What do you think?
Rate this book
In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis
"Curiosity about our beginning continues to haunt the human race. It will not call off the Quest for its origins." The opening chapters of Genesis -- important at any time -- have been the focal point of controversy for more than a century. Few topics have been so hotly debated by theologians, philosophers and scientists alike. Henri Blocher argues that our primary task is to discover what these key chapters of the Bible originally meant. Only then will we be able to unravel the knotty issues surrounding human origins. Taking into account a vast array of scholarship, Blocher provides a detailed study of creation week, the image of God, the significance of male and female, the garden covenant, the Fall, the curse and the promise of redemption. He also offers significanct theological insights into the creation-evolution debate.
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1979
7 people are currently reading
164 people want to read
About the author
Henri Blocher
26 books12 followersHenri A. G. Blocher is a French Baptist evangelical theologian.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
April 18, 2023
A great overview of the opening chapters of Genesis which gives helpful insights into how we should interpret this tricky and much-debated text. Blocher covers an impressive amount of ground in this relatively concise book. I found chapter 7 “The breaking of the covenant” particularly helpful. The final chapter I’m sure was very helpful also but I am just not smart enough to understand what he is talking about. Lol.
September 21, 2008
I decided to read this book after reading and enjoying Blocher's work on the problem of evil, Evil and the Cross. This one was even better. Blocher walks through the creation account, the fall, the flood, and the tower of Babel, delivering a thoughtful analysis throughout. I found his approach to science and textual interpretation especially insightful. He effectively argues (from the text itself) that much of the creation account is meant to be understood in a literary, not scientific sense, while at the same time maintaining the historicity of the Fall and arguing that it cannot be labeled "myth". His appendix on "Scientific Hypothoses and the Beginning of Genesis" is also helpful, though a bit dense. He makes an interesting case for an implied covenant relationship between God and pre-fall humanity, but states that it is a covenant of grace and not works (as some traditions have, without textual support, labeled it). Overall I greatly enjoyed Blocher's theological approach to Genesis, and though I didn't perfectly agree with or understand everything he said, I found it helpful, uplifting, and thought-provoking. I highly recommend this book.
September 13, 2020
While I don't agree with all his positions, I agree with his method and precision.
July 7, 2024
“In the Beginning” is a relatively unknown book, and that is a shame because it is a helpful companion to studying Genesis 1-3. I don’t agree with all of Blocher’s methods or conclusions, but you don’t have to in order to appreciate this work.
I found his interpretive approach (neither getting tangled in the weeds of science nor adopting an overly literal hermeneutic that stumbles over itself) almost as refreshing as his humble posture. There were times where I thought, “Yes! This is the kind of charitable and gracious scholarship Christians should practice!”
His writing style read like a mix of simple observations on the text, in-depth research, and theological implications. Balancing all three of these made it a very enjoyable read! However, at times, Blocher’s writing style was dense and made for slow reading. Overall I would recommend this book to pastors, students, and studious lay Christians who want to study Genesis 1-3.
I found his interpretive approach (neither getting tangled in the weeds of science nor adopting an overly literal hermeneutic that stumbles over itself) almost as refreshing as his humble posture. There were times where I thought, “Yes! This is the kind of charitable and gracious scholarship Christians should practice!”
His writing style read like a mix of simple observations on the text, in-depth research, and theological implications. Balancing all three of these made it a very enjoyable read! However, at times, Blocher’s writing style was dense and made for slow reading. Overall I would recommend this book to pastors, students, and studious lay Christians who want to study Genesis 1-3.
November 9, 2009
I was very curious to find out a Frenchman's views on the first chapters of Genesis (especially with the implications from science). Its attitude is somewhat conservative, he rejects the idea that Genesis could be a myth and proclaims the historicity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis which he views as a whole. He is supporting the literal-artistic reading of the first chapters (aka the framework theory) but stays close to the historicity of Adam and Eve. He also rejects the position of Kidner that Eve could not have been the single mother of all living. It has many footnots and the text is written with two type of font sizes, the small one indicating detailes disscusion on the topic. He is though opened towards the theory of evolution.
