Fretheim presents here the Old Testament view of the Creator God, the created world, and our role in creation. Beginning with "The Beginning," he demonstrates that creation is open-ended and connected. Then, from every part of the Old Testament, Fretheim explores the fullness and richness of Israel's thought regarding creation: from the dynamic created order to human sin, from judgment and environmental devastation to salvation, redemption, and a new creation.
God and World in the Old Testament
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle.
Learn more
| |||||||||||||||
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
2001 TERENCE E. FRETHEIM is Elva B. Lovell Professor of Old Testament at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. He received his Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, and has been on the faculty of 7 seminary schools, including Princeton, Graduate Theological Union, Vancouver and McCormick. He has authored or contributed to eighteen books, four by Abingdon and a forthcoming commentary on Jeremiah.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
More About the Author
Terence E. Fretheim is Professor of Old Testament at Luther Seminary in St. Paul. Fretheim is the author of The Suffering God (Fortress Press) and coauthor of The Bible as Word of God (Fortress Press).
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
19 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Personal Favorite,
By
This review is from: God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Paperback)
This is one of the best OT theologies I have read. This is an excellent articulation of what it means to connect with the vocation of being human. This rises above so much of what is assumed about God within the status quo of Christian faith. Our redemption is so much more than getting the answers right in order to access the secret club of heaven. Fretheim unpacks redemption with depth and inspiration.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good book,
By
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Paperback)
Terry Fretheim's God and World in the Old Testament (as the cover suggests) explores God's relationship with the world, as seen through the Old Testament. Fretheim is well-known for Relational Theology. This book adds significantly to his observations about how God functions in a relationship with the world, and with people.
4 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
The Bible: Continuing Creation History or Salvation History? A Critique of God and the World in the Old Testament,
By J. D. Spainhour (Trinity, North Carolina USA) - See all my reviews
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Paperback)
In God and World in the Old Testament, Terence Fretheim attempts "to develop a relational theology of creation."[1] In so doing, he has to come against the traditional historical-critical interpretive grid, from both conservative and liberal scholars, and their resultant interpretations of the Israel's history. The premise of his argument is based largely on Genesis 1 and 2, which has both chronological and therefore, for Fretheim, theological priority over Genesis 3 and its subsequent implications. Thus "God's work as Creator (whether recognized or not) actually and always precedes God's work as Redeemer...The objective of God's work in redemption is to free people to be what they were created to be, the effect of which is named salvation."[2] This has far-reaching implications, from God's original purpose in creating humankind, which has much to do with continuing creation in the good-but-not-perfect world,[3] to eschatology. God's creation is in the process of becoming, even prior to the fall.[4] God has begun a "multilateral" project that involves Himself, humans, and nonhuman creation, all of whom/which have a role in creation's becoming.[5] The goal of this project: new creation. Creating is the divine eschatological action whereby God brings a new heaven and earth into being...The character of the eventual completion of this creation is revealing of the direction for all of God's prior work, whether in creation or redemption. The books of Genesis and Revelation provide a creational bracket for the Bible, and texts in between are a continuing witness to the purposive work of God toward this new creation. At the same time, the new creation is not a return to the original beginning--if that were the case, everything that had happened in between would finally be of no consequence.[6] I would like to offer a critique from a biblical-theological perspective against Fretheim's views: (1) that creation has theological priority over salvation for understanding Israel's history; and (2) that we should understand history as the continuation and new creation as the completion of the original purposes of God in creating the good-but-not-perfect world. First, reading the Bible as essentially continuing creation history rather than salvation history seems to require some eisegetical gymnastics in interpretation. The most obvious examples are Fretheim's interpretations of the plagues in Egypt, the exodus from Egypt, and the wilderness wanderings, in which he argues for some type of "dual agency".[7] So, while Fretheim holds on to the prospect of God using creation as a means of judgment (e.g., his promise to Noah "not to do something again entails an eternal self-limitation regarding the exercise of divine freedom and power," thus implicating him as the ultimate agent of judgment, at least in the flood[8]), he also asserts that the "moral order has the potential of adversely affecting cosmic order."[9] He is saying more here than just, for example, that pollution leads to negative environmental consequences. Rather, the ecosystem is "dynamic," so that the ground responds to Adam's sin by putting forth thorns and thistles, the flood is a response to human violence, Sodom and Gomorrah to human wickedness, and the plagues "are adverse ecological effects because of the anti-creational behavior of Pharaoh and his minions."