In the Beginning

First, i come to this book as an extended directed self study on the issues involved in the Creation-Evolution-Design debate. This book i rate as one of the 5 most significant books for a conservative reformed Christian who wants to come to reasoned and faithful conclusions in the CED debate. It is conservative which i define to be conscious and considerate of the traditions of the past, to take them seriously, not simply accepting something because it is new. It is Biblical in the way the author is very careful to allow the Scripture's Words to speak for themselves, being very careful not to read into the words his own cherished beliefs, but to allow the Word to speak to him, authoritatively and reliably. To this end he is not infected by the liberal J-P-D documentary interpretation so often evident in exegesis or interpretation.Second, the book is significant on two levels, the first is the exegetical level, the principles of understanding that the author explores in the first few chapters. Second is the line by line study that forms the bulk of the book, roughly chpt 3 on.The structure of the book is that of Gen 1-3 but the way he writes is interesting and worth a moment of reflection here. The chapters are more like consistent essays than the usual exegesis bound to the text. He takes a major theme in the next section of Genesis then expands it to cover this issue through the past interpreters and links to other related Scripture. It roughly follows the systematic organization of reformed covenant theology.pg 26 has what i think is the best analysis of the human writers relationship to Scripture. "That rule follows from the humanity of Holy Scripture. In the act of inspiration God did not turn his sookesmen into robots; his Word became their word, under their signature and their responsiblility. Thus we have no right to go over their heads in order to set forth a 'divine' meaning which they would never possilby have imagined-even if those men did not grasp the whole import of what they attested God in his condescension has limited himself to their instrumentality; our interpretation must conform to the corresponding discipline."If the church would hend this advice much of the CED debate would be solved, for we would cease to search Genesis for the equivalent of quarks, trying to query the first few chapters of the Bible and mine it for scientific truths. Rather we would, as this author does, submit to the authority of Scripture to speak to the way we do science, to the ideas that we bring to the universe as we question the master workmen's creation that we are a small part of.The book is literary framework in its approach to Gen1-3, M. Kline being the best example of this in the english speaking world. Anyone familiar with the CED issues would be advised to read the first 2 chapters of this book simply to see a careful analysis of exegesis and the result of allowing Scripture to speak for itself rather than being pushed out of shape by young

When I was single and about to leave college some 15 years ago, a semester-long private study of this book and the book of Genesis itself filled me with a new sense of meaning concerning my existence as a man in this world. Blocher argues on the basis of the elaborate literary structure of Gen. 1:1-2:3 that the original readers would have read it figuratively. The 7 days of creation represent neither 24-hour periods of time, nor long epochs of natural history, but are instead a literary structure that conveys meaningful and true content about the relationship of God, humankind, and the creation. No chronological significance was intended whatsoever, Blocher believes, nor inferred by the original readers. The literary phenomena he explores include the repetition of certain key words 7 or 10 times (numbers with symbolic value to the ancient Hebrews), the symmetrical correspondence of creation day 1 (light and darkness) to day 4 (sun, moon, stars), day 2 (sky and ocean) to day 5 (sea animals and birds), and day three to 3 (land) to day 6 (animals and humankind), etc. Moreover, the parallels--or rather deliberate contrasts--between Gen. 1 and other ancient Near Eastern creation stories, show how Gen. 1 served as a pointed polemic that exalted a higher concept of the utterly transcendent/immanent God to whom we are accountable, over and against polytheism. Even the reader who retains some kind of chronological understanding of the days of creation will be enriched by an exploration of these literary phenomena of the text. (A fascinating article, "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony," by Dr. Meredith G. Kline of Westminster Theological Seminary in California and Gordon-Conwell Seminary, argues similar conclusions, and makes good companion reading to Blocher concerning Gen. 1. Blocher sees the story of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2 and 3 as a depiction in mythical terms of a genuinely historical fall of our first human ancestors from fellowship with God. The "seed of the woman" promised in Gen. 3:15, Jesus Christ, restores our access to the "tree of life" (see Rev. 22:2,14,19) of which human sin deprived us. The whole Bible is God's revelation about real historical realities, even if some of those realities (such as our remote origins and distant future) are more aptly and naturally described to us in figurative terms, while others (such as the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ) are more appropriately narrated in a literal manner. Blocher's book has pastoral value that goes far beyond its relevance to these particular issues of biblical interpretation. The chapter on Man and Woman is worth the price of the book. I was left with a deepened appreciation of the significance of our earthly lives and their activities (marriage, family, work, etc.) in the context of God's plan to call out for himself a redeemed human community that is restored through Christ to be the image of God, and that will enjoy