Enns Making Waves

[Scrawly]

Pete Enns is running a bible trivia series over at his blog. This is the 11th installment. I'm looking for some feedback on this particular post. I'm looking for comments from those who disagree, but all comments are welcomed, of course. I just ask that you keep comments relevant to the content of the article.

[Scrawly]

I notice also that the NRSV translates Gen. 1:1-2: In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Can someone please inform me as to why the NRSV adds "when" while other translations omit it? Which is more accurate and why?

[Scrawly]

Alright this is my initial response:

"Let me nitpick and see what you think Pete:
1) Using a non-NRSV translation we can omit "when" from Genesis 1:1: "In the the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..".
2) Therefore, the earth WAS created ex-nihilo in a formless and void state -- the watery chaos was also part of this initial primitive creation
3) Therefore, no contradiction with 2Peter 3:5 which states the conditions immediately after God created the heavens and the earth -- "in the beginning"

Does this make sense?

[robrecht]

The NRSV translates (correctly in my opinion) Gen1,1 as a temporal clause. The debate about how to translate Gen 1,1-3 goes back to before the time of Jesus. Enns is just joking around about this being a modern invention of godless liberal heretics.

[Adrift]

Could Enns lay it on any thicker? The whole post makes him sound bitter and whiny. I see little need to read Genesis 1:1-2 as though the Earth is representative of the universe. His translation of Genesis 1:1 is not normative as far as I can tell. He writes,

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2)

Most seem to translate that passage as,

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2. Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.

Verse 1, "heavens and the earth" is a merism for all that was created. The totality of the universe. Verse 2 switches its focus to just the Earth itself. If Earth is a globe in space, and it's covered with water, and the waters are then separated to create oceans and an atmosphere, I see little reason to read other creation myths into something that's Earth-centric. I don't doubt that the author of Job is referencing a popular neighboring myth in the passage he cited, but I don't really see what that has to do with what the author of Genesis had in mind for Gen 1:1-2 or 6-7. And the commentaries that I check (even those that suggest that the water mentioned in 2 Peter is some sort of cosmic waters) come to the opposite conclusion that Enns does. That "creation is not eternal" (Lewis R. Donelson, I & II Peter and Jude: A Commentary), and that "God created the world out of nothing" (John Sailhamer, Biblical Prophecy). Copan and Craig go into this passage in their work Creation Out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration.

Source: Creation Out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, Baker Academic, 2004, pg.66

The reference made in 2 Peter 3:5 to God's creating "from water" must take into account that the waters themselves were brought into existence by God. Hence, we should not read into such a passage some eternally existent "deep" based on Genesis 1:2, since God created the "deep" (Ps. 104:6; Prov. 8:24, 27-28). Neither should we see the "darkness" of Genesis 1:2 as eternal and uncreated, since God creates both darkness and light (Isa. 45:7).

© Copyright Original Source

They continue,

Source: Creation Out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, Baker Academic, 2004, pp.87-90

Is 2 Peter 3:5 a Problem Passage for Creatio ex Nihilo?

Long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. (NIV)

There were heavens and earth long ago, created by God's word out of water and with water. (REB)

We would be remiss in not mentioning this passage because it bears on the question of creation out of nothing. J.N.D. Kelly claims that 2 Peter is following the cosmology of the Genesis narrative (1:2), where water is allegedly the "sole existent" and the "elemental stuff out of which the universe was formed."⁹⁸ Is this so?

The commentator Charles Bigg notes, "There appears to be no trace of a Jewish belief that water was the prime element of which earth was made."⁹⁹ Rather than this being creatio ex aquis, 2 Peter is speaking more loosely when he uses the phrases "from [ek] water" and "by [dia] water."¹⁰⁰ Indeed, as Thomas Schreiner suggests, the syntax is complicated and unclear;¹⁰¹¹⁰² In light of Peter's thorough familiarity with Genesis 1, his use of "heavens and earth" in this portion of Scripture (cf. also v. 7: "the present heavens and earth" [NIV]) follows the Genesis 1:1 use of this merism for totality. Thus, the NIV's rendering is unlikely since it breaks up this unity. The more natural reading would unite "the heavens" and "earth."