December 8, 2020
This is, at this point, an older book. It has a special place in my heart, as the first book I read that, taking a "conservative" and careful approach to Biblical scholarship and working from the Bible itself, came to very different conclusions than Ken Ham and those like him.
February 10, 2024
Blocher is a master. Never disappoints.
February 20, 2025
A FRENCH THEOLOGIAN PROVIDES A ‘LITERARY INTERPRETATION’ OF GENESIS
French theologian Henri Blocher wrote in the first chapter of this 1979 book, “Curiosity about our beginnings continues to haunt the human race. It will not call off the quest for its origins… The human race quite rightly feels that it cannot find its bearings for life today without having light shed on its origins. Over a long period the biblical book of Genesis, and notably its opening chapters, provided successive generations with ‘THE’ undisputed reply. Augustine never tired of commenting on it… A vast number of believing Christians still turn to it as THE text. The position, however, has changed. It is now challenged by other visions of mankind’s earliest days, and varying interpretations of the very text of Genesis abound… We must consider how we are to approach Genesis.” (Pg. 15-16)
He explains, “Our preliminary description can therefore be confined to the two tablets of creation. Why ‘tablets’? We use the word to recall the writing techniques used at the time of Genesis…Why ‘two’? At the very first glance one can recognize two quite distinct groupings; 1:1-2:3(4), and 2:4-3:24.” (Pg. 27) He continues, “The first table resembles a panoramic prologue, the inspiration for the prologue of John’s Gospel…. The inversion from ‘the heavens and the earth'; to ‘the earth and the heavens’ in 2:4 symbolizes the changes in perspective from one table to the other.” (Pg. 31)
He asks, “Is it prose or poetry? The choice is a gross oversimplification. Even [E.J.] Young who wishes to see in Genesis 1 only ‘straightforward history,’ recognizes without any sense of inconsistency that the chapter is ‘written in exalted, semi-poetical language.’ … we do not find here the rhythms of Hebrew poetry, nor its more or less synonymous parallelism. The reader of the original, however, is sensitive to the rhythm of the sentences, he notices a number of alliterations and one phrase which is confined to poetry, ‘beast of the field.’” (Pg. 32)
He continues, “At this point the question presses on us: what are we to understand literally?... One point ought to be established. The alternative of all or nothing rests on purely arbitrarily grounds. The use of figurative language by no means determines the main question, that of the connection of the narrative with events that are located and dated from the beginning. The acknowledgement of symbolic elements hardly weighs at all in favor of a symbolic interpretation of the whole. Conversely, those who favor the literal historicity of the content have no reason to demand the same literalness of the language. Scripture… frequently recounts the passage of history in the categories of parable and allegory, and expressed the facts it recalls in images in symbols.” (Pg. 37)
He states, “The rejection of all the theories accepted by the scientists requires considerably bravado. It may be said that the work of neo-catastrophist writers shows courage, not ignorance. Nevertheless, current opinions, built on the studies of thousands of research scientists who keep a very close eye on one another, continue to look very probable. Anyone rejecting them is taking an immense step. One must be absolutely sure of one’s ground, especially since the neo-catastrophist hypothesis raises formidable objections. One must be sure that the text DEMANDS the literal interpretation. It must not be adopted out of loyalty to the past, out of sheer habit, or from a reflex hardening before the possible threat of apostasy. Might that in fact be the case? (Pg. 48)
He argues, “The literary interpretation takes the form of the week attributed to the work of creation to be an artistic arrangement, a modest example of anthropomorphism that is not to be taken literally. The author’s intention is not to provide us with a chronology of origins… he wishes to bring out certain themes and provide a theology of the sabbath. The text is composed as the author meditates on the finished work, so that we may understand how the creation is related to God and what is its significance for mankind. This hypothesis overcomes a number of problems that plagued the commentators. It recognizes ordinary days but take them in the context of one large figurative whole. The differences in the order between the two ‘tablets’ no longer cause difficulties, neither does the delay in the creation of the stars… We must not espouse the theory on the grounds of its convenience but only if the text leads us in that direction. To put it plainly, both the genre and the style of the Genesis 1 prologue, as our introductory chapter saw them, provide strong grounds for presuming in favor of the literary interpretation” (Pg. 50)
