Skip to main content

The Earth is the Temple of the Lord

One interesting claim that has been made with increased frequency the past few years in relation to Genesis 1 is that it is a temple text. When God is creating the earth he is creating his temple. His rest at the end of creation is his taking up residence in the temple. We as human beings are his images. Unlike the fake deities of the ancient world, the living God doesn't have dead images of gold and silver and stone, he has living images, human beings. We are God's representatives, or his representation. I believe that this approach to Genesis 1 is very sound (the most thorough defense of this approach is in The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God by Greg Beale).

Last week in our small group we studied Acts 17:16-34. One thing that has always struck me is how different this speech felt from the rest of Paul's speeches in Acts. The difference is that it's not a straightforward exposition of Scripture in the same way Paul's speeches to Jewish audiences were. What I noticed this time around is that Paul is still expositing Scripture. Some commentators have noticed the connections to Genesis in verses 24-26, though none that I looked at dealt with the allusions at any length. Verse 24 makes the temple and creation tie crystal clear. I, though, wouldn't limit the echos of Genesis to verses 24-26. I think that they resume in verse 29. Paul there seems to be connecting creation and temple worship together and seems to understand the imago dei in the same manner as I outlined above. Thus I think that here Paul is affirming that Genesis 1 is about God's creation of his cosmic temple.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Commentary Review: Daniel

In my opinion, Daniel is not the best covered Old Testament book as far as commentaries go. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon among Old Testament books. Though I've looked at them, I'm not going to review some of the older Evangelical Daniel commentaries (like e.g., Baldwin). They don't provide much that you can't get in either Longman or Lucas. If you're unfamiliar with the series that one or more of these commentaries are in check out my commentary series overview.

It was a very close call but my favorite commentary on Daniel is Goldingay's. While there were a few places where I disagreed with his interpretation, I found the commentary to be exemplary. If you're going to teach Daniel, especially the apocalyptic portions, you need a commentary that provides you with a lot of background material. Goldingay, while not as broad as Collins, certainly provides you with quite a bit. His exploration of the background to the apocalyptic symbolism is very helpfu…