Unlike Thales's philosophical quest for "primal stuff," Peter is thinking of the creation story in Genesis 1. God organizes the waters he himself has brought into being, separating the waters above and below (1:6-8), and makes the dry land by gathering the water together (1:9): "On the basis of the Genesis account, then, Peter's assertion that God created the heavens and the earth 'out of water' does not seem far-fetched."¹⁰³

C.F.D. Moule observes that the earth was created "from water and through water." That is, Peter may be referring to "continuous land arising out of and extending through water."¹⁰⁴ The preposition through (dia) with the genitive case, when used literally or spatially, could denote the idea of "extension through" (e.g., Mark 9:30: "journeying through Galilee").¹⁰⁵ And the phrase "by water" then could simply be an expansion of the first phrase "out of water." As we see in Genesis 1, "God used water as an =instrument in his creation of the sky."¹⁰⁶

This would imply a two-step creation process (already noted in the previous chapter) involving God's creating the universe and its elements. This is supported by the fact that the verb "formed [synestosa]" is used rather than the verb ktizein (create).¹⁰⁷ In Proverbs 8:24, we read that "the deep" did not always exist. God creates the waters and then uses them in the process of creation. Thus, water is the material from which the sky is created and instrument (dia) to create the sky.¹⁰⁸ Thomas Schreiner proposes that when Peter says that the world was formed ex hydatos ("out of water"), he probably has in mind the emergence of the earth and sky from these waters.¹⁰⁹ The phrase through [dia] water refers, Schreiner claims, to God's using water as an instrument in forming the world.

What is Peter's point? He clearly wants to make a parallel by bridging two uses of water in the Pentateuch to point out that things have changed¹¹⁰

Therefore, we must be careful of pressing the preposition ex/ex ("out of") too far. After all, the Scriptures reinforce that God is indeed the ultimate source of all things, and the preposition ek is often used in the NT to convey this (e.g., Rom. 11:36: "from [ek] him . . . are all things" [NIV]). M. Barth and Blanke state that whereas the Stoic Seneca might use "from [ek/ex] to refer to the material out of which something is produced, biblical writers such as Paul use it to designate the Creator.¹¹¹ M. Barth and Blanke point out that the preposition used in 2 Peter 3:5 and in Paul's writings overlap in depicting God's creative activity; so we must be cautious about "dogmatic differentiations" as well as drawing Hellenistic connections that simply are not there.¹¹²

Given the loose and even "confusing"¹¹³¹¹⁴

In addition, we must allow for Peter's rhetorical purposes: "One of the main reasons he introduces the idea of the world as being created 'by water' is to prepare for the parallel he will make in verse 6, where God destroys the world 'by water.'"¹¹⁵ In verse 5, God creates the world (in the second of two stages, as we have seen) by his word; then in verse 7, God judges it "by the same word."¹¹⁶ Thus we have a fitting parallel.¹¹⁷ Thomas Schreiner notes this as well: "Perhaps Peter stresses water for rhetorical purposes since it is the agent of judgment in the next verse."

Jerome Neyrey reminds us of the important point of Peter's writing: to address conflict over "theodicy and theology."¹¹⁸ That is, the issue with which 2 Peter deals "depends less on cosmological theory than the immediate crisis surrounding the various words of God in the document."¹¹⁹ Peter writes that "by means of God's word" (cf. Ps. 33:6, 9), God divided the primal waters, producing the skies above and the waters beneath. God not only brought the waters into existence; he also separated them into clouds and bodies of water on earth while bringing to completion the creation he had begun.

Pheme Perkins declares, "God's word was powerful enough to create all things and to bring earth out of destructive waters a second time after the flood."¹²⁰ So the alleged support this passage gives to God's creating out of eternally preexistent watery chaos is beside the point.¹²¹

Conclusionex materia since Genesis 1 suggest God's creation of everything (including the waters) and then later dividing them at the end of a two-stage process. Indeed, the cumulative weight of evidence from the OT and NT leads to a strong case for creation ex nihilo.


