Disappointing discourse
A review of Genesis: A Commentary by Bruce K. Waltke,
Zondervan, 2001
by Andrew S. Kulikovsky
Bruce Waltke, professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando,
Florida, is among the first rank of Hebrew scholars and has coauthored a standard
academic Hebrew grammar. This commentary, however, is written more for the layman
and busy pastor rather than for just other academics.
The introductory chapter looks at Genesis’ overall structure, the author and
the possible sources he used, and then launches into an analysis of the book’s
overall literary genre and a helpful survey of literary techniques that are regularly
employed throughout Genesis. The chapter then concludes with a summary of the major
theological motifs found in the book.
Each logical unit of the biblical text is treated in turn in a separate section,
and each section begins with a summary of the unit’s theme, an outline and
a literary analysis. This is followed by exegetical notes, in which the keywords
and phrases in each verse are briefly discussed and explained. There is little discussion
of any textual, grammatical or lexical issues relating the Hebrew text, although
there are many footnotes containing references to other sources where one can find
such information. This is understandable given the target audience, but one would
expect a lot more discussion and interaction with differing viewpoints regarding
each particular keyword or phrase. The reader is sure to only get one side of the
story when reading this commentary—Waltke’s side! Each section is then
concluded with some theological reflections on the unit.
Since this commentary covers the entire book of Genesis and is quite lengthy, I
will limit my specific comments to the sections on creation and the Flood.
Waltke’s overall approach to the creation account and the interpretation he
adopts in this commentary is not much different from what he has previously written
on this subject.1 Indeed, he directly references this previous work in
the footnotes.
Waltke takes
Genesis 1:1 as a title to the account: heaven is viewed as a merism denoting
the completed and organized universe, and the ‘beginning’ refers to
all six creation days.
Verse 2 is said to describe the ‘pre-creation state’ and thus,
we are not told (at least in this passage) who or what created the earth and the
deep. The darkness and the deep are seen as ‘surd evil’.
Regarding the possibility of verse 1 referring to the very first act of creation
(i.e. the creation of the raw materials which are subsequently transformed), Waltke
asserts that such a view is grammatically improbable although he fails to elaborate.
On the contrary, the presence of the waw-disjunctive at the beginning of verse 2
suggests a definite grammatical link between the two verses: verse 1 describes the
initial act of creation, while verse 2 consists of three circumstantial clauses.
A similar grammatical arrangement can be found in
Jonah 3:3. Indeed, this is also the view presented in Gesenius’ Hebrew
Grammar.2 However, the most disappointing thing is that
Waltke’s view was thoroughly rebutted by Mark F. Rooker several years ago
in the same journal in which Waltke first published his work,3 yet Waltke
does not even cite Rooker’s papers (nor are they listed in the bibliography),
let alone interact with them.
Waltke adopts a type of literary framework view, that is, a ‘dischronologized’
literary account rather than a strictly historical account. The narrator’s
concern is theological rather than historical. Waltke claims
Genesis 1 is not a record of human history since no humans were present.
It is unlike any other account, and bears little resemblance to modern conceptions
of history, thus it cannot be seen as ‘straightforward or positivistic history’
(pp. 75–76). But why should we limit sources of historical and factual information
to the records of human eyewitnesses? Is not God’s own divine and inerrant
revelation of history completely factual? Was God not an eyewitness to His own creation?
To suggest that Genesis 1 is not a strictly historical account because no humans
were around is ludicrous. Furthermore, Genesis 1 is grammatically and formally no
different from the other historical accounts recorded in Genesis, so Waltke’s
judgment on the genre of Genesis 1 is completely arbitrary.
It should also be noted that history and theology are not mutually exclusive. In
fact, God’s actions in history are central to Christianity, and all of Christian
theology is rooted in history! This is the one thing that sets Christianity apart
from all other world religions and validates its truthfulness. In adopting such
a view, Waltke has taken a subtle but significant step away from historic Christian
doctrine and evangelical hermeneutical principles.