He summarizes, “The writer has given us a masterly elaboration of a fitting, restrained anthropomorphic vision, in order to convey a whole complex of deeply mediated ideas. Of that we have no doubt; through whether it is the content or the form that calls forth the greater admiration, we cannot tell.” (Pg. 59)
He states in the Appendix, “The interpretation of the Bible must not be overshadowed by the hypotheses current among scientists today. Moses knew nothing about them, and we must put them out of our minds if we are going to understand this meaning properly without any interference in the meaning of the divine Word. But after that it would be irresponsible to extend this methodological neglect. The universal reign of the one true God forbids such schizophrenic compartmentalization. The believer can avoid neither cautious critical examination of the theories nor the task of linking his conclusions to the teaching of divine revelation. Everybody, obviously, must do this within the limits of his own calling.” (Pg. 213)
This book will be of keen interest to Christians considering different approaches to the Book of Genesis.
French theologian Henri Blocher wrote in the first chapter of this 1979 book, “Curiosity about our beginnings continues to haunt the human race. It will not call off the quest for its origins… The human race quite rightly feels that it cannot find its bearings for life today without having light shed on its origins. Over a long period the biblical book of Genesis, and notably its opening chapters, provided successive generations with ‘THE’ undisputed reply. Augustine never tired of commenting on it… A vast number of believing Christians still turn to it as THE text. The position, however, has changed. It is now challenged by other visions of mankind’s earliest days, and varying interpretations of the very text of Genesis abound… We must consider how we are to approach Genesis.” (Pg. 15-16)
He explains, “Our preliminary description can therefore be confined to the two tablets of creation. Why ‘tablets’? We use the word to recall the writing techniques used at the time of Genesis…Why ‘two’? At the very first glance one can recognize two quite distinct groupings; 1:1-2:3(4), and 2:4-3:24.” (Pg. 27) He continues, “The first table resembles a panoramic prologue, the inspiration for the prologue of John’s Gospel…. The inversion from ‘the heavens and the earth'; to ‘the earth and the heavens’ in 2:4 symbolizes the changes in perspective from one table to the other.” (Pg. 31)
He asks, “Is it prose or poetry? The choice is a gross oversimplification. Even [E.J.] Young who wishes to see in Genesis 1 only ‘straightforward history,’ recognizes without any sense of inconsistency that the chapter is ‘written in exalted, semi-poetical language.’ … we do not find here the rhythms of Hebrew poetry, nor its more or less synonymous parallelism. The reader of the original, however, is sensitive to the rhythm of the sentences, he notices a number of alliterations and one phrase which is confined to poetry, ‘beast of the field.’” (Pg. 32)
He continues, “At this point the question presses on us: what are we to understand literally?... One point ought to be established. The alternative of all or nothing rests on purely arbitrarily grounds. The use of figurative language by no means determines the main question, that of the connection of the narrative with events that are located and dated from the beginning. The acknowledgement of symbolic elements hardly weighs at all in favor of a symbolic interpretation of the whole. Conversely, those who favor the literal historicity of the content have no reason to demand the same literalness of the language. Scripture… frequently recounts the passage of history in the categories of parable and allegory, and expressed the facts it recalls in images in symbols.” (Pg. 37)
He states, “The rejection of all the theories accepted by the scientists requires considerably bravado. It may be said that the work of neo-catastrophist writers shows courage, not ignorance. Nevertheless, current opinions, built on the studies of thousands of research scientists who keep a very close eye on one another, continue to look very probable. Anyone rejecting them is taking an immense step. One must be absolutely sure of one’s ground, especially since the neo-catastrophist hypothesis raises formidable objections. One must be sure that the text DEMANDS the literal interpretation. It must not be adopted out of loyalty to the past, out of sheer habit, or from a reflex hardening before the possible threat of apostasy. Might that in fact be the case? (Pg. 48)