98. J.N.D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1969), 358-59.
99. Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, ICC (New York: Scribners, 1903), 293. Bigg also claims that the ex (out of) seems to express "the material out of which the earth was made," but it is not clear whether Bigg intends this to be understood as creation out of nothing (in two stages) or not.
100. Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, WBC 50 (Waco: Word, 1983), 297.
101. Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, NAC 37 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 374.
102. Ibid.
103. Douglas J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1997), 170.
104. Moule, An Idiom Book, 55.
105. The prepositional phrase here is dia tes Galilaias (the same prepositional usage as in Matt. 12:43; John 4.4; Rom. 15:28; Heb. 11:29).
106. Moule, An Idiom Book, 55.
107. Edwin A. Blum, "2 Peter," in Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 285.
108. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, 170.
109. Schreiner, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 376.
110. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 302. In his commentary, Bauckham appears to accept the idea of ANE mythological influences on biblical writers. We have responded to this idea in the early part of chapter 1.
111. Barth and Blanke, Colossians, 197, 205.
112. Ibid., 199
113. Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, AB 37C (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 234.
114 Ibid.: "Genesis 1 describes how the dry land was separated 'out of' the waters above and below."
115. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, 170
116. Ibid., 171.
117. Bo Ivar Reicke suggests ex nihilo creation in his comments on 2 Peter 3:5: God by his "all-powerful word" brings about "the first days" of the "original creation" (The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, AB 37 [Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday, 1964], 175).
118. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude 233.
119. Ibid., 234.
120. Pheme Perkins, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude, Interpretations (Louisville: John Knox, 1995), 189.
121. Contra J.N.D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1969), 358-59.

© Copyright Original Source

On a personal note, Scrawly, does reading Enns edify you? Does reading him strengthen your faith? We should obviously follow the truth wherever it leads, but over the years it seems to me that you intentionally follow Enns skepticism to put stress on your faith without looking for other solutions to the problems he often invokes.

[Scrawly]

On a personal note, Scrawly, does reading Enns edify you?

At times, yes.

Does reading him strengthen your faith?

At times, yes.

We should obviously follow the truth wherever it leads, but over the years it seems to me that you intentionally follow Enns skepticism to put stress on your faith without looking for other solutions to the problems he often invokes.

Why do you think I post here looking for feedback on his blog posts? I personally find that reading those we disagree with and who challenge us to think is a healthy exercise and creates a well-rounded faith.

[robrecht]

At times, yes.

At times, yes.

Why do you think I post here looking for feedback on his blog posts? I personally find that reading those we disagree with and who challenge us to think is a healthy exercise and creates a well-rounded faith.

That's most admirable in my opinion, but why exactly do you disagree with the NRSV translation and/or with this essay of Enns?

[Adrift]

Why do you think I post here looking for feedback on his blog posts?

It's been my experience that you're usually unlikely to get a robust critique of Enns on this forum. Either people here are not familiar with his work, his skeptical views, or don't have the time/desire to jump onto another blog, read it, and then formulate arguments against it all here on this forum. You've started a number of thread about things Enns has stated on his blogs. Have you been satisfied with the level of response to those threads?

I personally find that reading those we disagree with and who challenge us to think is a healthy exercise and creates a well-rounded faith.

As do I, however, feeding yourself a constant diet of critical, or skeptical material isn't healthy for anyone, especially if you're not balancing that with edifying material. I don't know what your reading habits are like, so perhaps I'm completely off, but you often seem to latch onto skeptical ideas, bring them to this forum, and then want others to debate them. I can't think of too many times where you yourself have engaged with skeptical views. Also, and perhaps I'm misremembering, but it seems to me that there was a time when you made it known that you were struggling with your faith as is. Am I misremembering, or have I totally misconstrued your intentions here? If so, I apologize, but whenever I see you open up another thread like this, red flags go up for me.

[Scrawly]

It's been my experience that you're usually unlikely to get a robust critique of Enns on this forum.

It doesn't hurt to try!