All that is needed for evening and morning in the first few days is a light source
(not necessarily the sun) and rotational motion of the earth.
|
Regarding the process and progress of creation, Waltke writes: ‘all of the
acts of Creation follow a chronological framework. God does not create in time,
but with time’ (p. 57). However, not only does such a statement border on
the absurd and meaningless, it is so obviously not true! Time is a creation of God:
it has a beginning and He is not subject to it. On the other hand, God’s creatures,
humans and animals, and the rest of the physical universe, experience the passage
of time, so God does indeed create in time.
In support of ‘dischronologization’, Waltke offers the occurrence of
evenings and mornings before the creation of the luminaries to divide them, as evidence.
However, if he had only read
Genesis 1:4 more carefully, this supposed chronological problem disappears:
God Himself separated the light from the darkness.
In light of other clearly anthropomorphic language found in Genesis 1, Waltke
asserts that the days of creation are also anthropomorphic—they are merely
human expressions describing things which are beyond human comprehension. But E.J.
Young pointed out years ago that anthropomorphisms are only used to describe God’s
actions or senses, and always take the form of a body part or body movement. They
never take the form of anything like a weekday.4
In his excursus on the literary genre of Genesis 1, Waltke reiterates: ‘the
narrator … has a theological agenda: to tell us that God created the earth
and that it is all very orderly’ (p. 77). But if this minimalist view is really
the case, why then did the narrator choose such a verbose, jumbled up, and disorderly
format, which appears to almost everyone, past and present, to be a chronological
historical narrative? As Waltke himself demonstrates, the narrator could have expressed
everything he wanted to say in a couple of simple and brief sentences! Realizing
this problem and the lack of a historical basis for creation, Waltke goes on to
say that the account is ‘not theology as we usually understand it’ (p.
78), but a mix between theology and history.
Despite his insistence that creation is historical even though the account is not
strictly historical, Waltke’s view of the literary genre of Genesis 1–2
approaches ‘myth’ and this is reflected in his tendency to spiritualize
many of the details.
In regard to the Flood, Waltke acknowledges that the narrator, even allowing for
hyperbole, has in mind a global deluge. He himself leans toward a global flood and
is skeptical, if non-committal, about the claims of uniformitarian geology.
In summary, I found this volume a major disappointment—a shallow and poor
treatment of the text. Unfortunately, Waltke’s mastery of Hebrew grammar apparently
does not extend to hermeneutics and theology. Add to this the exorbitant price tag
($US27.99, $A85.00), and you are better off saving your money. A better purchase
for the layman or busy pastor would be John J. Davis’s Paradise to Prison—a
far superior work all round.5
Related articles
References
- Waltke, B.K., The Creation account in Genesis 1:1–3, Part I, Bibliotheca
Sacra 132:25–36, 1975; The Creation account in Genesis
1:1–3, Part II, Bibliotheca Sacra 132:136–144,
1975; The Creation account in Genesis 1:1–3, Part III, Bibliotheca Sacra
132:216–228, 1975; The Creation account in Genesis 1:1–3
Part IV, Bibliotheca Sacra 132:327–342, 1975; The
Creation Account in Genesis 1:1–3 Part V, Bibliotheca Sacra 132:28–41,
October 1975; The first seven days, Christianity Today 32:42–46,
1988.
- Kautzsch E. (Ed.), Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2nd English Edition,
translated by A.E. Cowley, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 454, 455, 1910.
- Rooker, M.F., Genesis 1:1–3: Creation or re-creation? Part I, Bibliotheca
Sacra 149:316–323, 1992; Genesis 1:1–3: Creation
or re-creation? Part II, Bibliotheca Sacra 149:411–427,
1992.
- Young, E.J., Studies in Genesis One, Baker, Grand Rapids, p. 58, 1964.
- Davis, J.J., Paradise to Prison, Sheffield Publishing Company, Salem, 1998.
| Long before this site existed, many millions searched on the word “creation”. When they do that now they will get to know this site exists and read the evidence that God is Creator. Help reach millions.  | | |
|