He argues, “The literary interpretation takes the form of the week attributed to the work of creation to be an artistic arrangement, a modest example of anthropomorphism that is not to be taken literally. The author’s intention is not to provide us with a chronology of origins… he wishes to bring out certain themes and provide a theology of the sabbath. The text is composed as the author meditates on the finished work, so that we may understand how the creation is related to God and what is its significance for mankind. This hypothesis overcomes a number of problems that plagued the commentators. It recognizes ordinary days but take them in the context of one large figurative whole. The differences in the order between the two ‘tablets’ no longer cause difficulties, neither does the delay in the creation of the stars… We must not espouse the theory on the grounds of its convenience but only if the text leads us in that direction. To put it plainly, both the genre and the style of the Genesis 1 prologue, as our introductory chapter saw them, provide strong grounds for presuming in favor of the literary interpretation” (Pg. 50)
He summarizes, “The writer has given us a masterly elaboration of a fitting, restrained anthropomorphic vision, in order to convey a whole complex of deeply mediated ideas. Of that we have no doubt; through whether it is the content or the form that calls forth the greater admiration, we cannot tell.” (Pg. 59)
He states in the Appendix, “The interpretation of the Bible must not be overshadowed by the hypotheses current among scientists today. Moses knew nothing about them, and we must put them out of our minds if we are going to understand this meaning properly without any interference in the meaning of the divine Word. But after that it would be irresponsible to extend this methodological neglect. The universal reign of the one true God forbids such schizophrenic compartmentalization. The believer can avoid neither cautious critical examination of the theories nor the task of linking his conclusions to the teaching of divine revelation. Everybody, obviously, must do this within the limits of his own calling.” (Pg. 213)
This book will be of keen interest to Christians considering different approaches to the Book of Genesis.
October 3, 2023
It is hard to rate this book.
On the one hand there are some great passages. Some of the greatest lines of text I ever read (and the translation is formidable).
Henri Blocher is clearly a good writer, a knowledgable man and a good exegete. One can only appreciate his style and his approach to the questions that Genesis 1-11 raises.
On the other hand, he missed out on a very important point. Granted, this book does not aim at answering every question. Also, it was written a while ago and a lot has been written in academia since then on the issues surrounding Genesis 1-3, science, biblical authority, human anthropology, etc...
But I want to talk about the appendix. Only there he investigates the question of evolution and human origin and the "first man". I think it was fine to put this at the end (in the book it is clear for him that concordism is a wrong approach to Scripture and that the scientific questions are to be set aside when doing exegesis which is fine by me and he gives a good defense). But I regret that he did not deal with the idea that the setting of the Adam and Eve narrative contains elements of the ancien near east, not only literarily but in the scene/setting itself. Which would push the first human to maximum somewhere between -10000 -6000. Instead for him Adam and Eve have to be the originator of the whole human race and thus that would push them back further to hundreds of thousands of years, maybe millions. Of course that would also raise the question of how the narrative came to Moses. Blocher touched a bit on that topic but not much.
Overall I would recommend that book for the very interesting exegesis, perspective and academical skills of Blocher (footnotes and comments on other authors are great) as well as his style. Though I don't agree with everything in the book, I think his criticism of anti-scientism (YEC) and of the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 are on point and his arguments are strong.
On the one hand there are some great passages. Some of the greatest lines of text I ever read (and the translation is formidable).
Henri Blocher is clearly a good writer, a knowledgable man and a good exegete. One can only appreciate his style and his approach to the questions that Genesis 1-11 raises.
On the other hand, he missed out on a very important point. Granted, this book does not aim at answering every question. Also, it was written a while ago and a lot has been written in academia since then on the issues surrounding Genesis 1-3, science, biblical authority, human anthropology, etc...