Either people here are not familiar with his work, his skeptical views, or don't have the time/desire to jump onto another blog, read it, and then formulate arguments against it all here on this forum. You've started a number of thread about things Enns has stated on his blogs. Have you been satisfied with the level of response to those threads?

Kinda. This time around the responses have been helpful.

As do I, however, feeding yourself a constant diet of critical, or skeptical material isn't healthy for anyone, especially if you're not balancing that with edifying material.

I am balancing for the most part. I try and get both sides to every story and I find that Dr. Enn's represents his side quite well, so I go to him as a source for that perspective.

I don't know what your reading habits are like, so perhaps I'm completely off, but you often seem to latch onto skeptical ideas, bring them to this forum, and then want others to debate them.

Yes, forums are a great place to discuss matters. Isn't that basically the purpose of forums? Discover, explore, debate, etc?

I can't think of too many times where you yourself have engaged with skeptical views.

I engage Enns quite a bit on his blog. If you read my comments, I generally take a posture of disagreement with his views but enjoy his work and writing regardless.

Also, and perhaps I'm misremembering, but it seems to me that there was a time when you made it known that you were struggling with your faith as is.

I'd say I'm open and honest about my faith. A faith seeking understanding, if you will. A faith that doesn't sweep things under the rug while harboring unbelief deep within. A genuine faith the size of a mustard seed, I should hope.

Am I misremembering, or have I totally misconstrued your intentions here? If so, I apologize, but whenever I see you open up another thread like this, red flags go up for me.

Try not to hit the panic button and remember the nature of online forums and the purposes they serve.

[Scrawly]

That's most admirable in my opinion, but why exactly do you disagree with the NRSV translation and/or with this essay of Enns?

I never said I disagree with the NRSV translation. I stated that Enns' position may not hold water if the other translations are accurate, because then a more natural reading would be that God created the chaotic waters (and everything else) to form the earth which would undercut Enns' position of "creation from something" as opposed to "creation from nothing". 2Peter 3:5 can then be read in that light.

[robrecht]

I never said I disagree with the NRSV translation. I stated that Enns' position may not hold water if the others translations are accurate, because then a more natural reading would be that God created the chaotic waters (and everything else) to form the earth which would undercut Enns' position of "creation from something" as opposed to "creation from nothing". 2Peter 3:5 can then be read in that light.

OK, all the better. I misunderstood your post #3 (about the NRSV) and your other explanation about reading Enns in terms of "reading those we disagree with" (#6). Later on you said you "generally take a posture of disagreement with his views" (#9). So I take it that you are undecided and open-minded about the NRSV (and similar) translations of Gen 1,1-3?

Why is it, if you don't mind my asking, that you generally take a posture of disagreement with his views?

Someone here (possibly you) once asked or perhaps even assumed that I was a big fan of Enns because it was suggested that our views were so similar. If that's true (I really don't know, having only read one or two of his blog posts, including this one), would you also say that you generally take a posture of disagreement with respect to my views as well?

[Adrift]

Yes, forums are a great place to discuss matters. Isn't that basically the purpose of forums? Discover, explore, debate, etc?

Some of them. Some of them are just for goofing off. I have to say, though, I'm not certain how...productive (?) it is to simply post skeptical arguments, and then expect people to debate them for you (not that I think that's exactly what you're doing). I mean, it's one thing if someone is genuinely struggling with an issue that they need help with. And it's also great if people just want to post these things for something to discuss. Those are important things. Those are the types of things that I agree that this forum is for. But, I guess where I'm coming from is...well, for example, there used to be a poster here who used to get into internet arguments with people on a bunch of other websites. He would come to Theologyweb, and he would post threads expecting people to essentially counter argue the arguments he was getting into, and then copy and paste replies he received here to the people he was arguing with. I suppose that's fine if you're doing it once in awhile, but it became sort of routine for this guy. At some point you have to ask...what is this guy getting out of starting arguments with people online, and then coming here to have people do his arguing for him? What's the endgame? Now, I'm not saying that that is what you're doing, but I guess I'm still left wondering...what's the endgame? Hmm maybe I just don't know how to put into words how I see this. Or maybe there's a greater piece that I'm missing.

