the problem of Creation.

Randal Younker On Reading Genesis

Randall Younker describes one approach to interpretation of the Creation account in Genesis:

Generally, this school of thought has denied that the author of Genesis intended the narratives to be understood literally or historically. Rather, these narratives were intended to be read in a non-literal way. Some argue that the text is mythological; some say it is poetic-a literary artwork not meant to be understood literally; some say it is theological; some say it is symbolic. Some have proposed interpretations that the days of Genesis were not 24-hour days, and that the Flood was local instead of global-or not real at all. A number of Adventist scholars have been attracted to the interpretations of this school. ("A Literal Reading of Genesis," Perspective Digest 15/3 [2010]: 34).

__________

Click here, to read Roy Gane's assessment of attempts to harmonize Genesis with science.