But I want to talk about the appendix. Only there he investigates the question of evolution and human origin and the "first man". I think it was fine to put this at the end (in the book it is clear for him that concordism is a wrong approach to Scripture and that the scientific questions are to be set aside when doing exegesis which is fine by me and he gives a good defense). But I regret that he did not deal with the idea that the setting of the Adam and Eve narrative contains elements of the ancien near east, not only literarily but in the scene/setting itself. Which would push the first human to maximum somewhere between -10000 -6000. Instead for him Adam and Eve have to be the originator of the whole human race and thus that would push them back further to hundreds of thousands of years, maybe millions. Of course that would also raise the question of how the narrative came to Moses. Blocher touched a bit on that topic but not much.
Overall I would recommend that book for the very interesting exegesis, perspective and academical skills of Blocher (footnotes and comments on other authors are great) as well as his style. Though I don't agree with everything in the book, I think his criticism of anti-scientism (YEC) and of the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 are on point and his arguments are strong.
March 11, 2020
Apart from some things I consider quite questionable in this book (some -at least seemingly -sexist interpretations, and some weird theological strokes), this was actually a very educational reading. The good parts were very good, and the bad parts kind of also pretty bad, but filtering it through my own theological knowledge and convictions, I consider that I could learn enough from this book that I consider it a "worth to read".
It showed a pretty solid exegesis, discussion and interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis - not with all of them I am in agreement, but hey, that's part of the learning experience.
It showed a pretty solid exegesis, discussion and interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis - not with all of them I am in agreement, but hey, that's part of the learning experience.
May 30, 2021
2.5/5
C'est une note crève coeur car je suis quelqu'un qui admire grandement les travaux de Henri Blocher.
Dans ce livre, il propose toutefois une interprétation alternative de la compréhension normative des trois premiers chapitres du livre de la Genèse.
Je ne partage pas son avis sur une majorité des propositions.
Il s'agit toute fois d'une oeuvre utile pour raison académique ou pour référence.
C'est une note crève coeur car je suis quelqu'un qui admire grandement les travaux de Henri Blocher.
Dans ce livre, il propose toutefois une interprétation alternative de la compréhension normative des trois premiers chapitres du livre de la Genèse.
Je ne partage pas son avis sur une majorité des propositions.
Il s'agit toute fois d'une oeuvre utile pour raison académique ou pour référence.
October 10, 2018
Fantastic helping the uninitiated understanding some of the literary and theological tensions in interpreting the first three chapters of Genesis.
June 13, 2019
Pretty helpful- especially the first half.
November 27, 2024
Honestly should be required reading for the modern evangelical
November 29, 2013
I was disappointed with this book. Blocher attempted to reconcile evolution with the historicity of Adam and Eve, and I am afraid he was unsuccessful. His arguments are weak and full of mental gymnastics which are simply not convincing. Furthermore, like all of his other books, Blocher's writings are very archaic and unnecessarily dense, and he just doesn't get to the point.
To be honest, the story of Adam and Eve teaches spiritual lessons through story exposition rather than through empirical facts. To assert the story of Adam and Eve describes the scientific and historical origin of all mankind, is not a statement about religious faith, but a scientific hypothesis which is required to be falsifiable through evidence at least. However, both historical and scientific evidence contradict the historicity of Adam and Eve.
Therefore, when one asserts Genesis 1 and 2 contain falsifiable, empirical facts about the origin of human, he/she makes the Bible say things it never meant to say. It is even more unwise, to make such a view a fundamental of the Christian faith.
So yes, while it is good that Blocher attempted to help some Christians to come to term with evolution (which is a giant step forward from creationism and intelligent design). Meanwhile, when the theory of evolution is accepted, the word "historical" can no longer be related to the story of Adam and Eve. In light of this, our hermeneutics need to depart from our current method (historical-grammatical method), and return to the way the ancients used to read the Bible (especially Genesis).