I engage Enns quite a bit on his blog. If you read my comments, I generally take a posture of disagreement with his views but enjoy his work and writing regardless.

Ok, well that's fair. My main concern was that you were going to Enns websites, finding yourself frustrated and confused, and then coming here to sort things out. I wouldn't find doing that on a routine basis to be very healthy. But if that doesn't describe your circumstance, then disregard.

I'd say I'm open and honest about my faith. A faith seeking understanding, if you will. A faith that doesn't sweep things under the rug while harboring unbelief deep within. A genuine faith the size of a mustard seed, I should hope.

Terrific. I hope that's a sort of faith we all aspire to.

Try not to hit the panic button and remember the nature of online forums and the purposes they serve.

Scrawly, I've been on forums for far too long to ignore those red flags anymore. Often I find that getting to the source of a question, figuring out why people are asking the sort of questions they are asking, accomplishes a lot more than simply slapping an answer together to answer the surface issue. I wouldn't ask the personal stuff if I didn't care. I do. I want to make sure you're okay.

[Scrawly]

Some of them. Some of them are just for goofing off. I have to say, though, I'm not certain how...productive (?) it is to simply post skeptical arguments, and then expect people to debate them for you (not that I think that's exactly what you're doing). I mean, it's one thing if someone is genuinely struggling with an issue that they need help with. And it's also great if people just want to post these things for something to discuss. Those are important things. Those are the types of things that I agree that this forum is for. But, I guess where I'm coming from is...well, for example, there used to be a poster here who used to get into internet arguments with people on a bunch of other websites. He would come to Theologyweb, and he would post threads expecting people to essentially counter argue the arguments he was getting into, and then copy and paste replies he received here to the people he was arguing with. I suppose that's fine if you're doing it once in awhile, but it became sort of routine for this guy. At some point you have to ask...what is this guy getting out of starting arguments with people online, and then coming here to have people do his arguing for him? What's the endgame? Now, I'm not saying that that is what you're doing, but I guess I'm still left wondering...what's the endgame? Hmm maybe I just don't know how to put into words how I see this. Or maybe there's a greater piece that I'm missing.



Ok, well that's fair. My main concern was that you were going to Enns websites, finding yourself frustrated and confused, and then coming here to sort things out. I wouldn't find doing that on a routine basis to be very healthy. But if that doesn't describe your circumstance, then disregard.



Terrific. I hope that's a sort of faith we all aspire to.



Scrawly, I've been on forums for far too long to ignore those red flags anymore. Often I find that getting to the source of a question, figuring out why people are asking the sort of questions they are asking, accomplishes a lot more than simply slapping an answer together to answer the surface issue. I wouldn't ask the personal stuff if I didn't care. I do. I want to make sure you're okay.

Thanks for your concern but I must say I am doing quite well overall. Although there is certainly always room for improvement in every way!

[Scrawly]

OK, all the better. I misunderstood your post #3 (about the NRSV) and your other explanation about reading Enns in terms of "reading those we disagree with" (#6). Later on you said you "generally take a posture of disagreement with his views" (#9). So I take it that you are undecided and open-minded about the NRSV (and similar) translations of Gen 1,1-3?

Why is it, if you don't mind my asking, that you generally take a posture of disagreement with his views?

Someone here (possibly you) once asked or perhaps even assumed that I was a big fan of Enns because it was suggested that our views were so similar. If that's true (I really don't know, having only read one or two of his blog posts, including this one), would you also say that you generally take a posture of disagreement with respect to my views as well?

Well, both of you utilize the historical-critical method. The implications of this approach can lead to different conclusions, but overall I would wager a guess that your views and conclusions are quite similar overall.

[robrecht]

Well, both of you utilize the historical-critical method. The implications of this approach can lead to different conclusions, but overall I would wager a guess that your views and conclusions are quite similar overall.

Why is it, if you don't mind my asking, that you generally take a posture of disagreement with his views?