The full title of the book is Creation, Fall, Restoration – A Biblical Theology of Creation (CFR).

I originally became interested in CFR because of the promise it offered as a commentary on the relationship between science and scripture, and as a survey of the historical interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. And with chapters such as Scripture, Science, and Interpretation, Creation and Genesis: A Historical Survey and two chapters covering different aspects on The Days of Creation, I was not at all disappointed. Andrew Kulikovsky demonstrates his depth of knowledge in these areas, bringing all of the relevant pieces together into one volume that is relatively easy to read.

Similarly, Bob McCabe in a recent review of CFR, says that Kulikovsky “provides a readable text that is a basic exegetical and theological explanation and defense of the biblical text, as well as refuting common evangelical interpretative schemes that undermine the traditional reading of Genesis.”

That is not to say that the material itself is easily understood. In fact, I spent quite a bit of time re-reading some sections of the book and I think that is simply due to the nature of the topics being covered, together with my lack of prior knowledge on the subject matter.

In the first chapter, Kulikovsky acknowledges the concept (originating with Francis Bacon) that “God has revealed Himself in two ‘books’ – general revelation and special revelation” (p.18) but spends the first two chapters distinguishing one from the other, recognizing the unfortunately all too common habit for Christians to, either explicitly or implicitly, give general revelation an equal or higher position than that of special revelation.^[1] He rightly points out that whenever the two books seemingly conflict, “Such conflicts are nearly always resolved by simply reinterpreting the special revelation in Scripture … implying … that the two are not equal.” (p. 18-19). Similarly, “The truth claims of science always seem to trump exegesis, regardless of how thorough it is and how well done.” (p.41)

Read the rest of this entry

Josephine Tovey writes in Thursday’s Sydney Morning Herald (June 3, 2010):

JESUS may have welcomed prostitutes into the kingdom of heaven, but the reception in Sydney’s ”Bible belt” is distinctly less friendly.

The Hills Shire Council, home of the Hillsong church and one of the fastest-growing regions of Sydney, is pushing for a change in state planning laws to allow it to ban brothels.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hills-folk-reject-oldest-profession-20100602-wzul.html

In typical What-Would-Jesus-Do fashion, the basic rub of her article is that although Jesus lovingly welcomes prostitutes into heaven, hypocritical unfriendly Christians (supposed followers of Christ) won’t even allow prostitutes to work in their town; trying instead to ban brothels (a safe haven for these women to practice their craft), potentially forcing them to prostitute themselves in more dangerous territory. And the standard by which Josephine measures this alleged hypocrisy… who knows? Dropping the J-bomb is about as close as she comes to providing any reason whatsoever for us to believe that her opinions are based on anything more than creative scripture twisting.

And as Josephine provides no reason for us to think that these Christians are acting against the desires of our Lord, I will not presume to respond as if she had. However, in the interest of highlighting a basic hermeneutical principle that I find helpful, I suggest that the best candidate verse is the second half of Matthew 21:31

… Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. …”

Whenever I am trying to figure out the meaning of a verse or passage, there is a principle I use which flows from good hermeneutics; something Greg Koukl calls ‘Never Read a Bible Verse’:

When I’m on the radio, I use this simple rule to help me answer the majority of Bible questions I’m asked, even when I’m totally unfamiliar with the verse. It’s an amazingly effective technique you can use, too.

I read the paragraph, not just the verse. I take stock of the relevant material above and below. Since the context frames the verse and gives it specific meaning, I let it tell me what’s going on.

This works because of a basic rule of all communication: Meaning always flows from the top down, from the larger units to the smaller units, not the other way around. The key to the meaning of any verse comes from the paragraph, not just from the individual words.

If we read on from verse 31 to verse 32, it would appear the reason “…the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God…” is not because Jesus merely tolerates and accepts prostitutes for who they are, or because he thinks brothels are such a good influence in the community and he wants to ensure there will be women willing to work the streets in the Kingdom. No, it is because they believed what John the Baptist had preached about Jesus, repented of their sin, and put their trust in Christ. “For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did.” It is not that all prostitutes are entering the Kingdom with Jesus’ approval despite their way of life, but only those who heard John, believed what he said, turned from their way of life and trusted in Christ; those are the ones who are “entering the kingdom of God.” It has nothing to do with them being prostitutes and everything to do with how they responded to Jesus.

So whatever basis Josephine is using to justify her position, it can’t be Matthew 21. That passage provides no basis for believing that Christians should support or condone prostitution in their community, or that by banning brothels they are somehow being unfriendly, unloving, or acting against the desires of our Lord.