Which is to just read the scripture as it is, then see what the scripture wants to teach us, and not being overly obsessed about which verse is literal and which verse is non-literal..., and without trying to analyze it by importing our 21th century knowledge and mode of empiricism, driven by our impulsiveness to prove certain scientific or historical realities behind the verses. Shedding these elements, then we can discern the spiritual lessons which the authors of the scripture originally tried to convey.
Because frankly, authors of the book of Genesis never wrote it with the intention to teach science and history.. The Bible itself, is firstly a work of literature, and that's how it should be interpreted, as literature, not as an encyclopedia on the history and scientific origin of mankind. So if we become obsessed with proving the historical or scientific realities behind the book of Genesis, then we miss the true meaning of the story of Adam and Eve, which is a story illuminating the nature of God, and our human condition, a timeless mythological story transcending the chasm of time and culture.
Personally, I think there is grandeur in this view, that God uses story exposition to reach places in the human hearts where facts cannot. Using the power of story to question, probe, and ask mankind to consider the nature of God, while examining our human condition.
To be honest, the story of Adam and Eve teaches spiritual lessons through story exposition rather than through empirical facts. To assert the story of Adam and Eve describes the scientific and historical origin of all mankind, is not a statement about religious faith, but a scientific hypothesis which is required to be falsifiable through evidence at least. However, both historical and scientific evidence contradict the historicity of Adam and Eve.
Therefore, when one asserts Genesis 1 and 2 contain falsifiable, empirical facts about the origin of human, he/she makes the Bible say things it never meant to say. It is even more unwise, to make such a view a fundamental of the Christian faith.
So yes, while it is good that Blocher attempted to help some Christians to come to term with evolution (which is a giant step forward from creationism and intelligent design). Meanwhile, when the theory of evolution is accepted, the word "historical" can no longer be related to the story of Adam and Eve. In light of this, our hermeneutics need to depart from our current method (historical-grammatical method), and return to the way the ancients used to read the Bible (especially Genesis).
Which is to just read the scripture as it is, then see what the scripture wants to teach us, and not being overly obsessed about which verse is literal and which verse is non-literal..., and without trying to analyze it by importing our 21th century knowledge and mode of empiricism, driven by our impulsiveness to prove certain scientific or historical realities behind the verses. Shedding these elements, then we can discern the spiritual lessons which the authors of the scripture originally tried to convey.
Because frankly, authors of the book of Genesis never wrote it with the intention to teach science and history.. The Bible itself, is firstly a work of literature, and that's how it should be interpreted, as literature, not as an encyclopedia on the history and scientific origin of mankind. So if we become obsessed with proving the historical or scientific realities behind the book of Genesis, then we miss the true meaning of the story of Adam and Eve, which is a story illuminating the nature of God, and our human condition, a timeless mythological story transcending the chasm of time and culture.
Personally, I think there is grandeur in this view, that God uses story exposition to reach places in the human hearts where facts cannot. Using the power of story to question, probe, and ask mankind to consider the nature of God, while examining our human condition.
April 9, 2021
Radiometric dating methods, evolution, mythical/symbolical/literal/literary interpretation of scripture, creation, Eden, the fall, original sin and more!
Blocher does not shy away from tackling heavy issues. He does a great job giving all sides to a particular issue before giving his opinion - so much so that there were times when I was not sure which way he would side. He does give his opinions, but not before attacking the issues from all angles. Blocher's wisdom is clear - his approach to science and religion, but most impressive is his wisdom on the interpretation of scripture. He points out that an old earth and evolution do not contradict scripture and so approaches these issues honestly - he is true to science and he is true to the Word.
This work was first published in 1979 but the important ideas here will always be current. There are some ideas I found extremely enlightening and some not so much. Fav ideas: on the sabbath and the creation story (and John 5:17); the tree and man’s autonomy; the tempter in the garden doubting God’s goodness and projecting a false rivalry between God and man; and the appendix dealing with radiometric dating and evolution.
After a short examination of the paleontological evidence for human evolution and ruling it inconclusive, Blocher ends with this: "Faith does not have all the answers straight away. Nor does it claim that contemporary science gives it complete support. If certain factors in today's scientific picture appear contrary to the Word of God, faith is not shaken. It has such confidence in that Word that it can be quire open about its hesitations and wait patiently for the clouds to clear."