[10] Notwithstanding the fact that the concept of dual agency is a logical fallacy unless he is suggesting that nonhuman creation in fact has volitional capacity (?), it is hardly conceivable to imagine that the biblical author was attempting to communicate any type of shared agency. And while authorial intent is not necessarily a legitimate reading of the text--though if it is evident within the text itself, it is indeed legitimate--it seems to go without saying that the most natural reading of these texts is that creation was instrumental for divine purposes. And again, unless he is attributing volitional capacity to nonhuman creation, and God was using creation as instrument for judgment, then it seems creation is thus depicted mechanistically, in that such cosmic responses were built into the natural order, which Fretheim explicitly rejects.[11] Furthermore, the wilderness wanderings can be understood as God brining "healing to...creation" for the "[adverse affects] in the plague cycle," in which God not only provides for the "daily needs of the people," but also renews creation. Salvation is experienced by both human and nonhuman."[12] And with regard to the parting of the Red Sea, though he does recognize the use of nature as "divine means," he also states that, "It is not too much to say that, at the Red Sea, the nonhuman is the savior of the human!"[13] Again, these are examples of Fretheim's reading the texts through a grid of creation rather than salvation. In consideration of Israel's memory particularly with regard to the Exodus, this seems to take away from the way these stories served for their understanding of God, who is remembered numerous times as the God who "brought us out of the land of Egypt."[14] God was precisely the God of Israel's salvation.[15] To interpret these passages through a relational continuing-creation lens, in which the nonhuman creation is at least in part responsible what is traditionally attributed solely to God, seems to obscure the way they served to inform Israel's self-understanding (as the elect) and understanding of God. Second, I find a number of issues troubling with understanding Israel's history as the continuation and new creation as the completion of the original purposes of God in creating the good-but-not-perfect world, rather than understanding such as salvation history (I will classify these views, respectively, as continuation over against restoration). It should first be addressed that Fretheim's caricature of the restoration view[16]--as returning "to the original beginning"[17]--is not a fair representation of this view. He seems to suggest that seeing history as returning to Eden, as it were, precludes any real consequence, any real progress, any real difference between Eden and the eschaton.[18] This is, to say the least, a shallow treatment of the restoration view.[19] One of the major differences between the restoration and continuation views is that the former seems to understand the telos of history as harmony in all relationships, particularly between humanity and God and humanity with itself, whereas the latter understands the telos of history as the completion of the creation project. While Fretheim may argue well that one can see the continuation theme throughout the Old Testament (whether it is intrinsically there or not) he never actually gives reason or biblical evidence why the becoming of creation ever had to be completed. In other words, for Fretheim, the fact that creation is becoming implies that its becoming will one day cease. This is surprising since Fretheim is so seemingly averse to the idea of a static creation[20]--the dynamic nature of creation that Fretheim so celebrates is predicated on the fact that creation is incomplete. Does this mean that the becoming of creation will cease in the eschaton? The only specific aspects of the new creation that Fretheim gives is that disobedience will no longer be possible, there will be a new heaven and earth, a new heart and new spirit.[21] But each of these examples could just as (if not more!) easily be examples of restoration in new creation. As such, new creation can be envisaged not as the return to the beginning as such, but as the return to the way things were in the beginning: both human and nonhuman creation in perfect harmony with God and one another. I emphasize the idea of perfect harmony because while it may be said that creation was good but not perfect, in terms of its completeness, it was indeed perfect in terms of its relationships. The problem was not that humankind's disharmony with the ground, with animals, with each other, and with God made it difficult for them to complete their project--that is to exalt the project above the entities involved. Rather the problem was precisely that humankind, the ground, the animals and God were all in disharmony! Furthermore, I am not convinced that creation was ever intended to be complete in the way Fretheim suggests. Taking Fretheim's position, that God's creation was created precisely as a project to be completed, seems to in fact trivialize all the relationships involved, as though God just wanted something to do. But if God's purpose in creating is ultimately to be in relationship, it becomes quite clear why God would go to the lengths he did--even death on a cross--to restore the perfect harmony that once existed between God and God's creation. In other words, to put it rather plainly, it seems to make more sense for God to have created humans and nonhumans in order to be in relationship with him (the ultimate purpose) in a dynamic world (the setting in which that purpose was actualized), rather than for God to have created humans and nonhumans in order to bring the dynamic world to a state of completeness. In the case of the latter, when that purpose is fulfilled, then what? While I genuinely appreciate much of what Fretheim offers and share many of his environmental concerns and concerns for animal rights, I think his methods (which I found inconsistent, see discussion 4-1) not worthy of emulation and most of his interpretations novel, at best. As a theologian, I think Fretheim is certainly thought-provoking and does indeed raise relevant contemporary concerns that the Church must address. But I found his attempt to address these concerns through biblical theology to be lacking. To be sure, I may have been more convinced of his arguments had I only read the last chapter of his book as an essay (though, I still... Read more ›
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