Blocher does not shy away from tackling heavy issues. He does a great job giving all sides to a particular issue before giving his opinion - so much so that there were times when I was not sure which way he would side. He does give his opinions, but not before attacking the issues from all angles. Blocher's wisdom is clear - his approach to science and religion, but most impressive is his wisdom on the interpretation of scripture. He points out that an old earth and evolution do not contradict scripture and so approaches these issues honestly - he is true to science and he is true to the Word.
This work was first published in 1979 but the important ideas here will always be current. There are some ideas I found extremely enlightening and some not so much. Fav ideas: on the sabbath and the creation story (and John 5:17); the tree and man’s autonomy; the tempter in the garden doubting God’s goodness and projecting a false rivalry between God and man; and the appendix dealing with radiometric dating and evolution.
After a short examination of the paleontological evidence for human evolution and ruling it inconclusive, Blocher ends with this: "Faith does not have all the answers straight away. Nor does it claim that contemporary science gives it complete support. If certain factors in today's scientific picture appear contrary to the Word of God, faith is not shaken. It has such confidence in that Word that it can be quire open about its hesitations and wait patiently for the clouds to clear."
September 14, 2009
My first exposure to Blocher. Some chapters were better than others, but on the whole, full of enormously helpful theological reflections and exegetical insights. Blocher is thoroughly familiar with the history of critical scholarship, but he is also as conversant with the history of dogmatic reflection on the opening chapters of Genesis (not uncommon to find a reference to Augustine, Julianus Africanus, Tertullian, etc..). He is also very sensitive to the scientific questions that now bear down upon us in the 20th and 21st centuries (even has a very dense appendix on this – which I’ve yet to read thoroughly!). Highly recommend this if you are going to be preaching through Genesis 1-11 (though it’s mostly focused on 1-3, it does reflect a bit on 4-11 in the final chapter).
November 8, 2013
In my class of Genesis of interpretation,my teacher designated this book to read,which answered many of my quetions about book of Genesis from chapter one to three,like some topics about "creation of God","God's image","original sin"etc.
It's is also a conprehensive book,collecting many scholar's idea about interpreting Genesis,like E.J Young,Westermann,John Calvin,Kierkegarrd,Karl Barth,and discussed the issues about the relationship between Theology and Science in today's world,Though many problems are not be solved now,but which provided a direction to study and research about the book of Genesis today.
It's a very good book I think!
It's is also a conprehensive book,collecting many scholar's idea about interpreting Genesis,like E.J Young,Westermann,John Calvin,Kierkegarrd,Karl Barth,and discussed the issues about the relationship between Theology and Science in today's world,Though many problems are not be solved now,but which provided a direction to study and research about the book of Genesis today.
It's a very good book I think!
January 3, 2019
This is a hidden gem of a book.
A superb study of the initial chapters of the book of Genesis, drawing heavily on Rabbinical wisdom and interpretation, but also more recent scholarship.
It clearly shows the depth and subtlety of wisdom hidden within the text; highlighting concepts and truths that underpin much of our life and worldview such as our understanding of ourselves, our sense of identity, our relationships, sexuality, spirituality, cosmology, ontology and so on, not to mention our ideas of God and the planet we live on.
A superb study of the initial chapters of the book of Genesis, drawing heavily on Rabbinical wisdom and interpretation, but also more recent scholarship.
It clearly shows the depth and subtlety of wisdom hidden within the text; highlighting concepts and truths that underpin much of our life and worldview such as our understanding of ourselves, our sense of identity, our relationships, sexuality, spirituality, cosmology, ontology and so on, not to mention our ideas of God and the planet we live on.
February 24, 2012
Good book on the creation and fall from the beginning chapters of Genesis.
March 2, 2013
By far the best commentary I've come across on the opening chapters of Genesis.
Read
March 31, 2008a little dense
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews