SOUTHEASTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

WAKE FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA

A TEMPLED CREATION: APPLICATION OF GREGORY K. BEALE’S COSMIC-

TEMPLE MOTIF TO A THEOLOGY OF CREATION

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

BY
CHARLES ROBERT “CHET” HARVEY
MAY 2018




ProQuest Number: 10789155




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 10789155

Published by ProQuest LLC (2018 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 ©
2018
Charles Robert “Chet” Harvey

This Dissertation was prepared and presented to the Faculty as a part of the requirements
for the Degree of the Doctor of Philosophy in Systematic Theology at Southeastern
Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina. All rights and privileges
normally reserved by the author as copyright holder are waived for the Southeastern
Baptist Theological Seminary. The Seminary library may catalog, display, and use this
Dissertation in all normal ways such materials are used, for reference and for other
purposes, including electronic and other means of preservation and circulation, including
on-line computer access and other means by which library materials are or in the future
may be made available to researchers and library users.
 Ph.D. Dissertation Approval

Student Name: Charles Robert Harvey Student ID# 000-219587

Dissertation Title:

A TEMPLED CREATION: APPLICATION OF GREGORY K. BEALE’S COSMIC-

TEMPLE MOTIF TO A THEOLOGY OF CREATION

This Dissertation has been approved.

Date of Defense: April 6, 2018

Major Professor: Kenneth Keathley

Dr. Ken Keathley

2nd Faculty Reader: John S. Hammett

Dr. John S. Hammett

External Reader: Gregory K. Beale

Dr. Gregory. K. Beale

Ph.D. Director: Charles L. Quarles

Dr. Charles L. Quarles

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation was completed with the support and encouragement of some very

important people in my life. I first want to say thank you to my wife Anna, without whom

this dissertation would have never been possible. She is a constant source of

encouragement in my life, believing in me and this work at times when I could not

muster much self-belief. This degree is as much hers as it is mine, and I am so thankful

for who she is and how she loves me. I also want to thank my two incredible children,

Mae and Win. They are both so full of life that spills over into mine, constantly picking

me up and reminding me of what is most important.

I want to thank my supervisor, Dr. Ken Keathley. Dr. Keathley is a true polymath,

and I left every meeting with him encouraged and better informed about a number of

subjects. He has also shown me the necessary balance of scholarly pursuit and ministerial

calling, for which I am eternally grateful. I also want to thank Dr. Bob Stewart at

NOBTS, who encouraged me as a Masters student to keep pursuing knowledge.

Finally, I want to thank my parents, who were my first supporters in ministerial

calling. They raised me in a household that held to the importance of Scripture and the

life of the mind. Through their leadership and love I felt the freedom to enjoy a number

of pursuits, and ultimately to explore my own sense of ministerial calling.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................v

ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... xi

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... xii

DEDICATION

CHAPTER 1: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE COSMIC-TEMPLE MOTIF ..................1

Introduction 2

Definitions 2

Methodology 8

Three Approaches to the Cosmic-Temple Motif 10

The Priestly Source Approach to the Cosmic-Temple Motif 11

The Cultural Approach to the Cosmic-Temple Motif 16

The Text-Based Approach to the Cosmic-Temple Motif 24

Theological Application of the Cosmic-Temple Motif 32

The Cosmic-Temple Motif and Scientific Understanding of the World 33

The Cosmic-Temple Motif and Environmental Practices 35

The Cosmic-Temple Motif and Liturgical Value of Work 37

The Cosmic-Temple Motif and Ecclesiology 39

Exegetical Uses of the Cosmic-Temple Motif 41

Conclusion 43

CHAPTER 2: G. K. BEALE’S DEVELOPMENT OF THE COSMIC-TEMPLE

v
 MOTIF ...........................................................................................................................45

Biography of G. K. Beale 45

Major Elements of G. K. Beale’s Biblical Theology 47

G. K. Beale’s Biblical Theology 48

G. K. Beale’s Storyline Approach to Biblical Theology 56

G. K. Beale’s Recapitulation-Based Approach to the Storyline of Scripture 59

Genesis 1–2 as Theologically-Charged Description 60

Adam’s Garden Commission 68

Adam’s Fall 71

Recapitulation of Genesis 1–3 in the OT Storyline 71

Jesus as Beginning Fulfillment of Adam’s Commission 73

New Creation as Garden-City 74

Daniel Block’s Challenge to G. K. Beale’s Interpretation of Genesis 1–3 76

The Relationship Between Old Testament and New Testament in Beale’s

Storyline-Driven Biblical Theology 80

Eschatology, Creation, New Creation 84

New Creation and Present Christian Life 91

The Function of the Temple Within Beale’s Biblical Theology 92

Genesis 1–3, the Cosmic-Temple, and Ontology 93

The Tabernacle, Temple, and Natural Theology 95

Jesus, the Temple, and Eschatology 96

Conclusion 97

CHAPTER 3: CREATION AS TEMPLE: THE NATURE OF CREATION IN

vi
THE COSMIC-TEMPLE MOTIF ..................................................................................99

Introduction 100

G. K. Beale’s Interpretation of Genesis 1–3 104

G. K. Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Interpretation of Gen 1:1–2:3 105

Initial Creation 106

Chaos 111

New Creation 113

Commissioning of Imago Dei Representative 114

Divine Rest 116

G. K. Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Interpretation of Genesis 2 122

Eden as Primordial Holy-of-Holies 122

Adam as Primordial Priest-King 124

G. K. Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Interpretation of Genesis 3 127

Summary of G. K. Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Interpretation of Genesis 1–3 131

Ontological Implications of the Cosmic-Temple Interpretation of Genesis 1–3 132

The Cosmic-Temple Motif’s Implications for Prelapsarian Ontology 134

The Goodness of Prelapsarian Creation in Gen 1:1–2:3 134

The Relation Between Chaos and Creation 139

Humanity as Imago Dei Within Prelapsarian Creation 152

Summary of the Cosmic-Temple Motif’s Implications for Prelapsarian

Ontology 156

The Cosmic-Temple Motif’s Implications for Postlapsarian Ontology 157

The Effects of the Fall on Humanity and Creation 157

vii
 Summary of the Cosmic-Temple Motif’s Implications for Postlapsarian
Ontology 164

Conclusion 165

CHAPTER 4: TEMPLE AS CREATION: THE CREATION PURPOSE OF

THE TEMPLE IN THE COSMIC-TEMPLE MOTIF..................................................167

Introduction 168

G. K. Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Motif in the Old Testament 173

The Patriarchal Altars as Conveyors of God’s Special Revelation 174

The Wilderness Tabernacle as Conveyor of God’s Special Revelation 178

Solomon’s Temple as Conveyor of God’s Special Revelation 186

Summary of G. K. Beale’s Interpretation 191

Theological Application of G. K. Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Motif 193

Karl Barth’s Antithetical Distinction Between Natural Theology

and Revelation 193

Colin Gunton’s Revelation-Based Natural Theology 199

Alister McGrath’s Revelation-Based Natural Theology 205

The Revelatory Function of the Temple in G. K. Beale’s Account 210

Implications of Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Motif for Natural Theology 218

Summary 225

Conclusion 226

CHAPTER 5: NEW CREATION AS TEMPLE: UNDERSTANDING NEW

CREATION IN THE COSMIC-TEMPLE MOTIF ......................................................227

Introduction 228

viii
 The Eschatological Temple in G. K. Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Motif 232

The Eschatological Temple of Ezekiel 40–48 233

The Eschatological Relation of Jesus to the Temple 239

Jesus as Last Adam 240

Jesus as New-Creation Temple 244

Jesus as Cornerstone of New Temple 248

The Eschatological Temple in Rev 21:1-22:5 251

Summary of G. K. Beale’s Interpretation 257

Theological Application of Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Motif to Eschatology 259

Jürgen Moltmann’s Eschatology in Relation to Creation and New Creation 259

Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Eschatology in Relation to Creation and New Creation 264

G. K. Beale’s Eschatology in Relation to Creation and New Creation 270

Summary 279

Conclusion 280

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................281

The Cosmic-Temple Motif and Ontology 282

The Cosmic-Temple Motif and Natural Theology 283

The Cosmic-Temple Motif and Eschatology 284

Areas for Further Research for Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Motif in Relation

to a Theology of Creation 285

Conclusion 287

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................289

ix
 ABBREVIATIONS

CD Church Dogmatics

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology

TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentary

x
 ABSTRACT

This dissertation will argue that the cosmic-temple motif, as exemplified in the writings

of G. K. Beale, can serve as a valuable resource within an evangelical theology of

creation. The thesis will be defended by demonstrating that this motif provides

explanatory power for three of the most pressing issues within a theology of creation,

specifically the status of postlapsarian creation in ontology, the availability of knowledge

of God within creation in natural theology, and the relation between creation and new

creation in eschatology. While G. K. Beale’s own theological application related to the

cosmic-temple motif has been mostly confined to the doctrines of ecclesiology and

eschatology, the argument of this dissertation is that it can be extended even further into a

theological account of creation within the larger field of systematic theology. This

dissertation will analyze and expand on Beale’s own work in eschatology as it relates to

the similarities and distinctions between creation and new creation, but it will also focus

on the ontological ramifications of the cosmic-temple motif in Genesis 1–3 and the

theological ramifications for understanding God and creation through the creation

symbolism of the temple. These areas will each provide test cases to show the

explanatory power of the temple motif within a theology of creation.

Chapter one will establish the thesis, explain the method, and demonstrate the

value of this area of research within the larger theological field of creation. It will begin

xi
by introducing and explaining the thesis of the paper, that the cosmic-temple motif is a

valuable resource for some of the most pressing issues within a theology of creation, and

analyzing previous scholarly engagement with the motif. It will also explain the method

of the paper, which is the application of the cosmic-temple motif from the writings of G.

K. Beale to three test cases within a theology of creation: the status of postlapsarian

creation within ontology, the availability of knowledge of God within creation in natural

theology, and the relation between creation and new creation in eschatology. Finally, it

will demonstrate the value of this area of research by showing the minimal theological

work that has been done in this area. The subsequent chapters of this dissertation will aim

to address this lacuna within scholarly research.

Chapter two will defend the choice of using G. K. Beale as an exemplar of the

cosmic-temple motif, as one who has written extensive treatises on the subject and has

been cited by numerous peers for his scholarly work in this area. It will then analyze key

components of Beale’s biblical theology, such as his eschatologically-driven

interpretation of the storyline of Scripture, his relation of creation and new creation, and

his relation of creation and the Christian life. In each of these areas, the significance of

Beale’s interpretation of temple symbolism within the Old and New Testaments will be

highlighted as a lynchpin within his storyline interpretation. It will then introduce the

three major issues within theological accounts of creation that will serve as test cases to

demonstrate the usefulness of Beale’s cosmic interpretation of the temple for a theology

of creation.

xii
 Chapters 3–5 will focus on theological application within the field of creation.

Each chapter will introduce a major issue within a theology of creation and demonstrate

how Beale’s cosmic-temple motif can be applied to the issue. Chapter three will offer the

first test case for the applicability of Beale’s motif within a theology of creation, focusing

on Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 1–3 as cosmic temple. It will first summarize major

questions related to ontology within current theologies of creation. It will then analyze

Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 1–3. Finally, it will apply Beale’s interpretation to a

theology of creation by demonstrating the implications of Beale’s interpretation to the

discussion of the ontological goodness of creation in both pre- and postlapsarian state,

arguing that Beale’s interpretation opens the possibility for understanding continued

ontological goodness within creation.

Chapter four will offer the second test case for the applicability of Beale’s

cosmic-temple motif within a theology of creation, drawing on his interpretation of

creation symbolism within the temple for application in issues related to natural theology,

particularly the availability of knowledge of God within creation itself. It will first

summarize the major views of natural theology within current theologies of creation. It

will then analyze Beale’s cosmic symbolism within the temple in his Old Testament

exegesis. This chapter will draw on Beale’s work to argue that the Old Testament temple

functioned in part as interpretive key for understanding creation as God’s world within

ancient Israel. Thus, it can inform discussions on the availability of knowledge of God

within natural theology, particularly in the works of post-Barthian scholars Colin Gunton

xiii
and Alister McGrath, who have moved from rejection to reconstruction of the aim and

purpose of natural theology.

Chapter five will offer the final test case for the applicability of Beale’s cosmic-

temple motif within a theology of creation, applying his interpretation of the

eschatological temple in Ezekiel 40–48, the relation of Christ and temple in the New

Testament, and the eschatological temple of Rev 21:1–22:5 to issues related to creation

and new creation within eschatological theologies of creation. This chapter will begin by

showing current engagement with eschatology within theological accounts of creation,

particularly concerning the relations and distinctions between creation and new creation.

It will then analyze Beale’s eschatological interpretation of the eschatological and New

Testament temples. It will next apply Beale’s interpretation to theological issues

revolving around creation and eschatology, focusing in particular on the theologies of

Wolfhart Pannenberg and Jürgen Moltmann, who both offer influential accounts of the

relation between creation and new creation.

Chapter six will conclude the paper by offering a final summary and evaluation of

Beale’s cosmic-temple motif, emphasizing the usefulness of the motif within theological

accounts of creation. It will then offer areas of further engagement in future work

between the cosmic-temple motif and theological accounts of creation. Finally, it will

conclude by advocating the usefulness of the temple motif for understanding creation.

xiv
 For Anna,
Let’s go to a beach somewhere.
 CHAPTER ONE
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE COSMIC-TEMPLE MOTIF

The thesis of this dissertation is that the cosmic-temple motif, as exemplified in the

writings of G. K. Beale, can serve as a valuable resource within an evangelical theology

of creation. Although a number of possible implications for a theology of creation can be

drawn from Beale’s work, this dissertation will demonstrate the thesis by focusing on

three areas: ontology, natural theology, and eschatology. It will consider three theological

test cases in demonstrating the explanatory power of the cosmic-temple motif,

specifically the distinction between pre- and postlapsarian creation in ontology, the

availability of knowledge of God within creation in natural theology, and the relation

between creation and new creation in eschatology. The argument of this dissertation is

not that Beale himself would agree with each implication, but that they are made possible

by his cosmic-temple interpretation of Scripture. This initial chapter will introduce the

thesis, explain key terms to be used, make clear the methodology to be employed,

provide a summary of notable research, and synopsize the small-scale theological

application that has been done in order to demonstrate the need for greater theological

application, particularly in the area of creation, with a summary and analysis of G. K.

Beale’s cosmic-temple motif as the subject of chapter two.

1
 Introduction

In his recent work Paul and the Faithfulness of God, N. T. Wright bemoans the lack of

scholarly attention paid to the cosmic-temple motif.1 He points to the writings of G. K.

Beale and John Walton as two “… highly evocative, large-scale pictures which have not,

to my knowledge, had much impact in the world of biblical scholarship.”2 Wright might

be overstating his case here because, as this chapter will introduce, there has been

significant scholarly engagement with the cosmic-temple motif from the field of biblical

scholarship. Nevertheless, where Wright’s statement is correct is in the field of

theological scholarship, particularly within theologies of creation, where the cosmic-

temple motif has garnered significantly less attention. This dissertation aims to address

this current lacuna of theological engagement by applying the motif to three major topics

within a theology of creation: ontology, natural theology, and eschatology.

Definitions

Although a number of ideas and themes will be defined in the body of this work, at the

outset three terms should be defined: cosmic-temple motif, theology of creation, and

explanatory power. Each of these terms will be appealed to in this work, and so it is

important to establish how they will be used.

The cosmic-temple motif, also commonly referred to as the temple motif, the

cosmic-mountain motif, and temple theology, incorporates the Israelite tabernacle and

1
N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 102.
2
Ibid.

2
temple as described in Scripture with themes of creation.3 It is one of a wide range of

motifs found in Scripture.4 The term motif itself is easier used than defined, and there is

an ongoing scholarly debate over what actually constitutes a motif within different fields

of scholarship.5 For the purposes of this paper, a scriptural motif can be defined broadly

as a thematic pattern or design found in Scripture that uses literary or figurative language

to conceptualize certain ideas. Within evangelical biblical theology, motif is typically

used to refer to central themes found across the canon, minor themes within the canon, or

overarching patterns that unify the canon.6 However, outside of evangelical theology,

3
Three examples from scholarship: Dan Lioy refers to the motif as the temple motif in Lioy, Axis
of Glory: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of the Temple Motif in Scripture, Studies in Biblical
Literature 138 (New York: Peter Lang, 2010); Richard J. Clifford refers to it as the cosmic mountain motif
in Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, Harvard Semitic Monographs 4
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972); Steven C. Smith refers to it as temple theology in
Smith, The House of the Lord: A Catholic Biblical Theology of God’s Temple Presence in the Old and New
Testaments (Steubenville, OH: Franciscan University Press, 2017).
4
For an examination of motifs as literary patterns in Scripture, see Shemaryahu Talmon, “Har and
Midbār: An Antithetical Pair of Biblical Motifs,” in Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, eds. M.
Mindlin, M. J. Geller, and J. E. Wansbrough (London:University of London School of African and Oriental
Studies, 1987), 117–142. For examples of motifs related to creation in Scripture, see Bernard F. Batto, In
the Beginning: Essays on Creation Motifs in the Ancient Near East and the Bible, Siphrut: Literature and
Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 9 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013).
5
László Gallusz notes the difficulty in defining motif by quoting from folklore researcher Stith
Thompson, “The most difficult question ever asked me … is the leading question –what is a motif?” Stith
Thompson, “Narrative Motif-Analysis as a Folklore Method,” in Beiträge zur Vergleichenden
Erzählforschung, Folklore Fellows Communications, 161 (Helsinki; Suomalainen Tiedeakademia, 1955),
7, quoted in László Gallusz, “The Throne Motif in the Book of Revelation” (PhD diss., Károli Gáspár
University, 2012), 12 n. 45.
6
For a summary of these types of uses, see Andreas Köstenberger, “The Present and Future of
Biblical Theology,” Themelios 37 (2012): 445–464.

3
motifs tend to serve more limited functions, such as emphasizing particular themes within

one individual or school of writing.7

Using this definition of motif, the cosmic-temple motif can be defined as the

literary/symbolic use of the temple in different parts of Scripture in order to

conceptualize theological and thematic connections and ideas related to creation. As will

be described below, a number of biblical scholars have made such a connection between

the temple and the creation passages in Genesis 1–3, where the descriptions of creation in

general, the Garden of Eden, and Adam’s role within the garden are infused with temple

terminology and symbolism. Further, as will be demonstrated from G. K. Beale’s corpus

in chapter two, there are possible theological and thematic connections between temple

and creation throughout the rest of the canon of Scripture also, climaxing in the

description of the new heavens and earth in Revelation 21–22 using temple symbolism

and language.8 The term cosmic emphasizes this creational connection with the temple.

The terms temple motif and cosmic-temple motif will be used interchangeably throughout

7
For example, advocates of the documentary hypothesis, which will be discussed below, tend to
ascribe various motifs to the different theological schools that make up the Pentateuch, with the cosmic-
temple motif a product of the Priestly school. See Peter J. Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction
of Ex 25–40,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1977): 375–387; Moshe Weinfeld,
“Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord: The Problem of the Sitz Im Leben of Genesis 1:1–
2:3,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henrie Cazelles, eds. A. Caquot and M. Delcor
(Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981), 501–512; Mark K. George, Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009).
8
G. K. Beale’s two major works related to the cosmic-temple motif are Beale, The Temple and the
Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, New Studies in Biblical Theology 17
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004) and Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The
Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011).

4
this paper, since they are used interchangeably within wider scholarship.9 However, the

cosmic implications of the temple motif are the major focus of the following chapters.

The second term to be defined here is theology of creation, which can also be

used synonymously with the term doctrine of creation. Dating back to patristic theology,

theologies of creation have typically been concerned with such topics as creatio ex nihilo,

the purpose and reason of creation, the relation of God to creation, the relation of creation

to redemption, and the relation of creation to providence.10 Each of these topics contains

within them a wealth of historical debate and theological assertions. Within modern

theology, the theological field of creation has been refined and reconstructed from a

number of theological paradigms, such as panentheism, open theology, and feminist

theology.11 Each of these theological paradigms has brought a host of new questions and

critiques for traditional understandings of creation. Also, beginning in the 19th century,

particularly with Darwin’s theory of biological evolution, a number of other topics have

received significant attention within the field of creation, including the age of the earth,

the means of creation, and the possibility of a historical Adam, with each one bringing

9
As an example, Catholic scholar Peter Grice utilizes the term cosmic temple motif in his
description of Paul’s invocation of cosmic-temple themes in 1 Cor 15: 24–28; see Grice, “Tempest
Theophany, Cosmic Conflagration, and the Vanished Vanquished: Toward a Trinitarian Framework For
Immortality and Annihilation,” in A Consuming Passion: Essays on Hell and Immortality in Honor of
Edward Fudge, eds. Christopher M. Date and Ron Highfield (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015), 112–140.
Elias Brasil de Souza chooses the term temple motif for his scriptural assessment of the motif in the Old
Testament; see de Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible: Function and
Relationship to the Earthly Counterparts” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2005).
10
Colin Gunton, “Creation,” in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, ed. Colin
Gunton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 141–157.
11
For various examples, see Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Creation and Humanity, Vol. 3 of A
Constructive Christian Theology For the Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015); Jürgen
Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God (San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1985); Thomas Jay Oord, “Introducing Open Theology and Science,” in Creation Made Free: Open
Theology Engaging Science, ed. Thomas Jay Oord (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 1–7; Catherine Keller,
The Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming (London: Routledge, 2003).

5
theology into conversation with increasingly specialized fields of science, such as

biology, physics, and chemistry.12 However, as Karl Barth was quick to observe in his

prolegomena to creation, a theology of creation is “… no less than the whole remaining

content of Christian confession … an article of faith, i.e., the rendering of a knowledge

which no man has procured for himself or ever will.”13 Standing on Barth’s faith-based

approach, a theology of creation can be defined here as a study of the world, God’s

relation to the world, and a host of further interrelated questions through the resources of

Christian faith. In line with evangelical theology, this dissertation presupposes the canon

of Scripture as the norming norm for a theological account of creation.14

A final term to be defined here is explanatory power, which has multiple

connotations within the sciences.15 Alister McGrath uses it frequently in his dialogical

style of theology between Christian faith and science.16 McGrath notes that there have

been three significant understandings of explanation in recent scientific dialogue: causal

explanation, explanatory loveliness (which is rooted within the framework of ‘inference

12
For examples of conversational dialogue between theology and specialized fields of science,
see J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, The Shaping of Rationality: Toward Interdisciplinarity in Theology and
Science (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); Jeffrey Schloss and Michael J. Murray, eds., The Believing
Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theologial Reflections on the Origins of Religion (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010); Patricia A. Williams, Doing Without Adam and Eve: Sociobiology and Original
Sin (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001); F. Leron Shults, Christology and Science (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2008).
13
Karl Barth, CD III.1, 3.
14
For an excellent account of biblical authority in Reformed theology, see Kevin J. Vanhoozer,
Biblical Authority After Babel: Retrieving the Solas in the Spirit of Mere Protestant Christianity (Grand
Rapids: Brazos, 2016), 109–146.
15
Some connotations of explanatory power are discussed in Petri Ylikoski and Jaako Kuorikoski,
“Dissecting Explanatory Power,” Philosophical Studies 148 (2010): 201–219.
16
See Alister E. McGrath, A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest For God in Science and Theology
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 53; Alister McGrath, A Scientific Theology, Vol. 2: Reality
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 25; Alister McGrath, The Science of God: An Introduction to Scientific
Theology (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 105.

6
to the best explanation’), and explanatory unification.17 While McGrath affirms God’s

causal agency, he argues that within natural theology the more appropriate focus should

not be causal understanding, but “a unitary ontology of the natural world” that is

grounded in a theology of creation.18 By unification, McGrath means the theoretical

advancement through the explanation of seemingly disparate theories through a more

advanced theory.19 Elsewhere, McGrath follows C. S. Lewis in speaking of this power as

an “explanatory window,” which makes sense of the ordering of the natural world and the

human mind.20 Following McGrath’s proposal, explanatory power can be defined here as

the ability of the cosmic-temple motif to provide internal coherence, correspondence to

reality, and integration between various theological, philosophical, and scientific

elements of a theology of creation. At points in this work, particularly pertaining to

natural theology, the explanatory power of the cosmic-temple motif will be described as

an interpretive key, making sense of various components of reality that are not self-

interpreting. Also adding to this definition of explanatory power, this dissertation will

demonstrate how the cosmic-temple motif provides hermeneutical and theological insight

through contextualization and limitation of select passages and themes of Scripture.

Methodology

This dissertation is an application of the cosmic-temple motif within the theological field

17
Alister E. McGrath, A Fine-Tuned Universe, 53.
18
Ibid., 54.
19
Ibid.
20
Alister E. McGrath, The Science of God, 222; quoted in James K. Dew, Jr., Theology and
Science: An Assessment of Alister McGrath’s Critical Realist Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock,
2010), 83.

7
of creation. The method of this dissertation consists of two parts related to each of these

two major thesis elements, the cosmic-temple motif and the various issues discussed

within a theology of creation. In the first part, the cosmic-temple motif will be described

and analyzed from notable works in chapter one and from G. K. Beale’s corpus in chapter

two in order to establish the motif as a plausible literary symbol within Scripture and

provide the groundwork for demonstrating its usefulness for a theology of creation.21 G.

K. Beale has been chosen as an exemplar of the cosmic-temple motif because of his

contribution to this field of scholarship in his monograph The Temple and the Church’s

Mission along with his incorporation of this motif into his larger biblical theology,

demonstrated in his A New Testament Biblical Theology. In each of these works, Beale

displays the possibilities for hermeneutical insights gained from reading Scripture

through the cosmic-temple motif.

In the second part, comprised of chapters 3–5, the cosmic-temple motif will be

applied to specific topics within the theological field of creation. Each of these chapters

will begin by showing a range of theological voices concerning a prominent topic within

a theology of creation. It will then point to Beale’s cosmic-temple motif within a

particular section of Scripture—Genesis 1–3, the rest of the Old Testament, and the New

Testament—as an interpretive key for insight into each particular topic. Finally, it will

demonstrate the contribution that the cosmic-temple motif can make by analyzing and

applying Beale’s work into a theological engagement of these topics. The specific

21
The first analysis of the cosmic-temple motif is contained below under the heading, “Three
Approaches to the Cosmic-Temple Motif,” where an array of scholarship is placed into three groups of
approaches: The Priestly Source Approach, The Cultural Approach, and the Text-Based Approach. While

8
focuses of these three chapters are ontology, natural theology, and eschatology. This

dissertation will limit itself by focusing on a specific issue within each of these three

chapters, rather than attempt a broad analysis, in order to demonstrate the cosmic-temple

motif’s potential for providing explanatory power within a theology of creation. The

focus of these chapters will be the distinction between pre- and postlapsarian creation in

ontology, the availability of knowledge of God within creation in natural theology, and

the relation between creation and new creation in eschatology.

This dissertation will further limit itself in four ways. First, in analysis it will

largely limit its hermeneutical scope to the cosmic-temple motif from the work of G. K.

Beale, although it will engage other biblical and theological scholars within this analysis.

Although chapter one demonstrates the contributions of other biblical scholars to the

motif, this dissertation will concentrate on Beale’s work because of his extensive

treatment of the subject across the canon of Scripture.22 Second, it will limit its

theological application to three areas within the theological field of creation. Therefore, a

full-fledged theology of creation will be beyond the scope of this work, although there

will be suggestions for further engagement in the final chapter. Third, it will not defend

the application of biblical theology within systematic theology. Although this has at times

been a contentious subject, this work will proceed on the assumptions that biblical

theology is able to make positive contributions to systematic theology, and that

the text-based approached is advocated in this dissertation through the works of G. K. Beale, the findings of
all three approaches are valuable for understanding the cosmic-temple motif.
22
Beale’s fullest canonical treatment of the cosmic-temple motif is found in Beale, The Temple
and the Church’s Mission.

9
systematic theology is an important theological field apart from biblical theology.23

Fourth, in applying Beale’s cosmic-temple motif, it will proceed under the presupposition

that the Bible is the Word of God, wholly true, and unified across the canon.24 There are

numerous challenges to each of these ideas, but they all go far beyond the possibilities of

argumentation in this dissertation.

Three Approaches to the Cosmic-Temple Motif

In surveying recent scholarship on the cosmic-temple motif, three broad approaches to

the motif can be discerned that will be analyzed in this section. The first approach

considers temple language in the Pentateuch as Priestly source material within the

framework of the documentary hypothesis. The second approach considers the

relationship between temple and creation by drawing parallels between temple language

in the Pentateuch (particularly Genesis 1) and other ancient Near Eastern literature. The

final approach considers the relationship between temple and creation through textual

themes and ideas in the canon of Scripture itself, and thus is a text-based approach. While

all three approaches can be combined together within any one study of the temple motif,

the pride of place is typically given to one particular approach. For example, Jon D.

23
A range of views related to the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology
can be found in Stanley N. Gundry and Gary T. Meadors, eds., Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to
Theology, Counterpoints (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009); Kevin Vanhoozer focuses on the relationship
between biblical and systematic theologies within the New Testament in Vanhoozer, “Is the Theology of
the New Testament One or Many?: Between (the Rock of) Systematic Theology and (the Hard Place of)
Historical Occassionalism,” in Reconsidering the Relationship between Biblical and Systematic Theology
in the New Testament, eds. Benjamin E. Reynolds, Brian Lugioyo, and Kevin Vanhoozer,
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2 369 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 17–38.
24
For an analysis of these ideas in line with the presuppositions of this dissertation, see Paul
Helm, “The Idea of Inerrancy,” in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures, ed. D. A. Carson
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 899–916.

10
Levenson utilizes the Priestly source in his description of the temple motif, but it is

grounded in a comparative analysis between the OT and ANE literature.25 Similarly, G.

K. Beale uses some comparative analysis in his own development of the temple motif,

but it is grounded in a textual based approach from the canon itself.26 This section will

offer brief summaries of some of the more important works within recent biblical

scholarship for each of the three approaches. The major thesis of this section is that a

text-based approach is the proper starting point for the cosmic-temple motif because it

synthesizes the major arguments from the other two approaches, while avoiding some of

their deficiencies. As will be demonstrated in chapter two, G. K. Beale can be considered

as the exemplar of this text-based approach to the cosmic-temple motif.

The Priestly Source Approach to the Cosmic-Temple Motif

The first approach for understanding the symbolic relationship between temple and

creation involves the Pentateuch material labeled as Priestly source material within the

documentary hypothesis. In summary, the documentary hypothesis attributes the final

form of the Pentateuch to the writings of two or three main sources along with other

comprised traditions.27 The documentary hypothesis claims that each of these sources had

a distinct style of writing and particular theological interests that enables scholars to

25
Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine
Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 3–13.
26
G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 29–31.
27
For summary and analysis of the documentary hypothesis, see Reinhard G. Kratz, The
Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament, trans. John Bowden (London: T&T Clark,
2005); Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New
York: Doubleday, 1992); Anthony F. Campbell and Mark A. O’Brien, Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts,
Introductions, Annotations (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).

11
distinguish between them and recognize their unique contributions.28 Within the

framework of the documentary hypothesis, Gen 1:1–2:4 is viewed as a writing of the

Priestly school (often referred to as the P source), which is associated with certain literary

characteristics such as a toledot scheme, monotonous language, ongoing genealogy, and

particular theological system.29

There is some debate over the dating of the Priestly writings, particularly whether

they are pre- or post-exilic.30 Using the traditional dating system, Yves Congar argues

that the post-exilic Priestly school developed a temple theology on the bare facts of the

exodus and subsequent journey into the Promised Land.31 However, in the influential

book Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, Menahem Haran argues that the

Priestly school was pre-exilic rather than post-exilic, based upon the notion that all of P’s

materials describe pre-exilic conditions that would have been untenable in post-exilic

Israel.32 For Haran, this proposed dating implies that “… not only P’s material, but even

its literary form, together with the ideology embodied in it and the particular disposition

28
Campbell and O’Brien, Sources of the Pentateuch, 4–10.
29
Kratz, The Composition of the Narrative Books, 230; Claus Westermann, Genesis: An
Introduction, trans. John J. Scullion S. J. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 12–18. There is some debate
amongst those who hold to Priestly composition of the passage over the precise ending for the
compositional ending between Gen 2:3 and Gen 2:4; for analysis of this debate, see Marc Vervenne,
“Genesis 1,1–2,4. The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Overture to the Pentateuch,” in Studies in the
Book of Genesis, ed. André Wénin (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2010), 35–70.
30
Dominik Markl notes the range of dating options in recent scholarship in his article, “The
Wilderness Sanctuary as the Archetype of Continuity Between the Pre- and the Postexilic Temples of
Jerusalem,” in The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah, eds. Peter Dubovský, Dominik Markl, and
Jean-Pierre Sonnet, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 107 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 227–228.
Markl does note that the vast majority of scholarship believes the tabernacle of Exodus 35 is symbolic,
idealized, or utopian, rather than historical, which runs contrary to the opinion of a number of evangelical
biblical theologians who hold to the temple motif.
31
Yves M.–J. Congar, The Mystery of the Temple: The Manner of God’s Presence to His
Creatures from Genesis to the Apocalypse, trans. Reginald F. Trevett (Westminster, MD: Newman Press,
1962), 18.
32
Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character
of the Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 7.
12
typifying it, are monuments to the contemplations and aspirations of the First Temple

priesthood at a certain point in time.”33 Both Congar and Haran, despite differences in

dating, emphasize a temple theology that shapes the writings associated with the Priestly

school. From the first temple period, Haran works back through the Pentateuch to argue

that the “highly fictitious” tabernacle depicted in Exodus 25–31 and 35–40 is the

“scholastic–literary” product of the Jerusalem priesthood.34 Similarly, Congar argues that

the Priestly school shaped the Exodus story by providing theological links between

elements of the story, such as the pillar of cloud, and the temple.35

Although neither Congar nor Haran deals explicitly with Gen 1:1–2:4 in these

works, their analysis can be carried over to this passage and the Priestly emphases that

shape the narrative. Others have argued on these same grounds that Gen 1:1–2:4 and

Exodus 39–40 form an inclusio, where the tabernacle/temple becomes the climax of

creation.36 Within this rendering, both Gen 1:1–2:4 and Exodus 39–40 offer macrocosmic

and microcosmic cosmologies, with creation providing the larger framework for the

conceptual space of the tabernacle.37 From the perspective of post-exilic composition,

Gershon Hepner argues that the priestly materials of Genesis and Exodus are politically

focused on reestablishing Judah as holy space upon return from exile in Babylon.38 In a

33
Ibid., 6.
34
Ibid., 46.
35
Yves Congar, The Mystery of the Temple, 9.
36
Benjamin D. Sommer, “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence in the Priestly
Tabernacle,” BibInt 9 (2001): 43; Gershon Hepner, Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in
Biblical Israel, Studies in Biblical Literature 78 (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), 945–946; Marvin A.
Sweeney, “Genesis in the Context of Jewish Thought,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception,
and Interpretation, eds. Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen (Leiden: Brill: 2012), 663.
37
Mark K. George, Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space, 91.
38
Hepner, Legal Friction, 945.

13
groundbreaking study on the temple motif, Peter Kearney enlarges this connection to

include Exodus 25–40, noting the similarities between the seven speeches of Moses in

Exodus 25–31 and the corresponding days of creation in Genesis 1.39 Moshe Weinfeld

also picks up on these similarities, advocating that the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1 is

cultic-liturgic, meaning that it is a priestly display of creation as dwelling-place/temple of

God.40

This rendering of reciprocating symbolism between temple and creation is based

upon the similarities between passages considered P source material, and thus it is

interpreted through the framework of the Priestly school and its supposed

characterizations and theological agenda. One difficulty with arguing for this

reciprocating symbolism based upon P source material is the questionable sources of the

texts themselves. The documentary hypothesis has been met with a number of challenges

both from scholars who hold to a more unified source of origin of the Pentateuch as well

as those who hold to a fragmentary origin.41 Joseph Blenkinsopp argues that the

documentary hypothesis approach to Genesis should be viewed with suspicion, since the

different passages do not fit neatly into the schools of origin.42 For example, Genesis 5

and 11 have been typically assigned to the Priestly school because they contain

genealogical lists. However, they do not exhibit any other of the signs normally

associated with the Priestly school. Instead, he views Genesis 1–11 as the work of a

39
Peter J. Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy,” 375–378.
40
Moshe Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord,” 510.
41
David Bokovoy, “The Death of the Documentary Hypothesis,” When Gods Were Men, May 9,
2017, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2014/01/the-death-of-the-documentary-hypothesis/.
42
Joseph Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation: A Discursive Commentary on
Genesis 1–11 (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 6–8.

14
single author who used different sources such as P and J to build up a single cohesive

narrative.43 Therefore, similarly to some scholarship within biblical theology that

emphasizes the final form of the text rather than potential sources, Blenkinsopp advocates

the complete narrative of Genesis 1–11 as the basic unit of study.

From an evangelical perspective, Daniel Block makes a similar point concerning

Gen 1:1–2:3. He finds only one element connected with the Priestly school within the

passage, ‫וׁש ֹא ׁש דֵַּקְיַו‬, “and he sanctified it,” and even there Block notes that the passage

refers to time rather than created space.44 Block further notes that Gen 2:4–3:24, typically

attributed to the Yahwist rather than Priestly source, contains more links to the sanctuary

than Genesis 1.45 Thus, there is more apparent unity to the text than often proposed by

those holding to two different source origins. Also, the three chapters together appear to

display a single theological agenda, which can either be attributed to the final editor of

the text or a single author.

The arguments of Blenkinsopp and Block highlight significant challenges to the

idea that a clean distinction can be made between writings within the Pentateuch, and

particularly within the opening chapters of Genesis. Therefore, the Priestly source

43
Ibid., 7.
44
Daniel Block, “Eden: A Temple? A Reassessment of the Biblical Evidence,” in From Creation
to New Creation: Biblical Theology and Exegesis: Essays in Honor of G. K. Beale, eds. Daniel M. Gurtner
and Benjamin L. Gladd (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2013), 5.
45
Ibid., 6. Gordon Wenham offers an argument on the same grounds as Block against the
distinction of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2–3, noting that the temple motif provides a more unified reading of
these three chapters together than is usually ascribed by the documentary hypothesis; see Gordon Wenham,
“Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” I Studied Inscriptions From Before the Flood:
Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11, eds. Richard S. Hess and
David Toshio Tsumura, Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1994), 404.

15
material by itself does not provide sufficient warrant for locating a temple motif based on

the priestly theological agenda and literary style within the Pentateuch. However, as the

text-based approach below will demonstrate, the insights themselves provided by this

approach, particularly the parallel literary forms between Gen 1:1–2:4 and the tabernacle-

building passage in Exodus 39–40, provide strong evidence for rendering a temple motif.

The Cultural Approach to the Cosmic-Temple Motif

Another approach for locating a cosmic-temple motif within the OT is a cultural

approach, which draws parallels between the temple writings within the OT and other

ANE writings from a similar time period. For example, in Peter Dubovský’s recent study

on the historical development of the first temple, he begins by investigating the

restorations of temples in the ancient Near East across different time periods.46 Similarly,

R. J. McKelvey’s mid-century study of the temple’s relation to the Church in the New

Testament begins by looking at the general significance of temples in this area of this

world.47 According to these and other scholars, the Israelite temple can be understood

within its cultural background, particularly with regard to cosmological implications.48 In

the words of Richard Middleton, “The notion of the cosmos as temple has its roots in the

46
Peter Dubovský, The Building of the First Temple: A Study in Redactional, Text–Critical and
Historical Perspective, eds. Konrad Schmid, Mark S. Smith, and Hermann Spieckermann, Forschungen
zum Alten Testament 103 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 10.
47
R. J. McKelvey, The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1969), 1.
48
For a recent history of connection between ANE texts and the Bible within biblical criticism,
see Othmar Keel and Silvia Schroer, Creation: Biblical Theologies in the Context of the Ancient Near East,
trans. Peter T. Daniels (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 4–15.

16
ancient Near Eastern worldview, in which temples were commonly understood as palaces

of the gods, in which they dwelled and from which they reigned.”49

John Walton offers what is perhaps the most thorough case for this type of

argument related to the cosmic-temple motif in his reading of Genesis 1 in conjunction

with ancient cosmologies. His argument focuses on “… using all the literature at our

disposal to reconstruct the ancient cognitive environment, which can then serve as the

backdrop for understanding each literary work.”50 Walton offers a conceptual scheme for

understanding Genesis 1 within its own cognitive environment, giving seven category

options for assessing similarities and differences between the literature of the Bible and

the ancient Near East.51 The seven categories could be paraphrased in the following way,

with examples given by Walton:

1) The OT ignores common ANE ideologies for different views (e.g., certain
theogonies).
2) The OT shows some familiarity with ANE ideas (e.g., the caricature of other
nations’ deities).
3) The OT demonstrates awareness of ANE ideas but rejects them for alternatives
(e.g., polytheism).
4) The OT expresses either through polemical statements or alternative
perspectives clear awareness of ANE ideas (e.g., the role of humanity).
5) The OT adapts and transforms an ANE idea (e.g., humans made from dust).
6) The OT consciously imitates an ANE idea (e.g., descriptions of temple
architecture).
7) The OT subconsciously borrows from ANE ideas (e.g., the idea of deities
resting in temples).52

49
Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids: Brazos
Press, 2005), 81.
50
John Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 2.
51
Ibid., 4.
52
Ibid.

17
Walton finds each category at work in different parts of the OT, and thus approaches

Scripture with Israel’s cognitive environment in mind, understanding the elements and

theological emphases of the OT in similarity and distinction from this environment.

Related to similarity, Walton notes the number of ANE creation texts that “…

follow the model of temple-building texts and ... imply that the cosmos is conceived to be

a temple.”53 Further, in texts such as Enuma Elish, Memphite Theology, and the Kesh

Temple Hymn, the deity comes to rest within the temple after securing the cosmos or

some other previously unstable condition.54 Walton also notes that within each of these

accounts, the resting of the gods in the temples is not associated with disengagement but

engagement.55 Although Walton notes that Genesis 1 does not explicitly mention creation

as temple, there are two interconnected reasons for believing that it is invoking the

temple in relation to these ANE stories: the placement of the seventh-day rest and the

description of the Garden of Eden. First, similarly to other ANE texts, God takes his rest

upon the seventh day of creation. Walton argues that this similarity is not a case of

Genesis borrowing from another text, but of the ANE nations sharing “… certain basic

53
Ibid., 113–114. Within the Enuma elish (6.51–58), Marduk builds a city-temple in Babylon for
the purpose of resting after defeating the goddess Tiamat. For a translation of the Enuma elish, see
Benjamin R. Foster, From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia (Bethesda,
MD: CDL Press, 1995), 39–40. The Egyptian Memphite Theology stone describes the god Ptah setting the
other gods in cult-like places within temples throughout the land. For a translation, see “The Memphite
Theology,” in The Context of Scripture, Volume I: Canonical Compositions From the Biblical World, eds.
William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 21–23. The Kesh Temple Hymn, an
ancient Sumerian cuneiform hymn, is available online through Oxford University’s Electronic Text Corpus
of Sumerian Literature at http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.4.80.2#. This hymn praises the
temple in the Sumer city of Kesh, in which the goddess Nisaba dwells; For an overview of temples as
divine dwelling places within the ancient Near East, see Michael B. Hundley, Gods in Dwellings: Temples
and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near East, Writings from the Ancient World Supplement Series 3
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013).
54
Walton, Genesis 1, 110–115.
55
Ibid., 114.

18
concepts about temples, rest, and cosmos that are naturally reflected in an account such as

Genesis 1.”56 Second, this similarity is extended to the Garden of Eden, with Walton

finding ample evidence that a variety of ANE temples associated their temples with

garden imagery and language.57 However, Walton also finds a distinction between the

Genesis story of creation and other ANE views in the Genesis emphasis on the support of

human life as the purpose of creation. Other ANE texts depict creation for the purpose of

the gods rather than humanity.58 In both similarity and difference, Walton makes use of

the cultural backdrop for understanding the Genesis creation account.

Walton is not alone in noticing these temple parallels between Genesis and other

ANE literature. In Creation and the Persistence of Evil, Jon D. Levenson also notes

parallels between Genesis and other temple-building texts of Scripture, the Ugaritic

creation account, and the Enuma elish, amongst others.59 Combining the similarities of

56
Ibid., 183.
57
Ibid., 184–187. Walton notes in these pages garden imagery near temples in Assur, Egypt, and
Mesopotamia. Terje Stordalen has presented perhaps the fullest treatment of temples and gardens within the
ancient Near East in Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in
Biblical Hebrew Literature (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000), 81–183. In that work, Stordalen notes that
there is evidence, though not extensive, that trees and gardens were sometimes included in the cultic-royal
settings within ancient Near Eastern cities.
58
Ibid., 189. Walton here relies on the scholarship of Richard J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the
Ancient Near East and In the Bible, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 26 (Washington, D. C.:
Catholic Biblical Association, 1994). Walter Eichrodt similarly notes the distinct difference in portrayals of
the gods’ engagement with creation between the Israelite origin account and the Babylonian origin account
presented in the Enuma elish; See Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, Vol. 2
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967), 93–116.
59
Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine
Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 86. For translation of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle,
including the creation account, see Mark S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Vol. 1: Introduction With Text,
Translation, and Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 116–362. For similarities between OT
creation and the Ugaritic account, see also Loren R. Fisher, “Creation at Ugarit and in the Old Testament,”
Vetus Testamentum 15 (1965): 313–324. Similarly to Levenson, Bernard Batto also sees ‘divine rest after
cosmic victory’ as a parallel theme between Genesis 1, the Enuma elish, and the Ugaritic creation account;
see Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1992), 78.

19
these parallel texts with the idea of P source material discussed above, Levenson frames

creation as macro-temple and the Jewish temple as micro-cosmos, with both revealing

“double directionality” between temple and world.60 John Lundquist also uses a

comparative method to detail the similarities between OT temple texts and surrounding

ANE literature. Central to the present argument is Lundquists’s proposal that in both the

OT and other ANE texts the temple is conceived as an “architectural embodiment of the

cosmic mountain,” with the cosmic mountain itself conceived as the “primordial hillock”

that first emerged from the waters in creation.61 Similarly to Walton and Levenson,

Lundquist’s framework provides for a reciprocative reading of creation and temple based

on significant parallels between ANE cultural texts.

Walton, Levenson, and Lundquist each provide a compelling argument for

understanding creation as cosmic temple in comparison with other ANE literature that

emphasizes this connection. However, there are also a number of cautions for interpreting

Scripture in this manner. In a recent article, Noel Weeks presents several reasons why

this practice could lead to faulty interpretations of Scripture. First, there could be such a

great distinction between the biblical environment that shapes the text and the

surrounding culture “that an apparent parallel is not a real one.”62 Here Weeks presents

evidence from recent literature suggesting that many of the cultural practices formerly

thought to be widespread across the region turn out to be specific to the different nations

60
Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 86.
61
John D. Lundquist, “What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology,” in The Quest for the
Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, eds. H. B. Huffmon, F. A. Spina, and A. R.
W. Green (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 207–208.
62
Noel K. Weeks, “The Ambiguity of Biblical ‘Background,’” WTJ 72 (2010): 221.

20
and thus are only superficially related to practices in Scripture. One example is the

attempt to read the story of Abraham’s marriage to Sarah in Genesis on the basis of

adoption practices in Nuzi, a reading that does not take into account the specifics of the

practice or the story in Genesis.63

Second, as Weeks demonstrates in his analysis of a common topic in comparative

analysis, ANE and OT covenants and treaties, a plausible reading can be made that Israel

and the surrounding ANE culture developed from a common base rather than Israel

consciously or subconsciously borrowing from the surrounding culture.64 Hence, the

ANE culture does not provide an adequate backdrop for understanding Israelite

covenants since they are both equally removed from the common base. G. K. Beale offers

just such an analysis in his own development of the temple motif.65 He argues that Israel

did not conceive their meaning of temple from other ANE nations, but rather that a true

conception of temple was available through God’s revelation from the beginning of

creation. According to Beale, even after sin entered the world, “a refracted and marred

understanding of the true conception of the temple” was still available to all cultures in

the ancient Near East.66 Thus, the resemblance is based upon a “common base” rather

than borrowed culture. Of course, Beale’s analysis is a theological speculation based on

the concept of special revelation, a theological concept that is more or less plausible

depending upon a person’s theological convictions about ideas such as divine action and

omnipotence. For those who do hold similar theological convictions, Beale offers a

63
Ibid., 220–221.
64
Ibid., 221–225.
65
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 29.
66
Ibid.

21
plausible understanding of this relationship between Israel and the wider ANE culture,

and thus implicitly provides evidence for Weeks’s point.67

Third, Weeks argues that cultural settings are not determinative for what is said

by those within the culture. He argues that if this was the case then a sort of cultural

determinism is the result for both ancient and modern cultures, with implicit assumptions

made about Scripture. Week writes,

If one implicitly retains the premise of a common culture in the Ancient Near
East, then it is to be expected that the same features will appear in biblical texts as
in outside texts. It would falsify the basic premise of determinism if the authors of
biblical texts were able to produce something radically different to their
surroundings.68

The end result of cultural determinism is a genetic fallacy applied to Scripture and an

assumption that the authors of Scripture were unable to present unique truths in

distinction from their surrounding culture.

In a subsequent paper Noel Weeks offers specific critiques of John Walton’s

methodology as it relates to interpreting the OT within the “universal ancient mind” of

ANE culture.69 Weeks questions the idea of a shared cultural language across the ancient

Near East, noting the great distinctions between Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian,

and Ukaritic writings, particularly in relation to the creation story. Scholars commonly

appeal to the Enuma elish, one of the few creation stories found within this time period in

the ancient Near East, as a major influence for the Genesis creation account, but Weeks

67
Chapter four of this work will explore this idea further as it concerns the temple and natural
theology.
68
Weeks, “Biblical ‘Backgrounds,’” 228.
69
Noel K. Weeks, “The Bible and the ‘Universal’ Ancient World: A Critique of John Walton,”
WTJ 78 (2016): 4.

22
notes that this idea requires the belief that the Israelite writer(s) used this story without

utilizing any of its major points.70 Specifically related to Walton’s idea that Genesis 1

should be read as inauguration of cosmic temple based upon shared ANE assumptions,

Weeks provides several examples from ANE texts that depict different relationships

between the gods and their temples. He writes,

Walton’s main evidence, however, comes from Enuma elish. There the god Ea
builds a temple on the defeated Apsu and rests in it. After Marduk’s victory over
Tiamat and Marduk’s proclamation as king of the gods, his temple, Esagil, is built
in Babylon. It is then said that when the gods come down from heaven and up
from the apsû to meet at Marduk’s temple, they will be able to rest there. Thus,
gods rest in temples but not in their own temple. The presupposition seems to be
that the gods normally dwelt in heaven or the apsû. If so, Walton’s thesis has met
a significant obstacle. It is clear that the meeting which is being spoken about is
the meeting of gods at the Babylonian New Year Festival. Yet at that festival the
images of gods, principally that of Nabu, were brought from their temples in other
cities. Is Enuma elish effectively claiming that only Marduk has a permanent
position on earth and the other gods lived elsewhere? It would contradict the
normal process of care and feeding of the gods in their earthly houses, but such
contradictions are common. Whatever the answer to such elusive questions, this
text does not support Walton’s thesis that mention of a god resting necessitates a
temple, since the gods here do not rest in their own temples.71

Here Weeks shows several prominent stories that do not fit neatly into the uniform

picture of ANE culture posited by Walton. Gordon Wenham offers a similar note when

he writes,

[D]iscovering the views on origins held in the ancient world when Gen 1–11 was
written is highly problematic. Despite the vast number of tablets unearthed and
read by Assyriologists, Hittitologists, and Egyptologists, our knowledge of
ancient beliefs is patchy. Many of the most relevant texts parallel to Gen 1–11
have gaps at significant places and are not always easy to date.72
70
Ibid., 8–9. It should be noted that Walton himself does not subscribe to this view because he
finds the Enuma elish to be an idiosyncratic text within ANE culture; see Walton, Genesis 1, 124. This idea
is discussed further in ch. 3 of this work.
71
Weeks, “‘Universal’ Ancient World,” 13–14.
72
Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis 1–11 as Protohistory,” in Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither:
Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters, eds. Charles Halton and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2015), 74.
23
Although more open to incorporating the cognitive environment of Israel and the

surrounding culture than Weeks, Gordon Wenham here notes the difficulty in attempting

to understand this ancient cognitive environment.

At the very least, this evidence demonstrates that different nations within the

ancient Near East had different cosmological and cosmogonic ideas and stories about the

world and its relationship to the various gods of the cultures. While Weeks does not

demonstrate that the wider ANE culture cannot be helpful for interpreting Scripture, he

does show that it is a mistaken practice to interpret Scripture largely or solely against the

backdrop of ANE culture. This limitation should at the least provide caution when

attempting to understand the meaning of the OT through cultural lenses in general and the

contents of Genesis 1–3 in particular.

The Text-Based Approach to the Cosmic-Temple Motif

The first two approaches considered, the Priestly source approach and the cultural

approach, have both benefits and deficiencies. The Priestly source approach relies upon

the idea that the texts of the OT can be internally distinguished based upon such marks as

theological priorities and grammatical features. As shown above, this idea—along with

the entire documentary hypothesis—is not without significant challenge. The text-based

approach has an advantage over the P source approach because it can use the same

findings without relying on the documentary hypothesis. Further, it is not limited to

passages that are marked as deriving from the Priestly school. The cultural approach

relies upon a basic universality of background ideas and themes within the ANE culture,

24
but this belief is open to scholarly challenge, as demonstrated by Noel Weeks’s critique

of the approach in general and John Walton’s method in particular. Those who give

priority to the text-based approach tend to utilize cultural findings without basing the

entire approach upon them. In the words of Seth Postell, “[W]hile the locus of meaning is

in the text, the methodology does not minimize the importance of the events to which the

text refers or the historical circumstances in which the text was produced.”73 This

approach, therefore, has significant advantages over the other two approaches considered,

although it is not without challenge itself. Since chapter two of this dissertation will

analyze G. K. Beale’s development of the cosmic-temple motif within his eschatological

biblical theology, this section will briefly summarize four other scholars who have

offered text-based approaches to the motif.

In Axis of Glory, Dan Lioy develops the temple motif through an intertextual

method that finds “conceptual and linguistic parallels” for the temple across the canon of

Scripture, such as Christ’s eschatological ministry and the new heavens and new earth.74

Beginning in Genesis, he finds that “a variety of terrestrial shrines in Scripture are

regarded as sacred points of contact between the God of glory and His creation,”

including the Garden of Eden as proto-temple, the Israelite tabernacle, the Jerusalem

temple, and eventually the new heavens and earth.75 Lioy also notes the priestly

commissions given by God to Adam, Noah, Abraham, and his descendants.76 This

73
Seth D. Postell, Adam as Israel: Genesis 1–3 as the Introduction to the Torah and Tanakh
(Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), 55.
74
Dan Lioy, Axis of Glory: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of the Temple Motif in Scripture,
ed. Hemchand Gossai, Studies in Biblical Literature 138 (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), 6.
75
Ibid., 1.
76
Ibid., 17–32.

25
priestly commission is eventually fulfilled in the life of Jesus, who replaces the temple as

the dwelling place of God.77 Therefore, for Lioy, the cosmic-temple motif can be

developed across the canon in a way that displays the unity of the OT and NT internally

and with each other.

Several other text-based approaches to the temple motif focus more specifically

on the opening chapters of Genesis as proto-temple. Gordon Wenham interprets Genesis

1–3 as a highly symbolic narrative intended to be read through the framework of “later

cultic legislation.”78 Wenham’s account mainly highlights the linguistic parallels between

the Garden of Eden and the later Israelite tabernacle and temple. One example is the

parallel between the purpose of the tree of life in Gen 2:3 and the purpose of the law itself

in Ps 19:8–9. To this linguistic parallel, he adds, “The law was of course kept in the holy

of holies; the decalogue inside the ark and the book of the law beside it (Exod 25:16;

Deut 31:26). Furthermore, Israel knew that touching the ark or even seeing it uncovered

brought death, just as eating from the tree of knowledge did.”79 Extending this symbolic

interpretation, Adam did in fact begin to experience death when removed from the

Garden of Eden in the same way that those excluded from the camp of Israel were

thought to be in the realm of death in Lev 14:45–46.80 According to Wenham, this

reading makes sense of certain facets of the story, such as the decree of death upon Adam

after sin, that are seemingly contradictory or incoherent in a literal reading.

77
Ibid., 72.
78
Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism,” 404.
79
Ibid., 403.
80
Ibid., 404.

26
 While Wenham focuses mainly on Genesis 1–2, Old Testament scholar Meredith

Kline finds evidence for the Garden of Eden as temple sanctuary in his interpretation of

Genesis 3 and the prophetic portrayals of restored Israel.81 According to Kline, first,

God’s localized presence in the Garden is insinuated in his judgment of Adam as a result

of Adam’s sin. Second, the cherubim act as guardians of God’s presence after Adam’s

expulsion from the garden. Third, later prophets depict future restoration of Israel as the

return of God’s glory to a setting reminiscent of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2. Finally,

Kline notes a paradise motif (which fits well with the temple motif) in the architecture

and decoration of the temple sanctuary. All of these points of evidence naturally fit with

the idea of a templed understanding of the Garden of Eden within original creation, as

noted by Kline,

Chosen as the focal throne-site of the Glory-Spirit, the garden of Eden was a
microcosmic, earthly version of the cosmic temple and the site of a visible, local
projection of the heavenly temple. At the first, then, man’s native dwelling-place
coincided with God’s earthly dwelling. This focal sanctuary in Eden was designed
to be a medium whereby man might experience the joy of the presence of God in
a way and on a scale most suited to his nature and condition as an earthly creature
during the first stage of his historical journey, walking with God.82

The Garden of Eden as microcosm language used by Kline is important in that it

emphasizes the reciprocating symbolism between the earth as cosmic temple and heaven

as eternal temple. G. K. Beale argues for a similar reciprocation, although with some

different emphases and a slightly different understanding of the Garden’s status as

temple.

81
Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview
(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 45–49.
82
Ibid., 49.

27
 Desmond T. Alexander also finds support within Scripture for a temple motif.

Along with source critics, Alexander notes a distinction in literary style and vocabulary

between Gen 1:1–2:3 and Gen 2:4–3:24.83 However, unlike the majority of source

critics, Alexander believes that the distinctions are meant to present a “two-sided but

complementary account of God,” emphasizing God’s transcendence in Genesis 1 and his

immanence in Genesis 2–3.84 These two complementary accounts are held together in

these texts through the temple motif, which Alexander identifies as the idea that the earth

was created with the intention of it becoming God’s dwelling-place, or temple-city,

amongst his creation.85 While Alexander’s temple motif draws upon the conclusions of

John Walton and Richard Middleton, he places their evidence within a text-based

approach that is chiefly concerned with understanding the major themes of the

Pentateuch, what he labels as threads that run through and unify the plot of the

Pentateuch.86 The temple motif acts as one of these threads, establishing the purpose for

God’s creation and providing insight for later passages that present the antithesis of

God’s desired temple-city creation. Alexander presents the Tower of Babel story in

Genesis 11 as an archetypal expression of this antithesis, observing,

Against the background of God’s plan to construct a temple-city on the earth, the
account of the building of the city of Babel-Babylon takes on special significance.
... Constructed by people for people alone, Babel-Babylon is a mockery of what
God intended when he created humans and commissioned them to be his temple-
city builders.87

83
Desmond T. Alexander, From Paradise to Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch,
rd
3 ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 119–120.
84
Ibid., 122.
85
Ibid.
86
Ibid., 113.
87
Ibid., 128.

28
Alexander continues to trace this theme through the Bible, connecting God’s desire for a

temple-city to the stories of Abraham, Israel, and ultimately to the new Jerusalem city

described in Revelation 21–22. As will become evident in the next chapter, Alexander’s

approach probably stands the closest to that of G. K. Beale.

One final text-based approach is worth summarizing, as it advocates the temple

motif within the early chapters of Genesis, while placing it within a different interpretive

framework of the Pentateuch. Seth Postell argues that Genesis 1–3 should be understood

as the literary strategic introduction to the entire Tanakh.88 In other words, similarly to

Beale (as will be discussed in chapter two), Postell finds the story of Genesis 1–3

recapitulated in the OT story of Israel. Within this thesis, Postell interprets Genesis 1 as

the foreshadowing of the construction of the temple, while Genesis 2–3 anticipates the

temple’s appearance.89 Similarly, Adam’s role in Genesis 1 is king, while his role in

Genesis 2–3 is “Sinaitic priest.”90 Postell connects Adam’s role as priest brought in to the

Garden of Eden with the later role of Israel as God’s chosen people brought in to the

Promised Land.91 This temple motif functions within Postell’s larger thesis to establish

Genesis 1–3 as the prototype for the later Sinai Covenant between God and Adam. For

Postell, the fall of Adam in Genesis 3 and the later prophecy of the fall of Israel in

Deuteronomy 30–31 form an “inclusio of pessimism” within the Pentateuch that looks

forward to God’s restoration in the last days.92

88
Postell, Adam as Israel, 2.
89
Ibid., 108.
90
Ibid., 109.
91
Ibid., 114.
92
Ibid., 3–4.

29
 Each of the text-based approaches here summarized establishes intertextual links

between Genesis 1–3 and other major themes and stories in Scripture, such as the

building of the tabernacle/temple, the eschatological restoration of Israel, and the

fulfillment of the temple in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. As will be

demonstrated in chapter two, each of these intertextual links is also used by G. K. Beale

in his reading of the temple motif. However, it should be noted that the text-based

approach to the temple motif is usually bound with the idea of literary and theological

unity across the canon of Scripture, just as the P source approach depends upon the idea

of schools of authorship in the Pentateuch and the cultural approach depends upon a

certain degree of cultural uniformity across the ancient Near East. Just as each of these

more basic claims can be critiqued or rejected, so can the idea that there is an

undergirding unity to the diverse writings that make up the canon. While there is

insufficient space here to deal adequately with the different positions and claims, two

brief arguments can be offered in support of canonical unity in conjunction with a text-

based approach to the temple motif, the first related to how the discussion is framed and

the second related to scriptural evidence.

First, the debate over the unity of the canon is foremost a theological debate that

utilizes historical-critical scholarship, rather than a primarily historical-critical debate.

This theological debate involves such important doctrines as divine providence and

revelation. Therefore, theological presuppositions play a formative role in understanding

the unity of Scripture. Concerning divine providence, Kevin Vanhoozer remarks,

“Perhaps the single most important aspect of the doctrine of God which has a bearing on

30
the doctrine of Scripture is divine providence.”93 For example, some biblical critics rule

out miraculous events in the Bible based upon a closed understanding of the universe,

which implicitly rejects the doctrine of God’s providence.94 In these instances,

theological presuppositions concerning the possibility of God’s providential ability to

perform miracles limit interpretive possibilities of the text. Concerning revelation, the

idea of the basic unity of the Bible generally flows from the theological presupposition

that the Bible is God’s revelation to humanity and thus is ultimately of divine origin.95

Carl F. H. Henry has called revelation “the basic epistemological axiom” of theology,

undemonstrable in itself just as the basic axiom of every system is undemonstrable.96

Therefore, theological presuppositions concerning revelation play a formative role in

assenting or denying canonical unity. However, as Henry argues, the idea of Scripture as

God’s revelation can be supported by certain tests of truthfulness.97 Henry points to inner

consistency and external coherence as two tests of the truth of Scripture. In summary,

historical-critical scholarship plays a role in testing the consistency and coherence of

Scripture, but it is understood in conjunction with theological presuppositions that ground

the different viewpoints.

This leads to the second brief argument in favor of the text-based appeal to the

93
Kevin Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture, and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2002), 127.
94
John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 15.
95
For further reading on theological groundings of Scripture’s authority, see David K. Clark, To
Know and Love God: Method For Theology, ed. by John S. Feinberg, Foundations of Evangelical Theology
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), 59–65.
96
Carl F. H. Henry, God Who Speaks and Shows: Preliminary Considerations, God, Revelation
and Authority, Vol. 1 (Waco: Word Books, 1976), 219–223.
97
Ibid., 232.

31
unity of Scripture, that the temple motif provides evidence for the consistency and

coherence of Scripture. The contrast between the amounts of Scripture used by the P

source approach and the text-based approach helps demonstrate this argument. If the P

source approach is correct, then the temple motif is limited to one school of thought that

only makes up a small portion of the OT. However, as shown by the text-based approach

above and further shown by G. K. Beale’s cosmic-temple motif in chapter two, evidence

for a cosmic-temple motif spans across the Pentateuch, the rest of the OT, and the NT,

thus providing a source of evidence for the inner consistency and coherence of Scripture.

While consistency and coherence in themselves or even together do not provide sufficient

justification for a particular belief, they are necessary for a true belief, and thus are

important within the text-based approach.98

Theological Application of the Cosmic-Temple Motif

The major argument of this work builds on the notion that there is a recognizable temple

motif in Scripture, and that this motif can provide explanatory power for certain pressing

issues within a theology of creation. Chapter 3–5 will seek to substantiate this claim

related to creation and ontology, creation and natural theology, and creation and

eschatology, three major areas within a theology of creation. To this point, there is no

known large-scale application of the application of the temple motif to a theology of

creation, and thus there is great need to move this motif from biblical theology into

systematic theology. However, there have been some small-scale theological applications

of the motif, typically done in conjunction with demonstrations of the plausibility of the

98
Clark, To Know and Love God, 157–158.
32
motif. For this reason, the focus has not been on large scale theological reflection. This

section will serve two purposes. First, it will demonstrate that others have recognized

some degree of theological applicability of the cosmic-temple motif through summarizing

known applications.99 Second, it will demonstrate how little theological engagement with

the motif that has actually been done, which thus points to the need for further analysis

like that done in chapters 3–5.

The Cosmic-Temple Motif and Scientific Understanding of the World

One of the most pressing areas of concern in Christian theology today is between science

and faith, specifically the current scientific paradigm for understanding the history and

development of the world and the description of creation in Genesis 1–3. Gerald Rau

describes six models for understanding the interaction between the supernatural and

natural worlds: naturalistic evolution, nonteleological evolution, planned evolution,

directed evolution, old-earth creationism, and young-earth creationism.100 Each of these

six models includes a variety of theological and exegetical presuppositions and results.

The latter four models are all live options within evangelical theology, and there is

99
This section will not attempt major analysis of the theological applications given, but rather will
focus largely on summary in order to demonstrate what has to this point appeared in the field.
100
Gerald Rau, Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 38–39. In Rau’s work, he correctly notes that intelligent design is not
limited to one model, but can be held in some fashion in several of the models.

33
currently robust debate between evangelical organizations, theologians, and scientists

over the appropriate relationship between science and Christian faith.101

In The Lost World of Genesis One, John Walton builds the case that, within its

own ANE cosmological context, Genesis 1 is best understood as a cosmic-temple text.

On the reverse side, Walton argues that the attempt to understand Genesis 1 through

modern cosmology is to misidentify the purpose of the text and therefore to

misunderstand the meaning of the text. Turning to theological application, Walton rejects

concordist readings of Genesis 1, with concordism defined as a method “… that seeks to

give a modern scientific explanation for the details of the text.”102 He gives two reasons

for rejecting concordist readings of Genesis 1. First, ancient cosmologies and current

cosmologies are, in a sense, incommensurable and so to read the ancient cosmology of

Genesis 1 through the lens of modern cosmology is “not just a case of adding meaning

(as more information becomes available) it is a case of changing meaning.”103 Second,

the assumption that the text should be understood through modern scientific lenses makes

the text captive to the latest scientific consensus, rather than allowing the text to be

understood across different cultures and eras.

101
Three of the major organizations currently involved in this debate are Biologos (planned or
directed theistic evolution), Reasons to Believe (old-earth creationism), and Answers in Genesis (young-
earth creationism). One recent book presenting theological and scientific voices from Biologos and
Reasons to Believe is Kenneth D. Keathley, J. B. Stump, and Joe Aguirre, eds., Old Earth or Evolutionary
Creation? Discussing Origins With Reasons to Believe and Biologos (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2017). Zondervan has published two “perspective” books on the subject of creation and evolution: J.
P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds, eds., Three Views on Creation and Evolution, Counterpoints (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1999) and J. B. Stump and Stanley N. Gundry, eds., Four Views on Creation,
Evolution, and Intelligent Design, Counterpoints (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017). The different views
presented in these two Zondervan works illustrate how quickly this debate has deepened within evangelical
theology in the last 20 years.
102
John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 16–17.
103
Ibid., 17.
34
 Therefore, in Walton’s account, Genesis 1 is actually agnostic regarding the

current debate between origins science and Christian faith, neither affirming nor denying

an evolutionary account of creation. One obvious result of this understanding is that it

allows for a specifically theological reading of the text that does not attempt either

reconciliation or rejection of modern scientific findings. As Kenneth Keathley puts it,

“Walton does not resolve the debate; he doesn’t attempt to do so. Rather, he intends to

render it moot.”104

The Cosmic-Temple Motif and Environmental Practices

Another area of major concern within many modern theologies of creation is ecology,

and particularly Christian environmental practices. While environmental theologies are a

relatively recent phenomenon, the number of Christian organizations, theologians, and

ethicists concerned with environmental practice, framed as activism or stewardship in

different accounts, has grown substantially in recent years.105 Three recent theologies of

creation demonstrate this shift. Catherine Keller’s theological account of creation rejects

an ex nihilo doctrine of creation in favor of a process-driven theological account that

affirms the “intrinsic value of all actualities,” and thus calls for an eco-hermeneutics that

places the text of Scripture and ecological concern side by side.106 From a different

104
Kenneth D. Keathley, “Rescuing Adam: Three Approaches to Affirming a Historical Adam,”
STR 8 (2017): 72.
105
For a historical account of the rise of ecology, see Norman Wirzba, The Paradise of God:
Renewing Religion in an Ecological Age (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003): 100–105. For an
account of the growth of environmental concern amongst Christian leaders and organizations, see Stephen
Ellingson, To Care for Creation: The Emergence of the Religious Environmental Movement (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2016). For an explanation of the language of activism and stewardship, see
Ibid., 6–7.
106
Keller, Face of the Deep, 120.

35
theological perspective, Norman Wirzba calls for scientific ecologies and doctrines of

creation to mutually inform understanding of the world and the place of humanity within

it, writing, “While ecology can show us the indissoluble ties that unite us with the earth,

the teaching of creation fleshes out for us the nature and character of responsible human

life within the world.”107 Finally, Jonathan Wilson calls for a Christian doctrine of

creation that recognizes both God’s superabundance that leads to creaturely flourishing as

well as humanity’s place embedded within creation. Following Wendell Berry, he rejects

the term environment because it infers a separation between humanity and the rest of the

world, whereas a robust doctrine of creation emphasizes the participatory role of

humanity in creation.108 These examples, written by three theologians on the forefront of

the doctrine of creation, represent the movement towards stewardship/activism by

Christians in recent years.

In the recent work Embracing Creation, John Mark Hicks, Bobby Valentine, and

Mark Wilson invoke the temple motif in their call for Christians to appreciate and care

for the resources of the earth in light of God’s own love for creation.109 They begin their

account by invoking the cultural approach to the temple motif, noting the parallels

between temple-centered ANE creation myths and the biblical account of creation in the

architectural imagery and the language of building and filling creation.110 In God’s

original commission to Adam, he called for the expansion of this sanctuary garden to the

107
Norman Wirzba, The Paradise of God, viii.
108
Jonathan R. Wilson, God’s Good World: Reclaiming the Doctrine of Creation (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2013): 22–26.
109
John Mark Hicks, Bobby Valentine, and Mark Wilson. Embracing Creation: God’s Forgotten
Mission (Abilene, TX: Leafwood, 2016), 16.
110
Ibid., 34–35.

36
ends of the earth.111 Included in this commission are three further commands that the

authors connect to modern ecological concerns. First, to subdue the earth “does not mean

abusing or exploiting creation,” but rather to “subdue it and order it for life in partnership

with God.”112 Second, to rule the earth means to “benevolently care for creation” as

shepherd leaders rather than dictators.113 Finally, to serve and protect the earth includes

both agricultural and priestly dimensions in representing God to creation and creation to

God.114 While the authors do not make environmental care the sum total of Christian life,

they do argue that Christian life should include a dimension of environmental

stewardship, which models the original call to Adam in anticipation of Christ’s ultimate

transformation of creation.115

The Cosmic-Temple Motif and Liturgical Value of Work

Another recent trend, particularly within evangelical theological accounts of creation, is

the emphasis upon the value of work. Much of this current emphasis is grounded in the

theological conviction that Christians are presently engaged in the renewal of nature, an

eschatological concept closely associated with Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck,

amongst other Reformed theologians.116 Particularly for Bavinck, “the gospel attains a

111
Ibid., 37.
112
Ibid., 38.
113
Ibid., 39.
114
Ibid., 40–41.
115
Ibid., 129–130.
116
For Kuyper’s thought related to work and the renewal of nature, see Peter S. Heslam, Creating
a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). For
Bavinck’s thought, see Herman Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John
Vriend, Vol. 4 of Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). Other recent literature that
builds on these themes includes Timothy Keller, Every Good Endeavor: Connecting Your Work to God’s
Work (New York: Penguin, 2012); Andy Crouch, Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009); Benjamin T. Quinn and Walter R. Strickland II, Every
Waking Hour: An Introduction to Work and Vocation for Christians (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016).
37
universal range and scope and has a redemptive impact on the totality of human life.”117

This includes the human capacity and need for work, which is itself being redeemed

through the redeemed individual.

In a recent article, Jeff Morrow argues for a connection between work and liturgy

based upon the temple motif within Genesis 1–3.118 He spends most of his article

summarizing the temple motif from various sources, but in a brief conclusion notes the

connection between Adam’s commission to work the garden and Adam’s commission as

prototype for Israelite priests.119 Therefore, in Morrow’s understanding, work has value

as a potential source of worship within the Christian life. Unfortunately, Morrow spends

only a short amount of space on this conclusion, resulting in a lack of development of his

application beyond merely linking it with the temple motif. However, this insight could

be developed further in a number of ways. One possibility is entering into the debate

surrounding the translation of Gen 2:15 and the question over the prelapsarian or

postlapsarian origin of work. Andrew Spencer provides a helpful summary of the three

main translation options for the Hebrew verbs ְ‫ דב‬and ‫ ַרמ‬in Gen 2:15, translated

alternatively as “cultivate and keep,” “serve and protect,” or “worship and obey.”120

Spencer notes that the two scholars who have introduced this third option, Umberto

Cassuto and John Sailhamer, both argue that work was introduced as a postlapsarian facet

117
Jan Veenhof, “Nature and Grace in Bavinck,” trans. A. M. Wolters, Pro-Rege 34 (2006): 22.
118
Jeff Morrow, “Creation as Temple-Building and Work as Liturgy in Genesis 1–3,” Orthodox
Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies 2 (2009): 1–13.
119
Ibid., 12–13.
120
Andrew J. Spencer, “The Inherent Value of Work,” Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies
2 (2017): 59 fn. 34.

38
of life.121 Against this perspective, Morrow holds an implicitly prelapsarian

understanding of work as developed in connection with the temple motif and Adam’s

priestly role, emphasizing the liturgical value of work in a pre-fallen world.

Similarly, Catholic theologian Jean Daniélou argues for the sacramental value of

work within the cosmic-temple understanding of creation. In his words, “By sacramental

use man confers on visible things their supreme dignity, not merely as signs and symbols,

but as effective means of grace in the soul.”122 Within Daniélou’s thought, work has

liturgical value in that God has invested humanity with the responsibility of carrying

creation from its original primordial state into its fulfillment in Christ. As will be shown

below in chapter three, there is commonality between Daniélou’s conception of

humanity’s role in creation and that of G. K. Beale, although Beale focuses his

understanding of the completion of creation on the idea of the church’s missionary role in

this process.123

The Cosmic-Temple Motif and Ecclesiology

Another topic that has received some attention from the cosmic-temple motif is

ecclesiology, specifically the extension of the temple’s symbolism and purposes through

the introduction and expansion of the church in the New Testament. T. Desmond

Alexander notes this connection in his book From Eden to the New Jerusalem. For

Alexander, one of the most important aspects of the Garden of Eden as proto-temple is

121
Ibid.
122
Jean Cardinal Daniélou, “The Sign of the Temple: A Meditation,” Letter & Spirit 4 (2008):
289.
123
See Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 395–402.

39
the intended expansion of the Garden in preparation for God’s eventual dwelling amongst

his people. After the failures of Adam and Israel in the OT to fulfill their commissions,

the Holy Spirit-indwelt church becomes the locus of this commission. In Alexander’s

words, “[A]s the church expands throughout the earth, God’s dwelling place is also

extended.”124 For Alexander, this shift from OT temple to NT church involves one key

distinction, the movement from God’s dwelling among his people in the OT to dwelling

within his people in the NT.125 However, this dwelling is only a partial fulfillment of

God’s covenant plan, not reaching complete fulfillment until God’s future renewal of all

creation.126

There are a number of ontological implications from Alexander’s ecclesiology,

largely concerning why the earth exists and the purpose of human life, two questions that

Alexander finds the cosmic-temple motif—along with other major themes of the biblical

storyline—capable of addressing.127 However, within his work, Alexander mostly limits

himself to the biblical development of these ideas rather than to theological application in

the realms of systematic theology or philosophy. G. K. Beale also addresses

ecclesiological aspects of the cosmic-temple motif, which will be analyzed in more detail

in the following chapter.

In his work Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation,

Gregory Stevenson addresses ecclesiological implications of the temple language in the

124
T. Desmond Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical
Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2009), Kindle edition, ch. 2, “Overview.”
125
Ibid., ch. 2, “The church as temple.”
126
Ibid., ch. 3, “The throne of God.”
127
Ibid., ch. 1, “Introduction.”

40
book of Revelation. Stephenson argues that part of the importance of the Jerusalem

temple was its place as identity marker for Jewish people, writing, “For the Jews, the

Jerusalem temple established boundaries that differentiated the Jewish people as the elect

of God from their neighbors. The Jews at least partly defined their place in this world and

in history through their possession of the temple.”128 After the destruction of the

Jerusalem temple, Revelation was written as a way of maintaining Christian identity in

relation to God and the world. Moreover, Jewish Christians had to come to grips with

their identity after being forcefully separated from the temple, which formerly functioned

as the centerpiece of their heritage, their claim to covenant promises, and their own

national identity.129 In response, Stevenson argues that the temple symbolism in

Revelation shows that both Jewish and Gentile Christians are the “people of God united

in the restored Israel and rightful heirs of the covenant promises.”130 Therefore,

Revelation is best understood through the interpretive framework of the Church

functioning as the continuation of God’s OT promises to Israel.

Exegetical Uses of the Cosmic-Temple Motif

Finally, the cosmic-temple motif has been used in various works for exegetical purposes,

showing how the motif can be used in the interpretation of various books of the Bible,

particularly Revelation, along with the canon of Scripture itself. Dan Lioy’s The Axis of

Glory is an example of this type of exegetical application. Though the subtitle to Lioy’s

128
Gregory Stevenson, Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation, ed.
Michael Wolter, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren
Kirche 107 (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2001), 223.
129
Ibid., 237.
130
Ibid., 224.

41
work is A Biblical and Theological Analysis of the Temple Motif in Scripture, most of the

monograph’s focus is on the biblical side of the analysis, with the theological analysis

focusing on the “theological trajectory” of the temple motif in Scripture.131

Several dissertations have similarly used the cosmic-temple motif in exegetical

application. Known examples include Timothy Scott Wardle’s “Continuity and

Discontinuity: The Temple and Early Christian Identity,” Thomas Keene’s “Heaven is a

Tent: The Tabernacle as an Eschatological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews,”

James Valentine’s “Theological Aspects of the Temple Motif in the Old Testament and

Revelation (Holy War, Judgment, Tabernacle, City, Law),” Elias Brasil de Souza’s “The

Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible: Function and Relationship to the

Earthly Counterparts,” and David Edwards’s “Jesus and the Temple: A Historico-

Theological Study of Temple Motifs in the Ministry of Jesus.”132 Each of these works

utilizes the temple in interpretation of passages, books, and themes of Scripture.

However, none of them engages in large-scale application of the motif to systematic

theology.

131
Lioy, Axis of Glory, 2. I am not alone in this observation of Lioy’s work. See also M. E. W.
Thompson, “Review of Axis of Glory: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of the Temple Motif in
Scripture,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 37 (2013): 172.
132
Timothy Scott Wardle, “Continuity and Discontinuity: The Temple and Early Christian
Identity” (PhD diss., Duke University, 2008); Thomas Keene, “Heaven is a Tent: The Tabernacle as an
Eschatological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews” (PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary,
2010); James Valentine, “Theological Aspects of the Temple Motif in the Old Testament and Revelation
(Holy War, Judgment, Tabernacle, City, Law)” (PhD diss., Boston University, 1985); Elias Brasil de
Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible: Function and Relationship to the
Earthly Counterparts” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2005); David Edwards, “Jesus and the Temple: A
Historico-Theological Study of Temple Motifs in the Ministry of Jesus” (PhD diss., Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 1992).

42
 Conclusion

Along with explaining the thesis, key definitions, and the research method, this chapter

has demonstrated both the plausibility and theological applicability of the cosmic-temple

motif. The motif is plausible in that it has been recognized and developed from different

theological and hermeneutical interpretive frameworks. It is useful in that a variety of

scholars have given small-scale theological application for the motif in their writings,

usually after giving the bulk of their research to validating the motif itself. The

aforementioned application of the motif has also pointed to the need for further

theological application, particularly within a theology of creation.

The next chapter of this dissertation will focus on the cosmic-temple motif in the

scholarship of G. K. Beale, who has spent more time exploring and developing the motif

across the canon of Scripture than any other known biblical theologian. Beale’s

scholarship will then serve as the basis for the application of the motif into three major

issues for theologies of creation in the following three chapters. The third chapter will

focus on the application of the motif into an ontological debate over the nature of

postlapsarian creation. The fourth chapter will focus on the application of the motif into a

current debate over the understanding and usefulness of natural theology. The fifth

chapter will focus on the application of the motif into a debate concerning the

eschatological nature of creation. The burden of the dissertation will be to show the

usefulness of the motif in each of these debates, particularly how it can provide

explanatory power for key questions in each of the areas discussed. The sixth chapter of

43
the work will offer a final, brief appraisal of the motif and indicate further ways that it

can be used within a theology of creation.

44
 CHAPTER TWO
G. K. BEALE’S DEVELOPMENT OF THE COSMIC-TEMPLE MOTIF

This chapter will analyze key components of G. K. Beale’s biblical theology in

accordance with his cosmic-temple motif in order to demonstrate the wide-ranging

potential for theological application, particularly within a theology of creation. It will

proceed by introducing Beale, examining his particular type of biblical theology,

examining his cosmic-temple interpretation of Scripture, and introducing the particular

issues for theological assessment in the following three chapters. The purpose of this

chapter is to offer a large-scale picture of Beale’s theological project in order to better

understand his cosmic-temple motif for the sake of theological application in the

following three chapters. Therefore, each of the major elements will be explained with an

eye toward later application of Beale’s temple symbolism to current discussions within a

theology of creation.

Biography of G. K. Beale

While other biblical scholars have emphasized the significance of the temple for Israel’s

conception of creation, none has done more to support the relationship between temple

and creation than G. K. Beale.1 Beale is currently professor of New Testament and

biblical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. He has written on a variety of

1
See chapter one for summary and analysis of biblical scholarship related to temple and creation.

45
biblical topics, and has made particular contributions to the book of Revelation through

his nearly 1,200 page Book of Revelation commentary in the New International Greek

New Testament Series, his more accessible Revelation: A Shorter Commentary, and his

monograph John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation.2 Beale has written three

books pertaining to the cosmic-temple motif that will provide the majority of content for

analysis within this chapter: The Temple and the Church’s Mission, A New Testament

Biblical Theology, and The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism.3 He introduces many

of the cosmic-temple themes developed in these books in his journal article “Eden, The

Temple, and the Church’s Mission in the New Creation” and his book chapter “The Final

Vision of the Apocalypse and Its Implications for a Biblical Theology of the Temple.”4

He has also written a book on worship and idolatry that contains application of the

cosmic-temple motif, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry,

and with Mitchell Kim written a book on worship and mission utilizing the cosmic-

temple motif, God Dwells Among Us: Expanding Eden to the Ends of the Earth.5 In

honor of Beale’s contributions to biblical theology, the festschrift From Creation to New

2
G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); G. K. Beale and
David H. Campbell, Revelation: A Shorter Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015); G. K. Beale,
John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation, Journal For the Study of the New Testament Supplement
Series 166 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998).
3
G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place
of God, NSBT 17 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004); G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical
Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011); G. K.
Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
4
G. K. Beale, “Eden, The Temple, and the Church’s Mission in the New Creation,” JETS 48
(2005): 5–31; “The Final Vision of the Apocalypse and Its Implications for a Biblical Theology of the
Temple,” in Heaven on Earth. The Temple in Biblical Theology, eds. S. Gathercole and T. D. Alexander
(Exeter: Paternoster, 2004), 191–209.
5
G. K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008); G. K. Beale and Mitchell Kim, God Dwells Among Us: Expanding Eden to
the Ends of the Earth (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014).

46
Creation: Biblical Theology and Exegesis was published in 2013, containing essays on a

variety of topics under the categories of Old Testament, the use of the Old Testament in

the New Testament, and biblical theology.6 Beale has been recognized by a number of

other scholars contributing to the cosmic-temple motif for his formative and wide-

ranging exegesis on this topic.7 Because of both the amount of scholarly contributions to

the subject and his influence upon other scholarship, Beale has been chosen as the

exemplar of the cosmic-temple motif for this dissertation.

Major Elements of G. K. Beale’s Biblical Theology

This section of the chapter will detail major elements of G. K. Beale’s biblical theology

with the focus on application of his cosmic-temple motif within Scripture. Within Beale’s

biblical theology, the cosmic-temple motif is a theme that is introduced in Genesis 1–3,

recapitulated throughout the storyline of the Old Testament, and presented in beginning

fulfillment within the New Testament. Each of these components needs elaboration in

order to further examine Beale’s use of the cosmic-temple motif in the

following chapters. This section will begin by locating Beale’s particular type of biblical

theology within the larger field of biblical theology.

6
Daniel M. Gurtner and Benjamin L. Glass, eds., From Creation to New Creation: Biblical
Theology and Exegesis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2013).
7
For examples of Beale’s contributions to wider scholarship, see John Walton, Genesis 1 as
Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 191–192; Richard Lints, Identity and Idolatry:
The Image of God and Its Inversion, NSBT 36 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2015), 43–55; Steven C. Smith,
The House of the Lord: A Catholic Biblical Theology of God’s Temple Presence in the Old and New
Testaments (Baltimore: Franciscan University Press, 2017), 10.
47
 G. K. Beale’s Biblical Theology

Biblical theology is a notoriously difficult discipline to define, partially due to the

ambiguous nature of the term itself.8 Therefore, this section will begin with a brief

historical overview of the term and the two major understandings of the term based on

Gerhard Ebeling’s oft-quoted essay on biblical theology, “The Meaning of Biblical

Theology.”9 In that essay, Ebeling notes the two possible understandings of biblical

theology latent in its name, theology contained in the Bible or theology of the Bible.10

The former sense is associated with J. P. Gadler’s distinction between biblical theology

and dogmatic theology and the rise of the various forms of biblical criticism, while the

latter sense can be associated with the biblical theology movement of the mid–20th

century and later practitioners such as Beale. In the late 18th century, Gadler called for the

distinction between biblical theology as a historical discipline and dogmatic theology as

theology geared toward the church, with the ultimate goal that biblical theology would

exercise “a normative function over against dogmatics in all matters concerning the

relation to the Bible.”11 In essence, Gadler called for a methodological approach to

8
For the ambiguous nature of the term ‘biblical theology,’ see Christine Helmer, “Introduction:
Multivalence in Biblical Theology,” in The Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings, ed.
Christine Helmer (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 1–10. D. A. Carson also notes the
difficulty of defining the term in D. A. Carson, “Current Issues in Biblical Theology: A New Testament
Perspective,” Bulletin For Biblical Research 5 (1995): 17.
9
Gerhard Ebeling, “The Meaning of ‘Biblical Theology,’” in Word and Faith, trans. James W.
Leitch (London: SCM Press, 1963), 79–97.
10
Ibid., 79.
11
Ibid., 89. See also J. P. Gadler, “An Oration on the Proper Distinction Between Biblical and
Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each,” in Old Testament Theology: Flowering and
Future, ed. Ben. C. Ollenburger, Sources For Biblical and Systematic Theology 1 (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2004), 497–506.

48
biblical theology more focused on origins and history of religion than dogmatic

theology.12

By the early 20th century, the various disciplines within the field of biblical

theology presented a number of challenges to traditional beliefs concerning the Bible,

particularly with regard to authorship, development, and unity. Ebeling lists some of

these challenges as “… problems connected with the theological unity of the Old and

New Testaments respectively, those connected with the limitation to the canonical

scriptures, and those connected with the application of the concept ‘theology’ to the

actual content of the bible.”13 In the mid-20th century, the biblical theology movement

arose in reaction to these challenges.14 Led by such figures as Walther Eichrodt and

Gerhard Von Rad, this movement sought to transform the focus of biblical theology from

theology in the Bible to theology of the Bible.15 In his expansive volume Biblical

Theology: Issues, Methods, and Themes, James K. Mead identifies several emphases of

the biblical theology movement during its “Golden Age” of the 1940s and 1950s as “…

the unity of the whole Bible, God’s revelation in history through his mighty acts, and the

distinctiveness of biblical revelation and concepts over against the environment in which

they arose, both ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman.”16 These themes, particularly

concerning the unity of the Bible, became important presuppositions for the different

12
James K. Mead, Biblical Theology: Issues, Methods, and Themes (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2007), 25–26.
13
Ebeling, “The Meaning of Biblical Theology,” 94–95.
14
James Mead, Biblical Theology, 40, gives one reason for this reaction as the “vacuum of
theological relevance and meaning” within the history of religions approach that developed in the wake of
Gadler’s division of biblical theology and dogmatic theology.
15
Ibid., 42–48. For a history of the biblical theology movement, see also Brevard S. Childs,
Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970).
16
Ibid., 47.
49
forms of biblical theology in the latter half of the 20th century, even as the biblical

theology movement itself waned in popularity.17

Within modern biblical theology, James Mead separates the major methodologies

into those that focus on the content, shape, and perspective of Scripture.18 Mead defines

the content method as one that studies the current form of the canon itself for theological

content, the shape method as one that focuses on the development of theology and the

texts themselves within Scripture, and the perspective method as one that begins with the

perspective of the reader, and hence includes different forms of postmodern theology

such as feminist and postcolonial theologies.19 Within these three major types, Beale’s

biblical theology falls most clearly into the content type. Mead lists three particular

expressions of the content method as systematic/doctrinal, cross–sectional/central

theme/topical, and story/narrative. Within these three types, Beale’s approach can be

considered within the story/narrative category. As Andreas Köstenberger remarks,

“Beale’s distinctive approach to biblical theology is to identify the storyline that unfolds

as one moves from the OT to the NT.”20 Mead identifies the story/narrative category

most closely with narrative theology, with which Beale’s storyline theological method

shares some important similarities and differences. Although an in-depth analysis of

narrative theology is not necessary, a brief engagement will be helpful in understanding

these similarities and differences with Beale.

17
Various reasons for the decline of the biblical theology movement have been given. For an
account of the rise and fall of the movement that is sympathetic to the task of biblical theology, see Mead,
Biblical Theology, 39–59.
18
Ibid., 124.
19
Ibid., 135–151.
20
Andreas Köstenberger, “The Present and Future of Biblical Theology,” Themelios 37 (2012):
457.
50
 Narrative theology is a late 20th century type of postliberal theology closely

associated with the Yale scholars George Lindbeck and Hans Frei.21 Frei and Lindbeck

argue for a third way of understanding Scripture between what Frei has called the

mythical and ostensive options, generally associated with liberal and conservative

theologies.22 In this third way, the literal meaning of the stories that make up Scripture

are untangled from the historical reference, and, in the words of Stephen Crites, the “…

more vital hermeneutical issue [is] what they mean in the narrative form in which they

are written.”23 Lindbeck identifies this type of theological method as “intratextual,”

where “… meaning is constituted by the uses of a specific language rather than being

distinguishable from it.”24 For Lindbeck, meaning is found in Scripture by the ways that

language is used within its literary context. He uses the word ‘God’ as an example when

he writes, “Thus the proper way to determine what ‘God’ signifies, for example, is by

examining how the word operates within a religion and thereby shapes reality and

experience rather than by first establishing its propositional or experiential meaning and

reinterpreting or reformulating its use accordingly.”25 For Lindbeck, intratextual

interpretation of Scripture involves the believer becoming steeped in the interpretive

framework of Scripture, and thus able to understand how words and ideas are used within

21
Ibid., 135–137. See also George Hunsinger, “Postliberal Theology,” in The Cambridge
Companion to Postmodern Theology, ed. Kevin Vanhoozer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003), 42–57.
22
See Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974),
245–266.
23
Stephen Crites, “The Spatial Dimensions of Narrative Truthtelling,” in Scriptural Authority and
Narrative Interpretation, ed. Garrett Green (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 97.
24
George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal
Age (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), 114.
25
Ibid.

51
their given genres rather than supplying meaning from outside the text. In Mark Brett’s

analysis of the intratextual method, “The Biblical text is seen as a kind of framework, a

symbolic universe given by the tradition, through which the Christian interprets the

world.”26 In Kevin Vanhoozer’s words, for Frei, Lindbeck, and other postliberal

theologians, “[B]iblical meaning and authority alike are viewed in terms of the church’s

use of Scripture.”27 Thus, one of the goals of narrative theology is to take seriously the

content of Scripture in its canonical form without reducing it to history.

Analyzing narrative theology from the perspective of evangelical theology,

Gabriel Fackre notes that narrative theology and evangelical theology both share the

formal principle of biblical authority, where Scripture is the primary source of identity for

the Church and the Christian life.28 However, Fackre also argues that a major distinction

between narrative theology and evangelical theology involves the closely-related

doctrines of inspiration and illumination.29 On the subject of inspiration, there is nothing

in narrative theology comparable to the evangelical doctrine of inspiration of the text.

Both theologies advocate the meaning of Scripture found within the plain sense of the

text, but narrative theologians give the interpreting community a greater role in

understanding and revising past understandings of the text based on illumination given by

the Holy Spirit. In Fackre’s words, “[E]cclesial ‘illumination’ in the narrative of

26
Mark G. Brett, Biblical Criticism in Crisis?: The Impact of the Canonical Approach On Old
Testament Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 156.
27
Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian
Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 11.
28
Gabriel Fackre, “Narrative: Evanglical, Postliberal, Ecumenical,” in The Nature of Confession:
Evangelicals and Postliberals in Conversation, eds. Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 128.
29
Ibid., 128–129.

52
revelation functions as the grounds for investing the community with the normative role

of discerning the plain sense of Scripture. The key to the story told in Scripture’s plain

sense is in the hands of the community by the Holy Spirit’s gift of illumination.”30 Fackre

critiques this position from the side of evangelicalism by arguing that the community

must be “accountable to something beyond itself,” which is where the evangelical

doctrine of inspiration comes into play, distinguishing “… between the work of the Spirit

in the normative apostolic (and prophetic) witness found in the church’s charter and the

successive Christian community of interpretation.”31 The doctrine of inspiration thus

distinguishes between the writings of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture by the

Church body.

Turning more explicitly to a comparison between G. K. Beale and George

Lindbeck, there are certain core similarities and differences between interpretive methods

that allow for the introduction of various themes within Beale’s method. One core

similarity is that both affirm an overarching story in the canon of Scripture. For

Lindbeck, “[T]he diverse materials of Scripture] are all embraced, it would seem, in an

overarching story that has the specific literary features of a realistic narrative as

exemplified in diverse ways, for example, by certain kinds of parables, novels, and

historical accounts.”32 Canonical unity is important for understanding Lindbeck’s

intratextual method because he emphasizes that the theological significance of any part of

Scripture is understood through the literary structure of the text itself. Because Lindbeck

30
Ibid., 129.
31
Ibid., 130.
32
Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine, 120.

53
views the canon as overarching story, this means that meaning can be found not merely in

immediate context but within the wider context of the canon also. This is similar to

Beale’s use of typological/figural interpretation, which “… involves an extended

reference to the original meaning of an OT text which develops it but does not contradict

it.”33 Further, for Beale (following Richard Hays), there is a forward and backward

movement of interpretation in Scripture. In Beale’s definition, “[L]ater biblical quotations

of and allusions to earlier Scripture unpack the meaning of that earlier Scripture, and yet

the earlier passage also sheds light on the later passage.”34 This intertextual method is

important for understanding Beale’s use of the cosmic-temple motif, particularly with

relation to the creation narrative found in Genesis 1–3, the tabernacle/temple

construction, and the relationship between the temple and Christ. Each of these temple-

related ideas both gives and receives interpretive light from the others. The intertextual

method differs from an allegorical method, because it is tethered to the original meaning

of the text, rather than introducing unrelated or extra–biblical categories to the text. Also,

it is controlled by ways that NT authors themselves used the OT text. Therefore, similarly

to Lindbeck, it affirms the canon and the location of textual meaning within both the

immediate and wider contexts.

However, apart from the distinctions concerning inspiration and illumination

given by Gabriel Fackre above, there are also two further distinctions between Beale and

Lindbeck concerning the appropriation of the various methods of biblical criticism.

33
G. K. Beale, “Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine From the Wrong Texts?
An Examination of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Exegetical Method,” Themelios 14 (1989): 91.
34
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 3.

54
Lindbeck argues that meaning is found in the church’s interpretation of the text, rather

than any ideas behind or in front of the text.35 In interpretation, the church community

determines the kind of text it is, and interprets it in application of this consideration.36

Lindbeck is here guarding against the possibility of extratextual concerns, whether they

be metaphysical, doctrinal, existential, or other, importing meaning into the text.37 His

method therefore implicitly emphasizes literary criticism over other forms of biblical

criticism, such as historical and form criticism, because the type of text it is determined to

be is the foundation for determining meaning within community.38 Two distinctions

between Lindbeck and Beale become obvious at this point, both of which are important

in applying the cosmic-temple motif. First, while Beale similarly values the literary form

of the text, he also values the potential contributions of other types of biblical criticism.

For example, in interpreting Genesis 1–3 with temple language, Beale utilizes findings of

historical criticism to compare and contrast the Israelite creation story with the creation

stories of other ANE cultures.39 Second, unlike Lindbeck, Beale locates meaning in

authorial intention, and so the goal of interpretation is to discover that meaning rather

than construct meaning within a community of readers.40 Therefore, within Beale’s

biblical-theological method, the cosmic-temple motif is traced to authorial intention and

35
Ibid., 120. Lindbeck also develops this idea in George Lindbeck, “Scripture, Consensus, and
Community,” in Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church, ed.
Richard John Neuhaus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 74–101.
36
Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine, 120.
37
Ibid.
38
James Mead identifies this as a hallmark of the story/narrative method, which means that
Beale’s method is not an exact fit with this classification; see Mead, Biblical Theology, 135.
39
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 30–31.
40
Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy, 252.

55
is aided by historical critical engagement with Israel and surrounding ANE cultures.

However, as introduced above, Beale’s approach is driven by the storyline of Scripture

and is thus distinct from other types of biblical theology, even within evangelical

approaches.

G. K. Beale’s Storyline Approach to Biblical Theology

Beale advocates the use of storyline as the “principle generative concept” for deriving the

major concepts in Scripture and the “organizing structure of thought” for understanding

the many ideas and details in Scripture.41 The storyline approach attempts to trace the

major themes of Scripture through their connection to the larger story unfolding

throughout the Bible.42 It also provides an answer to what Brevard Childs has called “the

heart of the problem of Biblical Theology,” the ability of biblical theology to do justice to

“the subtle canonical relationship” between the two testaments of the Bible.43 Beale’s

answer to the issue raised by Childs is that the NT storyline is a fulfillment of the OT

storyline, where the main themes of the OT storyline line are the basis of the NT

storyline, and are therefore understood and find fulfillment in the light of God’s

revelation in Christ.44 Implicit in this understanding is the presupposition that God is the

ultimate divine author of Scripture and therefore there is a basic unity between the two

testaments.45 While this presupposition will not satisfy many outside of evangelical

41
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 163.
42
Ibid., 168–169; see also Köstenberger, “The Present and Future of Biblical Theology,” 455.
43
Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1992), 78.
44
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 16.
45
Beale acknowledges this presupposition in ibid., 2.

56
theology, the contents of Beale’s proposed storyline demonstrate an internal coherence

that contributes to a warranted belief of Scripture’s unity.46

Beale’s proposal differs from others who offer various doctrinal ‘centers’ in

Scripture which act as foundations for other doctrines and details. Andreas Köstenberger

defines this approach as one that seeks “… to identify a single center of Scripture that

constitutes the major theme around which the entire canon revolves.”47 Beale notes that

two of the potential dangers of this approach are the possibility of imposing a foreign

system on the text and the possibility of silencing certain voices and parts within the

text.48 His proposal also differs from the “multiperspectival” approach, which emphasizes

several dominant themes in Scripture rather than just one center.49 While Beale views the

multiperspectival approach as providing greater clarity to the content of Scripture than

the doctrinal center method, it still has the same potential dangers of imposing a foreign

system on the text and silencing certain voices.

However, as Beale notes, the storyline approach does not completely avoid the

difficulties associated with the center and multiperspectival approaches. Similarly to

these approaches, he gives three potential dangers within the storyline method. He writes,

(1) one can ask why specific ideas or events are chosen and seen to be more
conceptually dominant than other events; (2) furthermore, a plotline approach
may not be sufficiently representative, since significant portions of Scripture are
not narrative (e.g., wisdom literature, apocalyptic, and epistolary material); (3)
46
This line of reasoning follows David Clark, who notes that internal coherence is a necessary,
though not sole reason for a belief’s warrant; See Clark, To Know and Love God (Wheaton: Crossway,
2003), 156–158.
47
Köstenberger, “The Present and Future of Biblical Theology,” 452. Köstenberger gives as his
prime example of this category James M. Hamilton, Jr.’s God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment,
which finds the salvation and judgment of God as the center of biblical theology; see also Hamilton, God’s
Glory in Salvation Through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010).
48
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 164.
49
Ibid., 165.
57
 whatever themes are chosen are the result of interpreters seeing only what they
have been culturally conditioned to see, since many believe that all knowledge is
culturally conditioned.50

Köstenberger offers a similar assessment when he writes that “… making the biblical

storyline central runs the danger of marginalizing biblical material that is not central to

the metanarrative of Scripture but nonetheless present in the canon.”51 In responding to

the first two dangers, Beale first argues that the storyline approach is better than the

center approach because it is composed of several themes rather than one theme that

potentially limits other major themes.52 He also argues that it is better than the

multiperspectival approach because it relates the themes to one another “in some kind of

logical, redemptive-historical, and narratival manner.”53 He next argues that Scripture

itself emphasizes certain ideas, themes, and events over others, such as Jesus’ criticism in

Matt 23:23 of the religious rulers for elevating minor matters of the law over the

weightier ones.54 He also emphasizes that if the storyline approach is done correctly that

it will include rather than subdue non-narrative portions of Scripture within the storyline.

In responding to the third danger, Beale writes that “… if one acknowledges that

Scripture is God’s living and written word, then one must leave room for the Spirit to

break through our socially constructed knowledge.”55 Therefore, even in acknowledging

the possible dangers of an unbalanced approach to the storyline method, Beale advocates

50
Ibid.
51
Köstenberger, “The Present and Future of Biblical Theology,” 458.
52
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 163–165.
53
Ibid., 165.
54
Ibid., 165–166.
55
Ibid., 167.

58
it as the most promising method for understanding and uniting the various stories,

themes, and ideas that make up the canon.

G. K. Beale’s Recapitulation Approach to the Storyline of Scripture

As an evangelical biblical scholar, it is no surprise that Beale holds to a unified view of

the biblical canon, including a unified storyline account of Scripture. However, Beale’s

argument for Scripture’s storyline makes a significant contribution to evangelical

scholarship in its emphasis on the continual recapitulation of Genesis 1–3 in the story of

redemptive history. Beale believes that “… Gen 1–3 lays out the basic themes for the rest

of the OT, which ... are essentially eschatological themes.”56 The major themes that Beale

finds in Genesis 1–3 are cosmic chaos, new creation, commission of kingship for divine

glory, sinful fall, and exile.57 Each of these themes are developed more fully within the

Old Testament and find fulfillment in the life of Jesus and the prophetic writings of the

New Testament, particularly in the book of Revelation. Therefore, Genesis 1–3 is

extremely important within Beale’s storyline approach to Scripture, as it introduces the

themes that will then be recapitulated throughout the Old Testament. This topic will be

more fully analyzed in chapter three of this work, but six major ideas of Beale’s thematic

interpretation of Genesis 1–3 can now be introduced and summarized in the following

paragraphs. First, Genesis 1–2 depicts creation in theologically-charged language related

to the Jewish tabernacle and temple. Second, Adam’s original commission within that

garden was to serve as priest and king, expanding the borders of the garden until it filled

56
Ibid., 29.
57
Ibid., 58.

59
all of creation. Third, the fall of Adam in Genesis 3 thus severed Adam from his role in

fulfilling God’s creation mandate. Fourth, the rest of the OT story is a continued

recapitulation of Genesis 1–3. Fifth, both themes related to cosmic temple and Adam’s

commission find beginning fulfillment in the life of Jesus. Sixth, the final vision of Rev

21:1–22:5 depicts new creation as a garden-like city where God dwells with His creation,

thus fulfilling the original purposes of creation. Each of these ideas will now be

summarized in turn.

Genesis 1–2 as Theologically Charged Description

First, Beale emphasizes that Genesis 1–2 portrays a “theologically charged,” rather than

scientifically-aimed, description of the world.58 Beale distinguishes his own view from

two other interpretive possibilities of Genesis 1–2 which could be labeled as modern

concordism and ancient concordism.59 The first distinction is between this theological

interpretation and a modern concordist interpretation. On this distinction, Beale writes,

“[I]f these are theological expressions about a massive cosmic temple, there is no tension

between them and our modern scientific understanding of the universe, so that the notion

of a ‘scientific error’ does not even come into view.”60 Although Beale himself does not

use this particular language, his position includes the idea that the creation account was

not intended to offer a concordist picture of the universe. Bernard Ramm has defined the

concordist view as an interpretive method that “seeks harmony of the geological record

58
Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism, 193–195.
59
Ibid., 199.
60
Ibid., 195.

60
and the days of Genesis.”61 Ramm distinguishes between two types of concordism, what

he refers to as strict concordism and moderate concordism, with the major difference

between the two groups being the degree to which the Genesis creation account is read in

accordance with geology.62 Old-earth creationist Hugh Ross makes a similar distinction

between what he calls hard and soft concordism when he writes, “Hard concordists look

to make most, but not all, discoveries, new and old, in science agree with some passage

of Scripture. Soft concordists seek agreement between properly interpreted Scripture

passages that describe some aspect of the natural realm and indisputably and well-

established data in science.”63 In distinction from either hard or soft concordism, the

theological interpretation offered by Beale proposes that the cosmological language of

Genesis 1 can be understood as phenomenological or figurative expressions intended to

convey theological meaning.64

Beale’s theological interpretation is also distinguished from what he calls a

“postmodern sociology of knowledge perspective,” but which could also be labeled as

61
Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954),
145.
62
Ibid., 146. In this book Ramm labels himself as a progressive creationist, defined as the
approach that takes the days of Genesis 1 as metaphorical rather than literal. He distinguishes the moderate
concordism of progressive creationism from the strict concordism of the Day-Age theory, which posits a
lengthy gap of time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 for all of the events discovered by geology to have taken
place, and flood geology, which posits that geological discoveries are the result of a worldwide flood
described in Genesis 6–9. See ibid., 134–144 for Ramm’s description and critique of these positions.
63
Hugh Ross, “Defending Concordism: Response to The Lost World of Genesis One,”
http://www.reasons.org/articles/defending-concordism-response-to-the-lost-world-of-genesis-one. C. John
Collins similarly makes a distinction between two forms of concordism, scientific concordism and
historical concordism in Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should
Care (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 106–107. While denying the first form, Collins affirms the second form
because he believes that the Genesis account does have historical referents, and thus there is the possibility
for connection between this account and other forms of study.
64
Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy, 163.

61
ancient concordism.65 This view posits that the author[s] of the creation account

conceived the world through the lens of their own scientific and socially constructed

thoughts in accordance with the larger ANE culture, and thus harmony can be found

between Genesis and ancient scientific conceptions of the world. Beale uses the textual

idea of a firmament in the sky from Gen 1:6–8 in order to distinguish his own view from

that of Paul H. Seely, whom he claims holds to the postmodern sociology of knowledge

perspective.66 In a paper on Gen 1:6–8, Seely writes, “In the ancient world a virtually

universal agreement existed among all peoples everywhere that the sky (firmament) was

a rock-solid dome over the earth beneath which were the sun, moon, and stars.”67 In

keeping with the surrounding culture, Seely argues that Israel also believed in a rock-

solid dome sky. His specific argument proceeds on the following points: 1) Israel’s

surrounding ANE culture believed that the sky was solid; 2) Israel was both

architecturally and technologically inferior to their neighbors in the “pre-Solomon” time

period, and thus can be assumed to have been scientifically inferior as well; 3) there is a

clear Babylonian and Egyptian influence on Israel’s creation account, and both of those

nations believed that the sky was solid; and 4) it is therefore highly probably that the

Hebrews conceived of the sky in accordance with surrounding culture as solid.68

Beale challenges Seely’s view on several fronts, two of which are the most

significant. First, using the Enuma elish and Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Beale argues that it

65
Ibid.
66
Ibid.
67
Paul H. Seely, “The Firmament and the Water Above, Part II: The Meaning of ‘The Water
Above the Firmament’ in Gen 1:6–8,” WTJ 54 (1992): 31.
68
Paul H. Seely, “The Firmament and the Water Above, Part I: The Meaning of Raqia’ in Gen
1:6–8,” WTJ 53 (1992): 231–236.

62
is not at all clear that ancient Babylonian and Egyptian texts unanimously advocate the

sky-as-solid-dome perspective. In the Enuma elish, the goddess Tiamat is killed by

Marduk, and her body is split apart and used to form the sky and various parts of land.69

Seely cites this passage as evidence that the Babylonians conceived of the sky as solid,

since it is formed out of the body of Tiamat.70 However, Beale notes that because Tiamat

is deity of saltwater, there is no certainty that Babylonians understood her body as solid.71

Similarly, Beale cites several Egyptian cosmological diagrams that posit the sky as

something other than solid. For example, using the work of Othmar Keel, Beale notes one

ancient Egyptian diagram where the sky is depicted as a dome shaped sea, or in Keel’s

words, “as a sea traversed by the sun god.”72 Further, Keel notes one distinction between

Egyptian and Hebrew cosmologies in that Hebrew cosmology does not depict the

heavens as part of a deity’s body but as created and upheld by YHWH.73 This idea

implicitly challenges Seely’s notion that Hebrew cosmology was in accordance with

surrounding ANE culture, since the Hebrews rejected the pantheism pervasive in

surrounding cosmological accounts of the world.

Second, Beale challenges Seely’s translation of raqia’ as ‘solid sky’ or ‘literal

firmament’ in Genesis 1.74 Both Seely and Beale use Ezekiel 1 as the clearest example of

the definition of raqia’, where it is used in the description of a heavenly temple scene, a

69
Stephanie Dalley, Myths From Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 254–274.
70
Seely, “The Firmament: Part I,” 234.
71
Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy, 198.
72
Ibid., 198; Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern
Iconography and the Book of Psalms, trans. Timothy J. Hallett (New York: Seabury Press, 1978), 36.
73
Ibid., 33.
74
Seely, “The Firmament: Part I,” 234.

63
scene that both Seely and Beale believe contains allusions to Genesis 1.75 Seely describes

the raqia’ here as “… a divider of some kind over the heads of four cherubim (v. 22–25),

and on top of it was a throne with a man on it (v. 26). As to the composition of this

firmament, it looked like ‘terrible crystal or ice.’”76 Beale connects Gen 1:6; Ezek 1:22–

26; and Rev 4:6; the last alludes to the same scene and describes the expanse as a “sea of

glass, like crystal.”77 Using these three passages that can be understood together to allude

to a temple cosmology, Beale argues that the expanse is not understood as a solid

structure, but a fluid like structure that “… in some way is what separates the visible

creation of the sky and starry heavens from the invisible dimension of God’s heavenly

temple dwelling.”78 Important here is the ontological notion that created reality is

portrayed in accordance with God’s invisible heavenly dwelling in the cosmic-temple

motif. Beale goes on to argue that there is a dual reference in play with the use of raqia’,

in that it is used as representing “literal atmospheric waters” as a visible counterpart “to a

heavenly sea that is beyond the seen cosmos.”79 Again, it is important to remember here

that Beale is not arguing that Israelites were advocating for a sky made of atmospheric

waters, but were using these pictures to describe reality as “shot through with temple

theology at every point.”80 Therefore, the concordist interpretation, whether modern or

ancient, misses the insight of the passage as theological, rather than scientific, description

of reality.

75
Ibid., 239; Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy, 197.
76
Seely, “The Firmament: Part I,” 239.
77
Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy, 197.
78
Ibid.
79
Ibid., 204.
80
Ibid., 203.

64
 Theologically, the cosmos is understood as a large temple of God’s glory,

similarly to how the temple functioned as a microcosmic model of creation. Beale writes,

[S]ometimes Old Testament writers describe the cosmos as a big temple,

according to their understanding of Israel’s little temple (e.g., Genesis 1; Ex 25:9,
40; Dan. 2:31–45), and, alternatively and often, that Israel’s temple and its various
components are depicted with parts of the cosmos (e.g., Ex 26:30; 27:8; Ps
78:69), since the cosmos … was viewed as a giant temple, after which the small
earthly temple was patterned.81

Specifically for Beale, the Garden of Eden and the surrounding area of Eden in Genesis

2 functioned as a prototype of the sacred space and holy of holies in the later tabernacle

and temple, and the surrounding creation in Genesis 1 functioned as prototype for the

outer courts of the temple, where God’s glory would expand as Adam and humanity

obeyed his commission.82

Regarding Genesis 1, Beale builds on the research of John Walton, Michael

Fishbane, and others, to note the semantic and thematic parallels between the creation of

the world in Genesis 1 and the construction of the tabernacle in Exodus 39–40, thus

suggesting a patterning of the tabernacle after God’s creation of the cosmos.83 One major

parallel between the two passages is the Sabbath rest of God after the creation of the

cosmos in Genesis 1 and in his resting place in the tabernacle after its completion. Beale

notes, “Just as God rested on the seventh day from his work of creation, so when the

creation of the tabernacle and, especially, the temple are finished, God takes up a ‘resting

81
Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy, 194.
82
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 75.
83
Ibid., 60–61.

65
place’ therein.”84 Thus, there is internal concordance between creation of the world and

creation of the tabernacle.

With regard to Genesis 2, Beale notes the many similarities between the elements

of the garden and those of Solomon’s “garden-like” temple, the post-exilic temple, and

the eschatological temple of Ezekiel 47.85 The Hebrew verbal stem ‫“( ָה ׁשלְך‬to walk”) is

used in description of God’s presence in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:8) and the tabernacle

(Lev 26:12; Deut 23:14; 2 Sam 7:6–7).86 The cherubim stationed to guard the Garden of

Eden after Adam’s sin are memorialized in the tabernacle (Gen 3:24; Exod 25:18–22; 1

Kgs 8:6–7).87 The lampstand in the tabernacle and temple appear modeled on the tree of

life in the Garden of Eden, particularly in the description of the lampstand in Exod

25:31–36 as a flowering tree.88 The description of Solomon’s temple in 1 Kings 6–7

contains garden-like imagery of the temple interior, an idea verified by subsequent OT

identification of Solomon’s temple with garden imagery (Ps 52:8; 92:13–15; Lam 2:6).89

The river that flowed out from Eden is comparative to the river flowing from the temple

in Ps 36:8–9 (where Beale notes that Ps 36:8 speaks of a literal river of Eden flowing

from the temple) and the eschatological temple depicted in Ezek 47:1–12 and Rev 21:1–

2.90 Similarly, gold and onyx stones were used to describe the land of Eden in Gen 2:12,

84
Ibid., 61.
85
Ibid., 71–72.
86
Ibid., 66; see also Gordon J. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,”
401.
87
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 70–71; see also Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom
Prologue, 47–48.
88
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 71.
89
Ibid., 72.
90
Ibid., 72–73.

66
the temple decorations in 1 Chr 29:2, and the priestly garments in Exod 28:6–12.91 The

Garden of Eden, Israel’s temple, and the eschatological temple are all portrayed as

mountains (Ezek 28:14, 16; 40:2; Exod 15:17; Rev 21:10).92 The wisdom of the tree of

knowledge of good and evil is echoed in the Ark of the Covenant, with the commands

that eating from the tree and touching the ark both lead to death.93 The entrance to the

Garden of Eden and the eschatological temple are both in the east (Gen 3:24; Ezek

40:6).94 Finally, there is a river that flows from Eden to water the Garden in Gen 2:10 and

from God’s presence in the holy of holies to the world in Ezek 47:1 and Rev 22:1–2.95

Another key aspect of Beale’s proposal is that the temple’s three-tiered structure

reveals creation symbolism reflecting back to the creation passages of Genesis 1–2. He

observes of this symbolism, “Israel’s temple was composed of three main parts, each of

which symbolized a major part of the cosmos: (1) the outer court represented the

habitable world where humanity dwelt; (2) the holy place was emblematic of the visible

heavens and its light sources; (3) the holy of holies symbolized the invisible dimension of

the cosmos, where God and his heavenly host dwelt.”96 In this understanding, Genesis 2

presents Eden as primordial holy of holies and the Garden of Eden as the holy place.

Beale references the work of Menahem Haran in suggesting a gradation of holiness from

the outer court to the holy of holies. Haran argues that the material artifacts of the

91
Ibid., 73.
92
Ibid.
93
Ibid., 73–74.
94
Ibid., 74.
95
Ibid., 75–76.
96
Ibid., 32–33.

67
tabernacle suggest an understood gradation in holiness between the inner and outer

courts. He writes,

The inside is made of gold, overlaid or solid; if a fabric is involved, it is a wool–

linen mixture, of the elaborate ḥôšēḇ workmanship, adorned with cherubim. The
outside is made, for the most part, of copper (or bronze), overlaid or solid; if a
fabric is involved, it is woven of one kind of material (undyed wool or linen), or
indeed a wool–linen mixture, but of the simple rôqēm workmanship without
cherubim. These two circles are not merely a matter of externals. They demarcate
gradated spheres, each of which contains its own set of ritual acts and symbols.97

Beale argues that this same gradation in holiness can be understood between the outer

courts of creation (the visible earth and sea), the holy place (the visible sky), and the holy

of holies (the unseen heavenly dimensions of the world represented in the garden).98 As

will be developed in chapter three, this gradation of holiness holds particular significance

for Beale’s understanding of the eschatological purposes of creation and humanity in

creation. Most significant for that understanding is the role of Adam as priest and king

within the garden, which is the second major theme of Genesis 1–3 within Beale’s

writings.

Adam’s Garden Commission

Beale builds his argument for Adam’s role based on several grammatical and thematic

connections between Genesis 1–2, the rest of the Old Testament, and ancient Near

Eastern cultural concepts. The first major connection is between Adam’s mandate to rule

and subdue the earth as God’s image-bearer given in Gen 1:26–28 and the ANE

97
Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service In Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult
Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 165.
98
Beale, Temple and Church’s Mission, 33–36; see also Philip Peter Jenson, Graded Holiness:
Key to the Priestly Conception of the World, JSOT Supplement Series 106 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1992), 89–114.

68
conception of kings ruling and subduing in the images of various gods.99 For Beale,

Adam’s status as God’s image-bearer included both functional and ontological elements,

although Beale leans more heavily in the direction of the functional element. This

functional element is based upon the Hebrew word ‫ ָר ָדה‬, translated by Beale as ‘rule.’

Following William Dumbrell, Beale notes that this term is used to refer to a king’s rule in

over half of its uses in the OT.100 Beale also notes that this functional understanding fits

well within the ANE context, where kings were often portrayed as being made in the

images of gods.101 He does add that there is probably also an ontological aspect to the

image given to Adam, where Adam was created with certain attributes in order to mirror

the attributes of God. Summarizing how these two views work together, Beale writes,

“Thus, the focus of the divine image in Adam in Gen 1–2 is on how Adam’s activities

copy God’s, though there is the underlying assumption that Adam was created with

attributes that were reflective of God’s attributes.”102

Similarly, Beale notes the relation between Adam’s role of maintaining the

welfare of the garden, including “dutifully keeping evil influences from invading the

99
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 32
100
Ibid., 30 fn. 4. See also William J. Dumbrell, The Search For Order: Biblical Eschatology in
Focus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 19.
101
Ibid., 30–31. Beale uses two examples from Assyrian texts given by art historian Irene J.
Winter and cites others within her work to make his point. In the first, King Adad-nirari II of Assyria is
quoted in the text as saying that the gods “intervened to alter my appearnace to lordly appearance, [and]
fixed/established and perfected my features,” resulting in the king being made “fit to rule.” In the second,
King Assurbanipal states that the gods “gave me a splendid figure and made my strength great.” He then
quotes from the summary of Irene Winter, who writes that “the institution of kingship itself, giving
concrete form to underlying concepts of divinely sanctioned rule and ideal qualities of the ruler”
established the idea of king as image-bearer; see Irene J. Winter, “Art in Empire: The Royal Image and the
Visual Dimensions of Assyrian Ideology,” in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary
Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, eds. S. Parpola and
R. M. Whiting (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997), 372–377.
102
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 32.
69
arboreal sanctuary,” and the role of Israel’s priests later in the Old Testament.103 This

priestly mandate involved remembering and communicating God’s commands.

According to Beale, “Adam was to be like Israel’s later priests, who both physically

protected the temple and spiritually were to be experts in the recollection, interpretation,

and application of God’s word in the Torah.”104 Thus, when the serpent entered the

garden, Adam’s role was to subdue the serpent by judging him as God subdued “the

chaotic darkness of creation” in his creation in Genesis 1.105 Third, Beale notes the

connection between the command to fulfill the earth in Genesis 1 and other OT passages

such as Psalm 8, Isaiah 45, and Psalm 72, where the eschatological goal of filling the

earth with the glory of God is charged with language reminiscent of God’s commission to

Adam.106 For Adam, this meant expanding the garden, understood through the further

command of Gen 1:26–28 to be fruitful and multiply. Beale notes,

Being “fruitful and multiplying” in Gen 1:28 refers to the increase of Adam and
Eve’s progeny, who were also to reflect God’s glorious image and be part of the
vanguard movement, spreading out over the earth with the goal of filling it with
divine glory. Thus, Adam and Eve and their progeny were to be vice–regents who
were to act as God’s obedient children, reflecting God’s ultimate glorious
kingship over the earth. The task itself of creating progeny with the goal of
“filling the earth” mirrored God’s own creative work in Gen 1, which also was to
climax with the goal of filling the earth with his creation.107

Therefore, as prototypical priest and king, Adam was to rule, subdue, and expand the

sacred garden space until the glory of God filled all of creation. This idea of expanding

the sacred space also has parallels in other ANE cultures such as Egypt, where “the

103
Ibid., 32
104
Ibid., 32–33.
105
Ibid., 34.
106
Ibid., 37–38.
107
Ibid., 37.

70
process of temple expansion represented an attempt to extend the space of existing order

into the outer chaotic sphere.”108

Adam’s Fall

The third major theme to consider from Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 1–3 is Adam’s

disobedience to God in eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam’s failure to obey God’s command was a failure to fulfill his prototypical priestly

and kingly roles in ruling, subduing, and expanding the garden temple. Although Beale

notes that the connection between Adam’s role as priest and king and his disobedience

are not explicitly connected in the text, the two are likely linked together in light of two

considerations: 1) the Gen 1:26–28 commission called for ruling over every creature that

“creeps on earth,” thus implying the snake, and 2) Adam was commissioned to guard the

garden from unclean creatures.109 Because Adam failed in this role, he and Eve were

expelled from the garden “and excluded from the eternal life for which they were

designed.”110 From the reverse side, Beale believes that Adam would have received

escalated blessing, eschatological rest, and possibly full security from death had he

fulfilled the commission given by God.111

Recapitulation of Genesis 1–3 in the OT Storyline

Adam’s fall and subsequent removal from the garden are closely connected with Beale’s

fourth major theme, which is the recapitulation of the Genesis 1–3 story within the rest of

108
Ibid., 92.
109
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 45.
110
Ibid., 46.
111
Ibid., 33–46. These ideas will be clarified in chapter three below.

71
the OT storyline. Although Beale notes that there were some changes in later

commissions given to Adam’s descendants because of sin, he argues that the nature of the

commissions were the same as the original commission in Gen 1:26–28. Like Adam,

each of the descendants will also fail the commission, thus paving the way for a ‘Last

Adam’ to fulfill God’s commission.112 Within the book of Genesis, there are numerous

allusions back to Gen 1:26–28 in God’s commission to Noah, Abraham, and his

descendants. Beale notes eleven such allusions within Genesis, such as Gen 9:1, 7, “And

God blessed Noah and his sons.... ‘Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth ... be fruitful and

multiply; populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.’”113 Based on the work of

other commentators, Beale also notes the further connection between Adam’s

commission and later commissions that include temple building. He gives the following

recurring formula:

1. God appearing to them (except in Gen 12:8; 13:3–4);

2. They ‘pitch a tent’ (literally a ‘tabernacle’ in LXX),
3. on a mountain;
4. They build ‘altars’ and worship God (i.e., ‘calling on the name of the Lord’,
which probably included sacrificial offerings and prayer [Pagolu 1998: 62]) at the
place of the restatement;
5. the place where these activities occur is often located at ‘Bethel’ – the ‘House
of God’ (the only case of altar–building not containing these elements nor linked
to the Genesis 1 commission is Gen 33:20).114

Beale shows that this commission is found in modified forms throughout the rest of the

Old Testament, including the call to the patriarchs, Moses, David, and Israel itself as a

112
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 93–94.
113
Ibid., 94–95. The eleven allusions that Beale gives are: Gen 9:1, 7; 12:2, 3; 17:2, 6, 8; 22:17–
18; 26:3, 4, 24; 28:3–4; 35:11–12; 47:27.
114
Ibid., 96.

72
corporate Adam.115 In each case, there was failure to obey God’s command, resulting in

the commission going unfulfilled. As Beale argues, the exile of Israel can be directly

compared to the exile of Adam from the garden. He writes, “The nation’s task was to do

what Adam had been first commissioned to do. Israel failed even as had Adam. And like

Adam, Israel was also cast out of their ‘garden land’ into exile. Though a remnant of

Israel returned from exile, her failure to carry out the Adamic task continued until the

beginning of the first century AD.”116 This idea naturally leads into the New Testament

understanding of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Adam/Israel commission.

Jesus as Beginning Fulfillment of Adam ’s Commission

The fifth theme related to Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 1–3 involves the relation

between the person and work of Jesus and the garden commission of Adam.117 In his life,

Jesus fulfilled the role of both Adam and Israel as corporate-Adam by beginning the

fulfillment of God’s original commission in his own obedience and his commission to the

church.118 Beale picks up this fulfillment theme in Matthew 4, which contains the story of

Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness and alludes back to God’s admonition of Israel for the

failure to obey him in Deuteronomy 6 and 8. He notes, “Jesus, as true Israel, is the micro-

Israel who has replaced the macro-national Israel.... Each response by Jesus to Satan is

taken from a response by Moses to Israel’s failure in the wilderness (Deut 8:3 in Matt

4:4; Deut 6:16 in Matt 4:7; Deut 6:13 in Matt 4:10). Jesus succeeds in facing the same

115
Ibid., 104–121.
116
Ibid., 121.
117
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 416–417.
118
Ibid., 414.

73
temptations to which Israel succumbed.”119 As last-Adam, Jesus also fulfilled Adam’s

role of “establishing the new temple and extending it obediently.”120 Jesus established his

own person as the new temple in Matthew 12, and thus demonstrated how God’s original

creation purposes were fulfilled within himself. Beale also points to Paul’s description of

the resurrection in temple terminology in 2 Corinthians 5 when he writes, “That Paul has

a temple image in view is apparent from the phrase ‘not made with hands,’ which

virtually everywhere else is a technical way of speaking about the new eschatological

temple.”121 The temple language continues in Jesus’ commission to his disciples in

Matthew 28 where, hearkening back to Cyrus’ decree allowing Jewish people to return to

their land and rebuild their temple in 2 Chronicles 36, he commissioned them to make

worshippers throughout the earth.122

New Creation as Garden-City

The sixth and final theme of Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 1–3 is the fulfillment of

God’s original creation purposes in Rev 21:1–22:5. While Jesus began the fulfillment of

the commission, consummation will not come until the return of Christ in the new

heavens and new earth as depicted in Revelation 21–22. Beale finds in this final vision of

Revelation a description of the new heavens and new earth that equates restored creation

with a city-temple, which Beale calls a “universally expanded eschatological temple.”123

It would not be an overstatement to say that Beale’s entire theological project related to

119
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 172.
120
Ibid., 176.
121
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 271.
122
Ibid., 176–177.
123
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 26.

74
temple is an intertextual interpretation of this passage in Revelation, where Beale

understands God’s creation project reaching its culmination in his “tabernacling

presence” with his creation, and thus defines God’s creation project as eschatological in

nature.124

Beale’s major research question for Rev 21:1–22:5 is “why does John see ‘a new

heaven and a new earth’ in Rev 21:1 and yet in 21:2–22:5 see only a city that is garden-

like and in the shape of a temple?”125 His argument is that 21:2 “interprets the initial

vision of the new heaven and new earth,” while, beginning in verse 3, “the new heaven

and new earth are interpretatively equated with the new Jerusalem and the eschatological

tabernacle.”126 Further, the description in this passage of this new city matches

Solomon’s temple in 1 Kings 5–7 as well as Isa 54:11–12. Finally, 22:11 describes the

unrighteous as remaining outside the city, which implies that the limits of this city are the

limits of new creation, and thus the new temple fills the new creation.127 In summarizing

his interpretation, Beale writes,

Consequently, the new creation and the new Jerusalem are none other than God’s
tabernacle. This tabernacle is the true temple of God’s special presence portrayed
throughout chapter 21. It is this cultic divine presence, formerly limited to Israel’s
temple and then the church, that will fill the whole earth and heaven and become
coextensive with it. Then the eschatological goal of the temple of the garden of
Eden dominating the entire creation will finally be fulfilled (so 22:1–3). Hence,
eschatology not only recapitulates the protology of Eden but escalates it.128

124
Ibid., 25.
125
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 615.
126
Ibid., 616.
127
Ibid.
128
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 368.

75
For Beale, the commission which was disobeyed by Adam and Israel, that found

beginning fulfillment in the life of Jesus, is thus brought to completion in this

eschatological picture of future creation.

By way of summary, Beale contends for six major ideas related to creation as

temple and Adam’s commission. These two themes are recapitulated throughout

Scripture until they find their beginning fulfillment in the life of Jesus. However, the final

fulfillment of these themes will not occur until creation meets its eschatological goal of

cosmic-temple in the return of Jesus to reign over his creation. At that time, creation will

move beyond the original Garden of Eden to also include the escalated blessings intended

for an obedient Adam.

Daniel Block’s Challenge to G. K. Beale’s Interpretation of Genesis 1–3

It is worth noting that Beale’s temple-motif interpretation of Genesis 1–3 has not been

without challenge. In a recent article, Daniel Block argues that he remains unconvinced

by Beale’s evidence that Eden functioned as an archetypical temple.129 Although Block

agrees with Beale’s larger theological project involving the creation symbolism within

the temple, he does not believe that temple symbolism should be read back on to Genesis

1–3. He writes,

The question is, should we read Gn 1–3 in the light of later texts, or should we
read later texts in light of these? If we read the accounts in the order given, then
the creation account provides essential background to the primeval history, which
provides background for the patriarchal, exodus, and tabernacle narratives. By
themselves and by this reading the accounts of Gn 1–3 offer no clues that a
cosmic or Edenic temple might be involved. However, as noted above, the Edenic
129
Daniel I. Block, “Eden: A Temple? A Reassessment of the Biblical Evidence,” in From
Creation to New Creation: Biblical Theology and Exegesis, eds. Daniel M. Gurtner and Benjamin L. Gladd
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2013), 3–29.

76
 features of the tabernacle, the Jerusalem temple, and the temple envisioned by
Ezekiel are obvious. Apparently their design and function intended to capture
something of the original creation, perhaps even to represent in miniature the
original environment in which human beings were placed. However, the fact that
Israel’s sanctuaries were Edenic does not make Eden a sacred shrine. At best this
is a nonreciprocating equation.130

Block’s argument against the temple-motif interpretation of Genesis 1–3 has four parts.

First, Block argues that the textual allusions towards temple and priest that Beale finds in

Genesis 2–3 are indecisive. As an example, Beale argues for a tripartite structure to the

Garden of Eden, anticipating the later tripartite structure of the temple. Block responds

that this structure is not abundantly clear from the text, and notes that the temple

environment actually involved four tiers rather than three.131 Second, Block argues that

the reading of Genesis 1 as cosmic temple is unsupported by the text. Here he cautions

against using extrabiblical sources as analogues for understanding Genesis 1. Contrary to

other ANE depictions of gods resting in temples upon completion, the conclusion of the

Genesis 1 passage only speaks of God ceasing from the divine work.132 This ties in

closely with Block’s third argument that ANE temples were meant to be resting places

for gods. Unlike the later temple, Genesis 1–3 does not emphasize God’s presence in the

cosmos or Eden, but rather his distinction from his creation.133 Block’s final argument is

that the temple was a post-fall invention, “… an earthly dwelling for YHWH in the midst

of a fallen people, and its rituals provided a means whereby covenant relationship with

130
Ibid., 21.
131
Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 17.
132
Ibid., 19–20.
133
Ibid., 24.

77
him could be maintained even in a fallen world.”134 As a post-fall temporary dwelling,

the temple does not offer interpretive power for understanding Genesis 1–3.

There are two interconnected questions that surface in response to Block’s first

two points. The first question is whether the author of Genesis 1–3 intended the text to be

read through the lens of temple. Block concludes that the evidence is unpersuasive, and

Beale himself notes that the text only contains hints and allusions to this reading.135

While Beale’s cumulative case argument might be persuasive for some, Block shows that

there are alternative possibilities for understanding the textual elements of the passage.

However, there is a second question to consider based on the text that does not involve

attempting to understand authorial intentions. This question is, does the text of Genesis 1–

2 present creation, and particularly the Garden of Eden, as fulfilling functions analogous

to the later temple? Here, both Block and Beale acknowledge that the Garden is a type of

sacred space between God and creation. While Block thinks that the “temple as sacred

space” definition is too wide, he does acknowledge that the Garden of Eden does fit this

definition of temple.136 One could also ask whether the Jewish temple itself fits with

Block’s more narrow definition of temple as the primary dwelling/resting place of the

god worshipped. Specifically, in Block’s argument he references the overlapping stories

of the dedication of the temple in 2 Chr 6:18 and 1 Kgs 8:27.137 In these two passages,

Solomon recognizes that God’s true presence is in heaven rather than any man-made

edifice. Therefore, even the Jewish temple could itself be understood not as God’s

134
Ibid., 26.
135
Beale, The Temple and Church’s Mission, 66.
136
Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 22.
137
Ibid., 24.

78
primary dwelling place, but rather as sacred space between God and creation. Further,

Rev 7:13–15 alludes to God’s temple and his tabernacling presence as heavenly realities.

If they have symbolic power for understanding heavenly reality, then surely they also

have symbolic power for understanding pre-fall reality, rather than merely existing as

post-fall accomodation to sinful humanity. Richard Davidson makes a similar point from

Ezekiel 28.138 While Block describes the passage as an earthly structure, Davidson gives

several reasons for reading Ezek 28:11–19 as description of heavenly reality, most

notably because a covering cherub is present in the garden before the appearance of

sin.139 Davidson concludes in this passage, contra Block, that,

Since according to the canonical biblical text, the heavenly sanctuary temple
(heavenly Eden) pre-dates its earthly counterpart (earthly Garden of Eden), it
would be entirely appropriate for the narrator of Genesis 2 to utilize
sanctuary/temple language and describe the earthly Eden as a sanctuary.
Affirming sanctuary language in Genesis 1–2 is not a matter of reading
illegitimately back into the first chapters of Scripture later descriptions of the
sanctuary/temple (as sometimes claimed), but rather acknowledging that
according to the canonical biblical trajectory the first earthly sanctuary (Eden and
its surroundings) was created as the counterpart of the heavenly sanctuary.140

For Davidson, the garden-temple is not an anachronistic portrayal of pre-fall creation

based on the later temple, but rather the first of a number of earthly replicas of the true

temple in heaven.

Finally, Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 1–3 as temple involves a larger

eschatological understanding of temple to be fulfilled in the new heavens and earth

referred to in Revelation 21–22. Toward that goal, Beale uses temple in an analogical,

138
Richard Davidson, “Earth’s First Sanctuary: Genesis 1–3 and Parallel Creation Accounts,”
Andrews University Seminary Studies 53 (2015): 65–89.
139
Ibid., 68.
140
Ibid.
79
rather than literal, sense when speaking of the Garden of Eden and larger creation,

emphasizing that “… it is unlikely that the Israelites actually believed the cosmos was

literally structured like a giant temple on a bigger scale than Israel’s earthly temple.”141

Therefore, the Garden of Eden and wider creation described in Genesis 1–2 functioned

like a temple in certain essential ways, such as encapsulating sacred space and

communion between God and humans as well as being the beginning for the unfolding

eschatological goal of humanity.

The Relationship Between Old Testament and New Testament in Beale’s Storyline-
Driven Biblical Theology

As demonstrated above, Beale finds within the OT storyline a continual recapitulation of

the Genesis 1–3 story. After Adam’s failure to obey God, his commission is passed on in

various forms to other OT figures, each of whom similarly fails to obey God. In Beale’s

words, “At various stages in the OT the engine of the new creation gets started again, and

its missional expansion seems to begin but stalls and ultimately breaks down because of

sin.”142 Beale finds this same eschatological storyline in the NT, particularly through the

numerous uses of the phrase “the latter days,” an eschatological phrase carried over from

the OT.143 However, the NT also includes fulfillment of OT eschatological expectations

with Christ’s first coming and future consummation with his second coming. Of this

fulfillment, Beale writes,

This means that the OT end-time expectations of the great tribulation, God’s
domination of the gentiles, deliverance of Israel from oppressors, Israel’s
restoration, Israel’s resurrection, the new covenant, the promised Spirit, the new
141
Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy, 76.
142
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 63.
143
Ibid., 129–160. See also ch. 4 of this work.

80
 creation, the new temple, a messianic king, and the establishment of God’s
kingdom have been set in motion irreversibly by Christ’s death and resurrection
and the formation of the Christian church.144

Therefore, within the storyline of Scripture, the NT can be understood as the continuation

and fulfillment of the eschatological themes of the OT through the person and work of

Jesus.

Beale’s storyline-driven proposal for the relationship between the OT and NT

uses both echoes/allusions and broader thematic recapitulations to explain how the NT

fulfills the OT. However, the use of echoes/allusions is not without critique in recent

scholarship. In an article entitled “Echoes Without Resonance,” New Testament scholar

Paul Foster critiques a number of writings that have followed from Richard B. Hays’s

groundbreaking work, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. Foster describes what

he calls the “Haysian method” as “… ‘identifying’ a faint echo and then importing the

whole theological context of the base text, in order to establish the theological

commitments and framework of the new literary work.”145 In relation to Hays’s proposal

to situate Paul’s writings within the “symbolic field created by a single textual precursor:

Israel’s Scripture,” Foster argues that this constricts Paul’s thought from being innovative

or drawing upon Gentile thought.146 More broadly, he argues that this method is at least

144
G.K. Beale, “The End Starts at the Beginning,” in Making All Things New: Inaugurated
Eschatology for the Life of the Church, eds. Benjamin L. Gladd and Matthew S. Harmon (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2016), 8.
145
Paul Foster, “Echoes Without Resonance: Critiquing Certain Aspects of Recent Scholarly
Trends in the Study of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament,” Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 38 (2015): 99.
146
Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1989), 15; quoted in Foster, “Echoes Without Resonance,” 98. Evaluation of Foster’s specific
critiques of Richard Hays’s use of echoes is beyond the scope of this dissertation.

81
highly speculative and can even be viewed as an implicit type of reader response, where

authorial intention ceases to matter for understanding the text.147

While Beale suggests echoes and allusions at various places within his storyline

interpretation of Scripture, his proposal avoids the brunt of Foster’s criticism because he

sets certain criteria for determining the validity of possible allusions. Of these criteria,

Beale notes,

(1) the earlier text had to be easily available to the author, (2) volume (how clear
is the reference verbally?), (3) recurrence or clustering (how often does the
alluding author [e.g., Isaiah or Paul] cite the earlier Old Testament reference, or
how often does he refer to the same Old Testament context elsewhere?), (4)
thematic coherence (how well does the Old Testament reference fit into the later
author’s overall line of argument?), (5) satisfaction (does it make sense of the
author’s larger contextual argument?), (6) historical plausibility (does the
historical situation allow for the possibility that the author could have intended the
Old Testament reference and for the readers/hearers to have comprehended it?),
(7) history of interpretation (have other interpreters discerned the same Old
Testament allusions or echoes in these later texts?).148

These seven criteria enable Beale to avoid pure speculation or reader-response

approaches to the text that remove it from authorial intentions. He also goes beyond mere

allusions and offers broader thematic connections between the two testaments through the

introduction, recapitulation, and fulfillment of God’s creational purposes from Genesis 1–

3.149 Although he does not cite Beale, Foster himself affirms the idea of fulfillment within

the NT, particularly in the Gospel narratives.150 As an example close to the heart of this

work, Beale notes a number of OT allusions in the book of Hebrews pertaining to the

temple and implying creational symbolism, such as the mention of the veil in Heb 10:19–

147
Ibid., 108–109.
148
Beale, We Become What We Worship, 24.
149
This idea is discussed above and detailed more fully in chapter three.
150
Ibid., 97.

82
21 in connection with Christ’s flesh.151 Beale comments that within the OT and early

Judaism the veil was understood as symbolically representative of the heavenly cosmos,

and thus the tearing of the veil at Christ’s death was not merely symbolic of the new

access to God granted to believers in Christ, but also symbolized the inauguration of the

new cosmos. This argument implies an allusion to a wider OT context not explicitly

mentioned in the Hebrews passage. However, it also fits with the larger fulfillment theme

of the NT and the Christ-as-temple idea found explicitly throughout the book of Hebrews.

In stating his interpretive approach at the beginning of The Temple and the Church’s

Mission, Beale notes that his strategy of argumentation is to offer several lines of

evidence, with certain lines being stronger than others.152 The less convincing lines of

evidence, where many of the textual allusions in themselves might fit, can then be

received in accordance with the stronger evidence. Therefore, specific allusions are taken

into account in the context of the more obvious evidence concerning the temple as

symbolic of the cosmos.

Another critique of the storyline approach comes from Andreas Köstenberger,

who warns that Beale’s method could possibly leave aside parts of Scripture that do not

easily cohere with the major storyline. In Köstenberger’s words, “[M]aking the biblical

storyline central runs the danger of marginalizing biblical material that is not central to

the metanarrative of Scripture but nonetheless present in the canon. Its inductive and

descriptive nature and its ability to synthesize not only major but also minor motifs is one

151
Beale, The Temple and Church’s Mission, 300–301.
152
Ibid., 26–27.

83
of the greatest strengths of biblical theology.”153 Beale himself acknowledges this

potential for his method, and responds by attempting to demonstrate how the non-

narrative portions of Scripture fit into the framework he employs. Specifically in relation

to the fulfillment of the OT storyline in the NT, Beale notes that “… kingship, new

creation, and divine glory are crucial threads throughout NT epistolary and apocalyptic

literature.”154 Particularly important for this dissertation is Beale’s relation of the cosmic-

temple motif to the end-time temple garden of Revelation 21, a text of apocalyptic

literature that indicates fulfillment of this major storyline of Scripture. This naturally

leads into the next topic of discussion related to Beale’s storyline-driven biblical

theology, the interrelated elements of eschatology, creation, and new creation.

Eschatology, Creation, New Creation

Another major theme within Beale’s work, already partially highlighted, is the

eschatological relation between creation and new creation. Beale’s eschatologically-

driven theological project fits neatly within the framework of inaugurated eschatology,

which “… reflects the observation that while the latter-day new-creational kingdom has

begun with the work of Jesus, it has not been consummated in all its fullness.”155 This

idea can be seen in the extension of Jesus’ commission of the disciples in terms

reminiscent of God’s commission to Adam, where new creation has begun in Jesus but is

still awaiting consummation. In fact, Beale goes so far as to define eschatology as “new-

creational reign,” which entails three interrelated ideas: 1) the apocalyptic idea of the

153
Köstenberger, “The Present and Future,” 458.
154
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 166.
155
Gladd and Harmon, Making All Things New, xi.

84
dissolution and re-creation of the cosmos; 2) a theological package for including all

eschatological hopes; 3) a general future hope, including resurrection, renewal of the

cosmos, vindication of Israel, return from captivity, salvation of believers, punishment

for the wicked, and other theological themes.156 The idea of new-creational reign, or new-

creational kingship, thus specifies the eschatological purpose for creation.

Beale’s eschatological commitments can be further explored through the lens of

systematic theology. According to Beale, the original creation of Genesis 1–2 “contained

within it the seed that would sprout eschatologically.”157 Beale describes Adam’s creation

as containing an “eschatological latency” that would become actualized as Adam fulfilled

his mandate.158 Eschatology therefore logically precedes soteriology in Beale’s

understanding and grounds the entire theological framework. There are several

theological implications to this placement. First, every element that traditionally fills out

an ordo salutis is aimed at God’s eschatological purposes for creation. In Beale’s words,

“[For the apostles] every aspect of salvation was to be conceived of as eschatological in

nature.”159 The influence of Geerhardus Vos on Beale here is evident. In his study of

Paul’s eschatological thought, Vos writes that “… the closely interwoven soteric tissue

derives its pattern from the eschatological scheme, which bears all the marks of having

had precedence in [Paul’s] mind.”160 Second, creation and redemption are interconnected

as subordinate elements within God’s unfolding eschatological plan. On this front,

156
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 178.
157
Ibid., 89.
158
Ibid.
159
G. K. Beale, “The End Starts at the Beginning,” 4.
160
Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Philadelphia: P&R Press, 1979), 60.

85
Beale’s work has a natural affinity with the theological project of the late British

theologian Colin Gunton, who emphasizes the telos of original creation toward its final

consummation in Christ. For Gunton, “[T]he realisation of the end is anticipated in the

present as the rule of Christ, inaugurated in his ministry, continues in the present, moving

forward the project of creation.”161 Bradley Green notes that for Gunton, this implies that

redemption is not simply a “rescue operation” with the goal of removing humanity out of

creation. Green writes, “Rather, redemption is to be seen as bringing or moving creation

to its true end, of perfecting creation.”162 Gunton goes so far as to call creation a project,

with redemption being the “radical redirection from the movement it takes backwards

whenever sin and evil shape its direction.”163 These same ideas are found implicitly

within Beale’s eschatological emphasis of creation.

This connection between creation and redemption has a further theological

implication from Beale’s eschatology, as well as a further affinity with Gunton’s project.

Both theologians emphasize that creation in its original, good state was not perfect in the

sense of being fulfilled or final. Gunton distinguishes two types of Christian eschatology,

an eschatology of return and an eschatology of completion.164 An eschatology of return

emphasizes a movement back towards Eden and an attempt to recapture what was lost

from creation in the fall, namely human reason. An eschatology of completion, on the

other hand, emphasizes a movement toward the future, with the human body and task

161
Colin Gunton, The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Study (Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 1998), 220–221.
162
Bradley Green, Colin Gunton and the Failure of Augustine: The Theology of Colin Gunton in
Light of Augustine (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2012), 35.
163
Gunton, The Triune Creator, 12.
164
Ibid., 13.

86
more intimately bound with the rest of material order.165 Within Gunton’s eschatology of

completion, the goodness of original creation as described in Genesis 1 is a starting point

for God’s creation project rather than its fulfillment. In Terry Wright’s summary of

Gunton, the goodness of creation was “… not of original, absolute perfection, but of a

sort that allows for the world’s proper development according to its status as God’s

creation.”166 Similarly, Beale speaks of prefall conditions as “beginning first creation,”

with obedience leading to a final “enhanced stage of … blessedness.”167 Adam was

intended to begin the process of expanding good creation to its final consummation,

moving creation in a forward trajectory by ruling over creation and subduing all elements

that would bring chaos into God’s good order. This outward movement of blessedness

from first creation constitutes a major theme of chapter three, where it will be further

analyzed.

A final theological implication of Beale’s eschatological commitment concerns

his view of the millennium in Revelation. Within evangelical systematic theology, much

eschatological exploration has focused on the major interpretations of the millennium

presented in Revelation 20, traditionally falling in the categories of premillennialism,

165
Ibid. Gunton (in)famously lays much of the blame for eschatologies of return in Western
theology at the feet of Augustine, who he charges with placing reason over relation in a hierarchical order
both within the Trinity and in creation. This thesis has been challenged, modified, and defended in more
recent literature. For a critique of Gunton’s position, see Bradley Green, Colin Gunton and the Failure of
Augustine: Colin Gunton’s Theology in the Light of Augustine. For a defense of Gunton’s position, see
Joshua McNall, A Free Corrector: Colin Gunton and the Legacy of Augustine (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2015). McNall’s contention is that, while Gunton might have misinterpreted parts of Augustine’s theology,
he is still correct in his assessment of Augustine’s legacy in Western theology.
166
Terry J. Wright, “Colin Gunton On Providence: Critical Commentaries,” in The Theology of
Colin Gunton, ed. Lincoln Harvey (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 146.
167
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 42.

87
postmillennialism, and amillennialism.168 While a full treatment of millennial positions is

outside of the scope of this paper, a basic summary and application of Beale’s position

can here be offered. In Rev 20:1–10, the author presents a period of one thousand years

where Satan is temporarily bound, only to re-emerge in creation before suffering one

final defeat. The beginning of the passages speaks of this binding period when it says,

“Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great

chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and

Satan, and bound him for a thousand years” (Rev 20:1–2 NASB). Rev 20:7–10 then

presents the final emergence and defeat of Satan,

When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison,
and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth,
Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like
the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and
surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from
heaven and devoured them. And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the
lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they
will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

There have been three major schools of interpretation regarding this millennial period in

the history of the church.169 The premillennial position interprets this period more

literalistically as a future reality, with the resurrection of believers occurring prior to the

millennium and the resurrection of the rest of the human race for judgment occurring

after the millennium. The postmillennial position interprets this period not as future

reality, but present reality. In this view, the millennium occurs within present history as

168
Millard Erickson is an evangelical exemplar of this traditional evangelical eschatological
framework that largely equates eschatology with millennial positions. See Erickson, A Basic Guide to
Eschatology: Making Sense of the Millennium (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998).
169
The following summary has been gleaned from Erickson, A Basic Guide to Eschatology, 55–
106.

88
Christ rules the hearts of Christians and the gospel is effectively proclaimed throughout

the world. Within the history of postmillennialism, there has been disagreement over

whether to interpret the millennium in symbolic or literal manner. The amillennial

position is distinct from premillennialism in that it views the millennium symbolically

rather than literally. Within this view, there is no transitional period between the two

resurrections. It is distinct from postmillennialism in that does not typically share the

optimistic outlook on worldwide conversions preceding the return of Christ.

Within this framework, Beale’s eschatology could be described as an amillennial

position. He argues that the millennium presented in Revelation 20 should be understood

as “visionary sequence” rather than “historical sequence.”170 Specifically, on the

symbolic nature of Revelation 20 he writes,

[The author] employs the words ‘one thousand years,’ ‘resurrection,’ and ‘life’
because he saw, at the visionary level, people who were resurrected and given life
for one thousand years. Because the objects he sees and what he hears are seen
and heard in a vision, they are not first to be understood literally but viewed as
symbolically portrayed and communicated, which is the symbolic level of the
vision.171

This falls in line with Beale’s larger interpretive framework for understanding the visions

of the book of Revelation as intensifying recapitulations of the themes of

judgment/persecution, salvation, and reward, rather than chronological account of future

events, as in the typical premillennial interpretation.172 Therefore, Revelation 20 is not

chronologically posterior to the final judgment of Revelation 19, but a recapitulation of

this same judgment. Finally, the millennium is understood as “… inaugurated during the

170
G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 975.
171
Ibid., 973–974.
172
Ibid., 144.
89
church age when God limits Satan’s deceptive powers and when deceased Christians are

vindicated through their reign in heaven.”173 Beale’s view here is similar to

postmillennials who interpret the millennium symbolically, but it does not share their

optimism for worldwide revival.

Much more could be said of Beale’s position and the larger debate surrounding

interpretation of the millennium, but for present purposes it will be limited to application

of Beale’s view with his cosmic-temple motif. Beale finds this motif at work in the vision

of Revelation 21, which serves as the final recapitulation of the vision themes of

salvation and judgment. However, building upon the work of Barbara Wootten Snyder,

Beale also finds a temple framework within the layout of the visions themselves. He

writes of this framework,

1:10 introduces the vision of the Holy Place; the formulaic phrase in 4:1–2
introduces the heavenly Holy of Holies, where he still has a perspective on
aspects of the outer court but from which he also sees the visions of chs. 5–14;
17:1–3 introduces the sacrificial judgment of Babylon that occurs in the outer
court of the temple; and then 21:9 signals a focus on the Holy of Holies as the
entirety of the temple, which is also equivalent to the new creation.174

This interpretation of the framework of Revelation makes obvious the connection

between temple, creation, and eschatology. Specifically, Beale’s interpretation of the

Garden of Eden as holy of holies and the command of Gen 1:25–28 to spread the holy of

holies to all creation finds support in this interpretation, where the temple structure

functions symbolically as the place of judgment, salvation, and future eschatological

renewal of creation.
173
Ibid., 149.
174
Ibid., 142; see also Barbara Wootten Snyder, “Combat Myth in the Apocalypse: The Liturgy of
the Day of the Lord and the Dedication of the Heavenly Temple” (PhD diss., Graduate Theological Union
and University of California, Berkeley, 1991), 242–358.

90
 New Creation and Present Christian Life

Beale’s interpretation of the millennium as the present church age brings up a question

concerning the role of Christians in the present phase of God’s unfolding eschatological

plan for creation. The postmillennial position tends to include optimism about the impact

of Christian progress in spreading the gospel, while the premillennial position tends to be

more pessimistic about how widely the gospel will be believed. Beale’s own inaugurated

eschatological position finds a middle ground between optimism and pessimism,

incorporating themes of both exile and priesthood. For Beale, Christians today are in

exile, a status that will continue until the time when “… this old world will be destroyed,

and a new world will be created in which God’s people will be resurrected, completely

restored to God, and consummately delivered from exile.”175 However, even in spiritual

exile, believers still have a priestly role to play as mediators between God and creation.176

The Church is the continuation of true Israel, and therefore also corporate Adam in the

sense of God’s calling of the Church to carry on his eschatological purposes originally

given to Adam and, later, to Israel as corporate Adam. Beale supports this supersessionist

account of the Church by highlighting several places in Paul’s writings where he uses

language formerly spoken of Israel for the church communities to which he is writing.

For example, in 1 Thessalonians Paul calls the church “beloved by God,” and accentuates

their election by God. Further, the term ekklēsía itself, translated as ‘church’ in Greek, is

used in the LXX to describe Israel.177 Beale also finds support for his position in Romans

175
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 397.
176
Ibid., 399.
177
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 670.

91
9–11, a controversial passage in the debate surrounding supersessionism. He summarizes

his interpretation when he writes, “[W]hen gentiles believe, they do not retain an

independent status as redeemed gentiles; they are seen to be gentiles converting to the

faith of Israel, and although their gentile ethnicity is not erased, they gain a greater

identity as part of Israel because they identify with Jesus, the summation and

representation of true Israel.”178 Thus, identity itself is expanded to inclusion within the

people of Israel when the Gentile becomes a follower of Christ.

There is not sufficient space here to enter into the debate surrounding

supersessionism, and Beale’s overall position regarding the activity of Christians in the

current phase of God’s eschatological plan for the world does not depend upon a

supersessionist rendering of the relationship between Israel and the Church. What is

important in Beale’s account is the overlapping themes of exile and priesthood in the

Church within the first stage of his inaugurated eschatology.

The Function of the Temple Within Beale’s Biblical Theology

Within Beale’s storyline-driven biblical theology, there is a symbolic relationship

between the temple and creation in Genesis 1–3; between the temple, Israel, and creation

in the OT; and between the temple, Christ, and creation in the NT. These three areas will

form the foundation of the next three chapters of this dissertation as Beale’s cosmic-

temple motif is placed in conversation with issues in three areas of a theology of creation:

ontology, natural theology, and eschatology. The major argument in each of the

following chapters is that Beale’s cosmic-temple motif can address current issues within

178
Ibid., 710. It should be noted that Beale does not think that Rom 11:25–26, a passage often
92
these areas, and thus should be utilized within a theology of creation. These issues will

each be introduced here in preparation for further development in the following chapters.

Genesis 1–3, The Cosmic-Temple, and Ontology

As demonstrated above, Beale finds a symbolic relation between the Israelite temple and

the creation of the world as described in Genesis 1–2, particularly within the Garden of

Eden as holy of holies and Adam as high priest of creation. As in Solomon’s temple,

Beale finds a three-tiered description of creation in Genesis: Eden as the holy of holies,

the Garden of Eden as the holy place, and surrounding creation as the outer courts.179

Also in similarity to Solomon’s temple, Beale describes Adam as high priest-king of

creation with his residence in the priestly holy place. In Gen 1:26–28 Adam is given a

commission as image bearer of God, which Beale contends is further explained in Gen

2:15, to follow God’s original act of creation by furthering his rule and submission of

creation.180 Thus, the creation of the world contained a specific design and eschatological

purpose, namely, for the presence of God to spread to all creation through his image-

bearing worshippers. Genesis 3 then reveals the exile of Adam from his place in the

Garden of Eden and thus from his nearness to the presence of God because of his sin in

following the snake rather than God. In Beale’s words,

[B]y allowing the snake entrance into the garden, Adam allowed sin, chaos, and
disorder into the sanctuary and into the lives of both himself and his wife. ...
Consequently, Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s mandate in Gen 1:28, so that they
no longer were in close proximity to be able to reflect God’s living image in the
way they were designed to do, and they were to experience death (Gen 3:19).181

invoked in this debate, is about Gentile redemption. See ibid.

179
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 31–36.
180
These concepts are outlined above and further detailed in chapter 3.
181
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 359.

93
Because of Adam’s sin, he is unable to fulfill the Gen 1:28 commission and the priestly

Gen 2:15 commission because he is exiled from the presence of God and thus no longer

experiences the blessings of that presence.

As will be developed in chapter three, this interpretation of Genesis 1–3 carries

with it ontological implications concerning the question over the nature and effects of the

fall, often described as a curse. Christopher J. H. Wright outlines two possibilities for

understanding the effects of the fall, an ontological understanding and a functional

understanding.182 The first view, which will be described and illustrated in the following

chapter, contends that Adam’s sin brought about detrimental ontological changes to

creation itself, thus insinuating a creation which is now negatively changed from the

original creation described in Scripture.183 The second view contends that creation itself

did not experience ontological change, but that humanity’s relationship with God and

creation was estranged by the fall.184 The argument of chapter three will be that Beale’s

cosmic-temple interpretation of Genesis 1–3 lends support to the latter view because it

presents no actual ontological change to creation and demonstrates a specific way of

thinking about this functional change through Adam’s commission and exile. In making

this argument, Beale’s position will be placed into conversation with a variety of

theological voices in demonstrating the explanatory power of his position for

understanding ontology and creation.

182
Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics For the People of God (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2004), 129–130.
183
Ibid., 130.
184
Ibid., 131.

94
 The Tabernacle, Temple, and Natural Theology

Chapter four will shift the focus to the extension of God’s creation plan in the design and

purpose of the tabernacle and temple within the life of Israel. These two structures, along

with the patriarchal altars of Genesis and the Mount Sinai tabernacle archetype,

demonstrate the post-fall revelatory presence of God within creation. As creation in

Genesis 1–2, these two structures are composed of three tiers and a corresponding

gradation of holiness that is suggested by the types of materials used in decoration and

architecture.185 Within the inner sections of the tabernacle and temple, the revelatory

presence of God was available to Moses and the high priests. One of Beale’s major

arguments is that the tabernacle and temple, along with Israel and the Israelite

representatives, were given for the purpose of carrying on God’s eschatological plan for

making his presence known in creation. Therefore, the presence of God was not intended

to stay within the holy of holies, but to be spread by God’s image-bearers as they reflect

God’s image outward to creation and fulfill Adam’s commission.

Although there are a number of important implications from Beale’s interpretation

of the tabernacle and temple within the cosmic-temple motif, chapter four will focus on

implications for natural theology. In particular, because the tabernacle and temple acted

as an interpretive key for understanding the basic character of creation within God’s

design, the correct understanding of creation is closely related to God’s revelatory

presence. Following the debates between Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, there has been a

renewed emphasis on understanding natural theology through a doctrine of revelation,

185
For an extended analysis of the gradation of holiness in the temple, see Jenson, Graded
Holiness.
95
particularly in the works of Colin Gunton and Alister McGrath, and so chapter four will

expand upon these works to show how the tabernacle and temple insinuate the

importance of holding an interpretive key for understanding God and creation.186

Jesus, The Temple, and Eschatology

Chapter five will move into the area of eschatology within a theology of creation, an area

where Beale himself gives theological application for the cosmic-temple motif. This

chapter will begin by examining the temple and eschatological temple from Ezekiel 40–

48, Rev 21:1–22:5, and the relation of Jesus to the Jerusalem temple presented in the NT.

Beale argues that Jesus himself is the beginning point for the eschatological fulfillment

for creation’s temple purpose. In particular for Beale, “Jesus’s life, trial, death for sinners,

and especially resurrection by the Spirit have launched the fulfillment of the

eschatological already–not yet new-creational reign, bestowed by grace through faith and

resulting in worldwide commission to the faithful to advance this new-creational reign

and resulting in judgment for the unbelieving, unto the triune God’s glory.”187 Thus,

Jesus’ mission was essentially eschatological in nature, fulfilling the Adamic role by

reflecting God’s image to creation, and calling others who would follow in discipleship

in order to bring creation to its eschatological fulfillment. This eschatological fulfillment

is revealed in Revelation 21, which itself reveals the new heavens and new earth as a

garden-temple in a design reminiscent of Genesis 1–2.188

186
For the primary texts in the debate between Barth and Brunner, see Emil Brunner and Karl
Barth, Natural Theology: Comprising Nature and Grace by Professor Dr. Emil Brunner and the reply No!
by Dr. Karl Barth (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002).
187
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 188.
188
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 365–375.

96
 Each of these ideas will be analyzed in chapter five in view of the relationship

between creation and eschatology. Wolfhart Pannenberg and Jürgen Moltmann have both

put forth influential eschatological treatments of creation that have garnered attention

within 21st century theologies of creation, and so Beale’s eschatology will be placed in

conversation with these two thinkers to demonstrate the contribution that the cosmic-

temple motif can make to eschatology. In particular, Beale demonstrates both the

importance of the temple for understanding continuity between creation and new creation

and the importance of the temple for holding a balanced inaugurated eschatology.

Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter has been to analyze various components of G. K. Beale’s

biblical theology in order to better understand his wide-ranging use of the cosmic-temple

motif. His own type of biblical theology has been distinguished from others within and

outside of evangelical theology in order to emphasize how he uses storyline as the

conceptual scheme for understanding the major ideas and themes of Scripture.

Particularly, it has shown that Beale derives major scriptural concepts from Genesis 1–3

that are then recapitulated throughout the rest of Scripture until their beginning

fulfillment in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.

The next three chapters will each focus on particular sections of Scripture in order

to elaborate on Beale’s cosmic-temple interpretation and apply it to specific questions

within a theology of creation. Therefore, the goal of this chapter has been to give an

overview of Beale’s thought and to only enter into particular debates as needed for

defending Beale’s viewpoint from potential weaknesses. The next three chapters will also

97
take this same approach, entering into debates as needed and distinguishing Beale’s own

interpretation of Scripture from others, both those who hold to a cosmic-temple motif and

those who offer different interpretations of the chosen passages of Scripture. What is

clear from this chapter is that Beale is a worthy exemplar of the cosmic-temple motif

because of both the extent of his writings as well as his influence on other biblical

theologians. The next three chapters will show the value that his approach can also have

within systematic theology, especially a theology of creation.

98
 CHAPTER THREE
CREATION AS TEMPLE: THE NATURE OF CREATION IN THE COSMIC-
TEMPLE MOTIF

This chapter will move the cosmic-temple motif into a specific area of the theology of

creation, engaging the ontological question of the distinction between pre- and

postlapsarian creation. Although a number of passages of Scripture carry ontological

implications, this chapter will focus specifically on Genesis 1–3, three chapters of

Scripture that describe the creation of the world, the creation of humanity, the creation of

the Garden of Eden, the fall of Adam and Eve into sin, and the removal of Adam and Eve

from the garden. This chapter will use elements of G. K. Beale’s cosmic-temple

interpretation of Genesis 1–3 in conversation with other modern theologies of creation to

demonstrate ontological continuity between pre- and postlapsarian creation as a

legitimate and fruitful reading of the text.1 In order to accomplish this thesis, it will first

introduce the question under consideration: What, if any, are the distinctions between

pre- and postlapsarian creation from Genesis 1–3? Next, important elements of G. K.

Beale’s cosmic-temple motif interpretation of Genesis 1–3 will be given in conversation

1
Different theologies of creation that will be analyzed in this chapter include those of Karl Barth,
Jürgen Moltmann, Thomas Jay Oord, Catherine Keller, and C. John Collins. These scholars are important
because they represent a broad range of theological options for ontological understanding of creation.
Biblical scholars Jon D. Levenson and John Walton are also important for the topic under consideration
because they provide important interpretive possibilities for understanding a theology of creation from
Genesis 1–3, and so their projects will also be incorporated, particularly concerning Gen 1:1–1:2.

99
with different theologies of creation, with an eye toward the question of pre- and

postlapsarian ontology. Finally, theological application will be made from Beale’s

cosmic-temple motif to ontology in dialogue with other theologies of creation. Beale’s

work is important because it enables affirmation of a primordial couple, a special Garden

location within creation, and a historical fall, while simultaneously affirming a non-

concordist understanding of Genesis 1–3 that enables a range of scientific options for

understanding creation.

Introduction

Theological engagement with Genesis 1–3 involves grappling with the nature of creation

in Genesis 1–2 and the effects of the fall upon creation in Genesis 3. Prelapsarian creation

refers to creation in its God-intended state before the fall of Genesis 3.2 Understanding

prelapsarian ontology involves at least three interpretive decisions regarding questions

related to terms and phrases within these two chapters, specifically: 1) whether Gen 1:1 is

a main clause describing the first act of creation, a main clause providing summary or

title of the rest of the passage, a temporal clause pointing forward to the beginning state

of creation in Gen 1:2, or a temporal clause pointing forward to the beginning state of

creation in Gen 1:3;3 2) whether the ‫ ַיהו וָ ביהו‬description of creation in Gen 1:2

references the basic material formed into creation in the proceeding verses, pre-existent

2
As Colin E. Gunton, The Actuality of the Atonement: A Study of Metaphor, Rationality, and the
Christian Tradition (London: T&T Clark, 1988), 151, observes, prelapsarian creation also includes God’s
eternal intentions for creation.
3
Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, Creation Out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and
Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 37–38; Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1–15,
Word Biblical Commentary 1 (Waco: Word, 1987), 11–13.

100
chaos in opposition to God, functionless material creation, or some more nuanced idea of

chaos; and 3) how the Garden of Eden is ontologically distinguished or similar to the rest

of creation. Each of these interpretive decisions informs understanding of prelapsarian

creation in comparison with postlapsarian creation.

Postlapsarian creation refers to creation on the other side of the fall of Genesis 3,

and hence refers to creation in its current state. Ontologically, the question concerns

what, if any, effects were caused by the fall in Genesis 3. David Fergusson summarizes a

broad stream of Christian tradition that posits that “… original creation lapses from an

initial state of perfection into disorder, suffering, and death.”4 In this conception, the

goodness of creation in Genesis 1 is related to its ontological perfection. Adam’s

rebellion against God in Genesis 3 introduces sin into creation and thus causes

ontological change within the very nature of creation, moving it from a state of perfection

to a state of disorder. Thus, from this perspective, James Stambaugh can write of the

introduction of sin as the destruction of the “idyllic condition” of creation and the

introduction of physical death into the world.5 In this interpretation, natural evil and death

are the two most deleterious effect of sin, spreading from Adam to the rest of creation.

The other great effect is the disharmony of all of nature. As Charles Colson and Nancy

Pearcey put it in an influential book, “Because Adam and Eve were given dominion over

the rest of creation, their rebellion injected disorder into all of creation.”6 Within this

4
David Fergusson, Creation, Guides to Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 36.
5
James Stambaugh, “Whence Comes Death?: A Biblical Theology of Physical Death and Natural
Evil,” in Coming to Grips With Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth, eds. Terry Mortenson
and Thane H. Ury (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2009), 383.
6
Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, How Now Shall We Live? (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale
House, 1999), 197.

101
interpretation, the sin of Adam caused direct ontological effects to creation, moving it

from ontological order to ontological disorder.

However, this is not the only option for understanding the effects of the fall in

Genesis 3. Biblical theologian Christopher J. H. Wright provides a helpful distinction

between two major schools of thought on this subject, separating those who posit that

God’s curse on the earth is ontological and those who posit that it is functional. For the

former view, the curse affects “the very nature of the planet as it now is in itself,” where

in the latter view the curse affects “only our human relationship with the earth.”7 Wright

himself is drawn to this latter view in part because of its resonance with current scientific

investigation into the age and development of the earth, particularly from the fields of

paleoanthropology, biological DNA tracing, and geology.8 Based on this scientific

evidence, Wright acknowledges that “… it is difficult to sustain the view that animals

only started eating each other within the time span of the existence of Homo sapiens and

as a result of that creature’s moral and spiritual rebellion against God.”9 G. K. Beale’s

cosmic-temple motif enables a theological interpretation of Genesis 1–3 that has

resonance with the scientific evidence that Wright acknowledges, but that does not

simply reinterpret Genesis 1–3 ad hoc based on current scientific paradigms. As

7
Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics For the People of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2011), 130.
8
For a summary of recent findings in paleoanthropology, see James P. Hurd, “Hominids in the
Garden?” in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, ed. Keith B. Miller (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003),
208–233; for a summary of recent findings in DNA tracing, see Darrel Falk, “Human Origins: The
Scientific Story,” in Evolution and the Fall, eds. William T. Cavanaugh and James K. A. Smith (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 8–13; for a summary of geological evidence related to an old earth, see Davis A.
Young and Ralph F. Stearley, The Bible, Rocks and Time (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008),
213–340.
9
Wright, Old Testament Ethics, 130.

102
discussed in chapter two, Beale’s approach is non-concordist in that it does not seek to

find strong or weak concordance between Genesis 1–3 and scientific data concerning

creation.10 In other words, if a new scientific paradigm were to arise, Beale’s

interpretation of the passage would not be invalidated or need to change in order to

accommodate new data. This makes it an attractive interpretation of the passage for

dialogue between theology and science. It also opens up possibilities for ontological

understanding of the world.

Beale calls the cosmology of Genesis 1–3 a theologically charged, rather than

scientific, conception of the universe that allows for figurative or phenomenological

language.11 However, this does not mean that the passage is unable to tell anything about

the world itself. As Beale emphasizes, Christians today should hold the same view of the

cosmos as temple that the ancient Israelites held and that is conveyed by Scripture.12

According to Beale, Scripture gives true understanding about the nature of the world

itself, though not necessarily scientific understanding. Ontology, concerned with ideas

related to being, is thus in the purview of Genesis 1–3, with different interpretations of

the passage enabling different ontological understandings of the world in both pre- and

postlapsarian states. As will be demonstrated from engagement with Beale’s

interpretation of Genesis 1–3, an implication of his cosmic-temple motif is ontological

10
Strong and weak concordist approaches are analyzed in accordance with G. K. Beale in chapter
two.
11
G. K. Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to
Biblical Authority (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 163.
12
Ibid., 214. Joseph Blenkinsopp similarly writes about Genesis 1, “[Our] priest-author is
composing a narrative, hence unavoidably expressing in a chronological sequence what is essentially an
ontological truth, a conviction about the way the world is, about the fragility of order, and the persistent
threat of disorder and chaos, physical and moral.” See Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation:
A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1–11 (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 32.
103
continuity between pre- and postlapsarian creation along with an affirmation of the fall as

a historical reality. This ontological continuity is particularly demonstrated through his

conception of the imago dei in Gen 1:26–28 and the related commissions given to other

patriarchs and Israel itself in postlapsarian creation. While this chapter is not arguing the

positions that Beale himself takes in relation to the issue of ontology (or chaos, explored

below), it is arguing that ontological continuity is a legitimate and fruitful understanding

of Scripture in light of Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 1–3. In order to understand these

issues, a number of interrelated interpretive issues will be analyzed from Genesis 1–3

with an eye toward theological application.

G. K. Beale’s Interpretation of Genesis 1–3

G. K. Beale presents a storyline approach to the narrative of Genesis 1–3 that introduces

basic scriptural themes that are then recapitulated within other important stories of the

OT before their fulfillment is begun through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus in

the NT.13 The major themes introduced in this narrative include: cosmic chaos, new

creation, commission of kingship for diving glory, sinful fall, and exile.14 Beale finds

these themes recycled in several major stories of the Old Testament, including the

Genesis flood account, the Egyptian oppression and exodus of Israel, the wilderness

wandering of Israel, and the Babylonian conquest of Israel.15 In each of these cycles,

13
G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the
New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 29–30. This theme is also analyzed in chapter two of this
dissertation in conjunction with Beale’s storyline approach to Scripture.
14
Ibid., 58.
15
Ibid., 60. Beale actually separates the exile into two distinct narrative cycles of the Genesis 1–3
themes. The second exile, listed by Beale as “continuing exile,” is the last distinct cycle because it
introduces new creation in the life of Christ.

104
there is a chaotic condition orchestrated by God, a new creation that is closely tied with

the promise of land, a commissioning of an individual as new Adam or nation as

corporate Adam for divine glory, individual or national sin, and judgment and exile.

According to Beale, “These cyclic patterns show that there were apparent inaugurated

new-creational movements of God’s kingdom following crisis points of chaos at various

stages in the OT that, from the human perspective, could have developed into

consummate eschatological conditions. Such final and irreversible conditions, however,

did not eventuate due to sin.”16 Thus, Genesis 1–3 is important in that it introduces these

major elements and thus shows the eschatological thrust of Scripture from the very

beginning. However, Beale’s storyline approach not only gives eschatological insight, but

also ontological insight into the nature of pre- and postlapsarian creation. This section

will focus on these ontological insights through analysis of Beale’s interpretation of

Genesis 1–3, with particular eye toward explaining elements that will later be emphasized

for ontological understanding of creation in dialogue with modern theologies of creation.

This analysis will be divided into three sections corresponding to the three major

narratives of this portion of Scripture.

G. K. Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Interpretation of Gen 1:1–2:3

G. K. Beale describes the creation of the world in Gen 1:1–2:3 as the construction of a

cosmic-temple, in line with the constructions of the later tabernacle and temple in

Israel.17 Within Beale’s cosmic-temple interpretation, five major elements to the storyline

16
Ibid.
17
See chapter two for details of Beale’s comparison between creation and the tabernacle/temple.

105
of Gen 1:1–2:3 can be discerned: initial creation, chaos, new creation, commissioning of

imago dei representative, and divine rest.18 The initial creation is presented in Gen 1:1,

chaos in Gen 1:2, ordering of new creation in Gen 1:3–31, commissioning of the imago

dei representative in Gen 1:26–28, and divine rest in Gen 2:1–3. Of these elements, Beale

finds the commissioning of the imago dei representative in Gen 1:26–28 to be the central

feature of this narrative that then becomes the central storyline of the rest of the Old

Testament.19 Within this reading, Adam acts as the priest-king representative of God,

commissioned to reflect God’s own creation activities by subduing creation, ruling over

all the earth, and multiplying offspring to spread God’s sacred presence to all creation.20

While this is the most important feature of Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 1, each of the

five elements listed above is worth analyzing for developing a prelapsarian ontology,

particularly related to the goodness of created order.

Initial Creation

The first element of G. K. Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 1 is the initial creation of the

cosmos. One of the distinctions of Beale’s cosmic-temple interpretation of Genesis 1

from other prominent advocates is that he affirms a creatio ex nihilo interpretation of Gen

1:1.21 Within Christian theology, at least dating back to the second half of the second

century AD, Gen 1:1 has been closely connected with the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo,

18
Beale does not himself name these elements within his interpretation of Genesis 1, but rather
they are discerned through his interpretation. See Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 29–63; and
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, NSBT 17
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 29–80.
19
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 63.
20
Ibid., 32.
21
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 83 fn. 6; Beale, A New Testament Biblical
Theology, 32 fn. 14. Jon D. Levenson and John Walton each hold differing perspectives, discussed below.
106
thus distinguishing creation from God ontologically and insinuating the goodness of

material creation as the work of God.22 However, within modern biblical scholarship, at

least four possible interpretations of Gen 1:1 have been put forward: 1) Gen 1:1 as main

clause describing the first act of creation; 2) Gen 1:1 as main clause providing summary

or title of the rest of the passage; 3) Gen 1:1 as temporal clause pointing forward to the

beginning state of creation in Gen 1:2; 4) Gen 1:1 as temporal clause pointing forward to

the main clause of Gen 1:3.23 Beale calls his view the “traditional” interpretation, by

which he means the first interpretation option given above.24 He does not provide any

explicit argument for the creatio ex nihilo interpretation of the verse in either of his major

works on the cosmic-temple motif, but his interpretation can be understood when

compared with his interpretation of Gen 1:26–28, which he reads as a parallel passage to

Gen 1:1–1:2. Of those verses, Beale writes, “Just as God, after his initial work of

creation, subdued the chaos, ruled over it, and further created and filled the earth with all

kinds of animate life, so Adam and Eve, in their garden abode, were to reflect God’s

activities in Gen 1 by fulfilling the commission to ‘subdue’ and ‘rule over the earth’ and

22
For a detailed study on the doctrinal development of creatio ex nihilo within the second century
AD, see Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Christian
Thought, trans. A. S. Worrall (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 148ff. However, Thomas F. Torrance argues
that the doctrine reaches even further back, rooted in the Old Testament, echoed in the New Testament, and
explicitly mentioned for the first time in The Shepherd of Hermas, which Torrance believes signals the
doctrine’s recognition by this point. See Thomas F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical
Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church (London: T&T Clark, 2016), 95–109. Torrance also in these
pages analyzes the ontological ramifications of creatio ex nihilo for creation.
23
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 11–13.
24
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 83 fn. 6; Beale, A New Testament Biblical
Theology, 32 fn. 14.

107
to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen 1:26, 28).”25 God’s activity in Gen 1:1 here is called an

initial work of creation, which is then expanded into the formation of the ordered cosmos.

Thus, Beale advocates for reading Gen 1:1 as the first of a two-step creation process,

highlighted by ex nihilo creation and the ordering of that creation into the organized

world. Because Beale does not spend time developing his doctrine of creatio ex nihilo

from Gen 1:1, but merely states it as his belief, it will be helpful to contrast his view with

two other cosmic-temple advocates who hold to different views, Jon D. Levenson and

John Walton.26

Jon D. Levenson is one of a number of advocates of the cosmic-temple motif who

argue that Gen 1:1 is better interpreted as temporal clause rather than main clause, thus

rendering the passage as, “When God began to create the sky and the earth....”27 He

argues that the traditional main clause interpretation of the passage, “In the beginning

God created the heaven and the earth,” does not do justice to the later creation of the

heavens on the second day and the earth on the third day in the account.28 He also notes

that this subordinate clause reading fits with the opening of the Enuma elish, which is

translated, “When above the heaven had not [yet] been named, [and] below the earth had

25
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 32.
26
John Walton, Genesis 1 As Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 23–121,
argues that Genesis 1 operates from the background of a functional, rather than material, ontological
account of creation. Walton’s specific ontological proposal is beyond the scope of this chapter, but
summary and evaluation can be found in Matthew Barrett and Ardel B. Caneday, eds., Four Views on the
Historical Adam, Counterpoints (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 89–142.
27
This translation comes from Joseph Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation: A
Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1–11 (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 30. An example of those who
follow this interpretation from the perspective of the cosmic-temple motif are: William P. Brown, The
Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 39–
40; Adam Sherwood, Paul and the Restoration of Humanity in Light of Ancient Jewish Traditions, Ancient
Judaism and Early Christianity 82 (Leiden.: Brill, 2012), 138.
28
Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine
Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 121.
108
not [yet] been called by a name....”29 Levenson notes the parallel between Gen 1:2–3,

where God separates the sky and waters, and the chaoskampf story in the Enuma elish,

where Marduk splits Tiamat’s body to form the sky and earth.30 However, Levenson’s

interpretation of Gen 1:2–3 can be considered as a demythologized chaoskampf story

because he argues that the Genesis creation account acts as a demythologization of the

Enuma elish rather than a pure copy.31 The Genesis account depersonalizes the cosmic

forces that oppose God’s creation, specifically the “uncreated realities” of water and

light.32 However, God’s primordial victory over the cosmic forces does not eliminate

them completely, but rather it tames and confines them through God’s continual

covenantal preservation of creation.33 This aspect of Levenson’s account is important

because it undergirds his theological account of evil from Genesis 1. Because the chaos

of Gen 1:2 has been confined rather than completely eliminated, evil is still a reality

within creation, although it will never overtake creation due to God’s ongoing

preservation.

29
Ibid. Levenson’s interpretation of the opening words of the Enuma elish comes from Alexander
Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1963), 18.
30
Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 121. Levenson again uses Heidel in his
interpretation of the Enuma elish; See Heidel, Babylonian Genesis, 40–43.
31
Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 122.
32
Ibid., 122–123.
33
Ibid., 17–18.

109
 Differing from Levenson, John Walton argues that Gen 1:1 should be interpreted

in the traditional sense as, “In the beginning, God created....”34 Walton’s main argument

against the revised temporal clause translation is that its interpretation “seems to be

motivated in modern interpretation primarily by the similar syntax of [the Enuma elish],”

which he asserts is an idiosyncratic text in itself within ANE literature.35 Instead, he

argues that Gen 1:1 is an independent clause, summarizing the description of creation to

follow in the rest of the chapter.36 Walton gives three advantages for interpreting Gen 1:1

as independent clause. First, within the structure of Genesis, there are eleven transitionary

phrase divisions beginning in Gen 2:4 that are each introduced by the independent clause

ַ‫הקַולדו‬
‫א‬ ‫ דְ ֶּל‬, which links the previous section with the following section. Within Gen

1:1, the term ‫ְַית‬

‫ אב דר ק‬fits within this overall structure as marking the first independent

clause that introduces the later sequence of eleven transitional phrases. Second, following

Walton’s prior claim that the Enuma elish is an idiosyncratic text in ANE literature, he

34
John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 124. Walton is far from alone in his rejection
of the temporal clause rendering of the verse. See Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, Creation Out of
Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 36–
49; Terrence E. Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 35; Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary 1
(Waco: Word, 1987), 12. These scholars show the inadequacy of Gary A. Anderson’s recent statement that
there is scholarly consensus for the temporal clause perspective; see Gary A. Anderson, Christian Doctrine
and the Old Testament: Theology in the Service of Biblical Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2017), 42.
35
Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 124; see also John H. Walton, “Creation in Genesis
1:1–2:3 and the Ancient Near East: Order Out of Disorder After Chaoskampf,” CTJ 43 (2008): 50.
36
Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 124–127.

110
argues that the phrasing of Gen 1:1 fits better with Egyptian cosmological texts, marked

by first occasions, than with the Enuma elish.37 Third, following John Sailhamer, Walton

reasons that ְַַֹ‫ אב דר‬has a unique function within the Hebrew language in that it refers

to a period or duration of time rather than to a specific point of time.38

G. K. Beale’s traditional understanding of Gen 1:1 is distinct from both Levenson

and Walton and is closer to the interpretation of scholars such as Julius Wellhausen, who

posits that God first created the chaos and then ordered it into creation.39 This reading of

the text presents Gen 1:1 as the first step of a two-step creation process, which, as noted

above, has been the majority interpretation of the verse from early in church history. The

first step of creation is the ex nihilo creation of a chaotic state, followed by the

organization of that state into the ordered heavens and earth as the second step. The most

important aspect of Beale’s ex nihilo interpretation of Gen 1:1 is the introduction of chaos

as a storyline element, because it provides background understanding for God’s imago

dei commission given to Adam in Gen 1:26–28.40 However, as will be shown in Beale’s

interpretation of the chaos of Gen 1:2, this chaotic creation is more than simply an

unorganized state, but rather an unruly state that needs to be subdued and ruled over in

order for creation to flourish.

37
Walton notes three main examples of Egyptian use of ‘first occasion’ in creation texts. They are
all from the Papyrus Leiden 1 350: ‘You began evolution with nothing, without the world being empty of
you on the first occasion’ (80th chapter); ‘Light was his evolution on the first occasion….’ (90th chapter);
‘Who began evolution on the first occasion….’ (100th chapter). These interpretations are from William W.
Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., eds., The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions From the
Biblical World, Vol 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1.16.
38
See John Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account
(Colorado Springs, CO: Dawson Media, 2011), 113–114.
39
Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock,
2003), 298.
40
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 32.

111
Chaos

The next major element introduced in the Gen 1:1–2:3 storyline is chaos. According to

Beale, when God initially creates in Gen 1:1, it is not the organized world, but a chaotic

climate that needs to be subdued and ruled over by God in order to form organized

creation.41 These elements are the ‫ ַיהו וָ ביהו‬of Gen 1:2, translated as ‘formless and void’

(NASB). Within Beale’s reading, the initial creation in Gen 1:1–1:2 is not actively

opposed to God as in chaoskampf readings, but at the same time it is not simply the

building blocks formed into organized creation in the following verses, as in the

theological interpretation of Douglas F. Kelly, who views Gen 1:2 as the “original,

created elements of verse 1 [that] were not yet differentiated, separated and organized.”42

Instead, the ‫ ַיהו וָ ביהו‬needs to be subdued and ruled over, rather than simply separated

and organized, in order for creation to flourish. This is why Beale still refers to it as

chaos, a term which he expands in his recapitulation reading of this theme from Genesis 1

to other places in Scripture.43

Beale never explicitly enters the debate over God’s relation to the chaos, but his

view becomes clearer through his intertextual interpretation of Gen 1:1–1:2 in light of the

chaos-and-new creation storyline recapitulated in Scripture.44 In each of these OT stories,

41
Ibid.
42
Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change: Genesis 1.1–2.4 in the Light of Changing Scientific
Paradigms (Nairobi: Mentor, 1999), 81.
43
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 59–61.
44
Beale acknowledges that there is debate over whether God’s creation is preceded by a
primordial judgment against the chaos, which makes the chaos an enemy of God, but he does not explicitly
develop his own view due to space limitations; see ibid., 59, Table 2.1 fn. a.

112
the Genesis 1 story of chaos followed by creation is recapitulated in chaos and God’s

restoration of creation. In Beale’s words, “[W]hen it is recalled that the chaos of the first

creation was resolved by God’s bringing about an ordered creation, the subsequent

judgments of the flood, the Egyptian plagues, and Israel’s desolated land can be

understood as recapitulations of the primordial chaos that precedes new creation.”45 His

examples from the OT reveal that he does not see chaos in opposition to God, but rather

as used by God in both de-creation and new creation.46 In Gen 6:17, the flood waters do

not come in opposition to God but at the command of God. Similarly, in Exodus 7–11,

the plagues are not in opposition to God but sent by God. The Israelite exile in the

wilderness detailed in Numbers is brought about by God because of their disobedience.

Similarly, in 2 Kings 17, God is actively responsible for the Babylonian captivity of

Israel. In each case, creation is dis-ordered into chaos in order to allow for new creation.

From these passages it can be said that chaos is an ontological quality of creation written

into its very nature. The chaotic elements are thus part of God’s good design of creation,

a possibility within the cosmos that God uses in achieving his goals for creation.

New Creation

After the initial creation and chaos state God begins the task of creating in Gen 1:3.47

According to Beale’s interpretation, God’s creative activity in Genesis 1 consists of “…

subduing the chaotic darkness of creation and ruling over it by his word.”48 The

45
Ibid., 60–61.
46
Ibid., 93 fn. 19. Importantly for the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, in each story that Beale gives,
God is the one who is actively responsible for the chaotic condition that then becomes new creation.
47
Ibid., 32.
48
Ibid., 34.

113
development of creation is read by Beale not as a scientific account, but as a theological

account, so the goal of the passage is not to describe the formation of life or present a

biological timetable of life.49 Rather, it is to describe how creation was made for God’s

glory. As Beale and others have pointed out, each stage of the seven day creation week is

mirrored in the construction of the tabernacle.50 Thus, the ultimate purpose of creation is

to function as a cosmic temple for the dwelling presence of God.

However, the creative work of God in Gen 1:3–2:3 is not complete at the end of

the sixth day. According to Beale, Adam and his progeny were to put the “finishing

touches” on the world by subduing and ruling over creation themselves as God’s co-

regents.51 This theme includes important ontological implications for understanding

prelapsarian ontology, particularly related to the goodness of creation in Genesis 1. It is

closely related to the next theme of the commissioning of imago dei representatives in

God’s creation, and so can be developed further in relation to that theme.

Commissioning of Imago Dei Representative

Gen 1:26–28 presents as interconnected ideas the creation of humanity and commission

of humanity to function as God’s imago dei representative within creation. These verses

present the central feature of the Genesis 1 story within Beale’s account that then

49
Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy, 163.
50
Chapter two details this link between the two accounts. For examples of this type of literary
connection between cosmos and tabernacle/temple, see Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 60–
61; Martin Buber, “People Today and the Jewish Bible,” in Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, Scripture
and Translation, trans. Lawrence Rosenwald and Everett Fox (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press,
1994), 18–21; Michael Fishbane, Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Select Texts (Oxford:
Oneworld Publications, 1998), 12; John Walton, Genesis 1 As Ancient Cosmology , 100–119.
51
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 82.

114
becomes the central feature for the redemptive-historical storyline of Scripture.52 As

shown above in the thematic cycles of chaos–creation–commission–fall–exile, Adam is

given the commission to act as God’s imago dei representative within the Garden of

Eden, which is then passed on to others after his disobedience and exile from the

Garden.53 Beale finds in Scripture “the essence” of this commission being passed on to

Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel.54 Therefore, in Beale’s interpretation, the

commission was given to both pre- and postlapsarian figures, thus signaling similar

functions before and after the fall.

This commission has been variously referred to as a “creation mandate” or

“cultural mandate,” implying that human obedience to God involves multiplying

humanity through bearing children and filling the population.55 However, some scholars

have questioned whether Gen 1:26–28 represents an actual mandate given to Adam. John

Walton believes that Gen 1:26–28 should be considered a text of blessing rather than

obligation, with child-bearing being considered a privilege rather than a command that

couples must have children.56 Walton’s argument is unpersuasive though when Gen

1:26–28 is considered in light of later restatements of this phrase in Genesis as direct

imperatives to Noah, Abraham, and Jacob (Gen 9:1; 17:2; 28:3; 35:11), passages which

Gordon Wenham argues reveal Gen 1:26–28 as a command with an implicit promise that

52
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 63.
53
Ibid., 46–52; Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 93–121.
54
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 46–52.
55
Beale refers to it as a creation mandate in Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 34, fn. 19,
while Bruce Waltke and Cathi Fredricks refer to it as a cultural mandate in Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J.
Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 67.
56
John Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 134.

115
God will enable fulfillment.57 In Warren Austin Gage’s phrasing, Gen 1:26–28 presents a

divine commandment later formalized as a covenant within the history of Israel.58 The

views of Wenham and Gage fit well with Beale, especially in consideration of his relation

of the creation mandate in Gen 1:26–28 and the command given to Adam in the Garden

of Eden in 2:16–17, discussed below.

Divine Rest

The fifth and final major element of Beale’s interpretation of Gen 1:1–2:3 is divine rest.

In Beale’s interpretation, God’s rest at the conclusion of creation in the Gen 1:1–2:3

passage is akin to his rest within the temple upon its completion.59 He writes, “Just as

God rested on the seventh day from his work of creation, so when the creation of the

tabernacle and, especially, the temple are finished, God takes up a ‘resting place’

therein.”60 While other commentators have noted the obvious parallel between God’s rest

in Gen 1:1–2:3 and the call for weekly Sabbath in Exod 20:8–11; 31:17; and Lev 23:2–3,

these ideas of Sabbath rest and temple rest are not exclusive, but rather coterminous.61 As

Moshe Weinfeld notes from Psalm 132, the entrance of God into the temple is paralleled

with the seventh day Sabbath rest of God at the conclusion of creation.62 Beale uses two

57
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 33.
58
Warren Austin Gage, The Gospel of Genesis: Studies in Protology and Eschatology (Winona
Lake, IN: Carpenter Books, 1984), 29.
59
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 60–62.
60
Ibid., 61.
61
For examples of commentaries linking God’s seventh day rest and Sabbath, see Wenham,
Genesis 1–15, 35–36; Waltke and Fredricks, Genesis, 67–68, 71–73; Walter Brueggemann, Genesis,
Interpretation: A Biblical Commentary For Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 35–36.
62
Moshe Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord: The Problem of the Sitz
Im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henrie Cazelles, eds.
A. Caquot and M. Delcor (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981), 501–502.

116
lines of evidence in order to demonstrate this idea: intertextual evidence showing the

similar patterns between creation in Gen 1:1–2:3 and the construction of the tabernacle

and temple, and external evidence showing parallels between ANE conceptions of

temples as divine resting places and biblical ideas of God dwelling in the cosmos and

tabernacle/temple.

Internally, Beale utilizes the research of Jon Levenson and John Walton, amongst

others, to demonstrate the “congeneric” relation between the cosmos and the temple.63

For the relation between creation and tabernacle, Beale notes the common structures

between the two accounts. He writes, “[B]oth accounts are structured around a series of

seven acts: cf. ‘And God said’ (Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24, 26: cf. vv. 11, 28, 29) and ‘the

Lord said’ (Exod 25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1, 12).”64 For the relation between creation

and Solomon’s temple, Beale (following Levenson) similarly notes the parallel structures

between the two accounts, particularly revolving around the time spans. As God took

seven days in creation in Gen 1:1–2:3, Solomon took seven years to build the temple (1

Kgs 6:38), dedicated it on the seventh month (1 Kings 8), and delivered a speech

consisting of seven petitions for Israel (1 Kgs 8:31–55).65 Beale also finds textual

evidence specifically alluding to God’s dwelling rest amongst his people at the

completion of the tabernacle (Exod 25:8) and the temple (Ps 132:7–8, 13–14).66

63
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 60. Beale adopts the term ‘congeneric’ from Jon
D. Levenson, “The Temple and the World,” Journal of Religion 64 (1984): 275–298.
64
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 61. Beale here cites John Sailhamer, The
Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 298–299.
65
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 61. Beale here cites Levenson, Creation and the
Persistence of Evil, 78–79.
66
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 61.

117
 Externally, there are a number of contextual parallels between ANE conceptions

of temples as divine resting places and biblical ideas of God dwelling in the cosmos and

tabernacle/temple. Beale specifically notes parallels within Babylonian, Sumerian, and

Egyptian accounts of gods resting within temples upon completion of their construction.67

For the Babylonian account, Beale, following Walton, cites the Enuma elish, where

Marduk reorganizes the cosmos after defeating Tiamat and builds Babylon as a city-wide

temple for the purpose of resting there:

We will make a shrine, which is to be called by name

‘Chamber that shall be Our Stopping Place,’
We shall find rest therein.
We shall lay out the shrine, let us set up its emplacement,
when we come thither (to visit you), we shall find rest therein.
When Marduk heard this,
His features glowed brightly, like the day,
Then make Babylon the task that you requested,
Let its brickwork be formed, build high the shrine. (Enuma elish 6.51–58)68

Beale shows here the purpose of the Babylonian temple as resting/dwelling place for the

gods. There is also a connection within the Enuma elish between the temple and the

heavenly dwelling places of the gods. As Michael Hundley notes in his study of the

dwelling places of gods within ANE literature, Gods in Dwellings, the Enuma elish

describes the Babylonian temple built for Marduk as a replica of the celestial and

67
Ibid., 64–66.
68
Both Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 65, and Walton, Genesis, 151, use the
translation of Benjamin R. Foster, From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia
(Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1995), 39–40. Beale also notes the translation of Alexander Heidel, who
translates ‘Chamber that shall be Our Stopping Place’ as ‘sanctuary’ in line 51 and ‘shrine’ as ‘sanctuary’
in line 58. See Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1951), 48.

118
underworld palaces, “designed to connect the three divine palaces and their divine realms

vertically.”69

The Sumerian Cylinder of Gudea B also depicts the purpose of the temple as the

resting place for the god Ningirsu.70 Similarly to the Enuma elish, it depicts the temple as

a point of mediation between heaven and earth:

The temple, mooring pole of the land,

which grows (high) between heaven and earth;
the Eninnu, the true brickwork, (for) which Enlil
decreed a good destiny;
the beautiful mountain range, which stands out as
a marvel,
(and) which towers above the mountains;
the temple, being a big mountain, reached up to
heaven. (Cyl. B i. 1–5)71

Another similarity is the depiction of Ningirsu entering the temple as a victorious

warrior:

The warrior, Ningirsu, was entering into the

temple;
the king of the house came.
Being (like) an eagle gazing at a wild bull;
the warrior, his entering into his temple
being (like) a storm roaring into battle,
Ningirsu was coming into his temple. (Cyl. B v. 1–5)72

69
Michael B. Hundley, Gods in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near
East, SBL Writings from the Ancient World Supplement Series 3 (Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 81.
70
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 65. See also John H. Walton, Ancient Near
Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 63; Richard E. Averbeck, “The Cylinders of Gudea,” in William W. Hallo
and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., eds., The Context of Scripture, Volume II: Monumental Inscriptions From the
Biblical World (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 415–433.
71
Averbeck, “The Cylinders of Gudea,” 429.
72
Ibid., 431.

119
Here Ningirsu is depicted as the victorious warrior-king god who then makes the temple

his home, in a fashion similar to the Babylonian depiction of Marduk entering his

Babylonian temple.

Finally, Egyptian archeological discoveries have similarly depicted the Egyptian

temples as resting places for the gods. As one example, the Egyptian building inscription

from the temple of Merneptah, known as the Merneptah Stele, offers a similar appraisal

of the temple as a resting place for the pharaoh Merneptah, called the “lord of the gods:”

Who raises a monument in Karnak, a marvelous thing, unlimited in — of gold,

plentiful in gold, unlimited in malachite and lazuli; a place of rest for the lord of
gods, made like his throne that is in heaven, that he (the king) might be thereby
given satisfying life like Re forever.73

In this account, Merneptah’s victory in battle precedes the establishment of the temple as

his place of rest. Like the other accounts, the conception of rest is closely associated with

the conception of dwelling place as a result of victory over enemies.

These three accounts offer parallels between creation, the temple as the resting

place of the god(s) after victory, and the temple as connecting point between heaven and

earth, each of which shares similarities with the biblical account of creation and the

temple. In Beale’s words, “The pagan religious material suggests … that after God

overcame chaos and created the world and after he overcame Israel’s enemies and built

the temple, he ‘rested’ as a true sovereign on his throne in contrast to the pretending, false

73
James Henry Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents From the Earliest
Times to the Persian Conquest, Collected, Edited and Translated with Commentary, Vol. II: The
Eighteenth Dynasty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923), 355. For a brief description of the
Merneptah Stele, see Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 64. Beale cites other Egyptian interpretations
from Breasted, including Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents From the Earliest
Times to the Persian Conquest, Collected, Edited and Translated with Commentary, Vol. III: The
Nineteenth Dynasty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923), 217, 220, 221.

120
deities whom pagan worshippers believed had done the same.”74 Beale’s account here

shows the importance of recognizing chaos within initial creation, which God subdued in

establishing his cosmic-temple creation. However, unlike the pagan deities, the chaos was

not an enemy actively engaged in war against God, but rather simply the elements of

creation.

Beale ties together the idea of God’s dwelling-rest within the cosmos and the

imago dei role of Adam through speculating that at the completion of Adam’s

commission to rule over and subdue creation, he too would enter into an eschatological

rest.75 Beale relates the idea of Gen 1:28 as command (discussed above) with Walton’s

interpretation of Gen 1:28 as promise in the idea that fulfillment of the promise would be

eschatological blessings for Adam and his progeny.76 One of these eschatological

blessings for Adam was rest, including with it the idea of victory over all enemies, with

the serpent depicted as the foremost enemy to Adam.77 Beale establishes this idea by

relating God’s rest upon completion of creation and Gen 2:15, where God “causes

[Adam] to rest” (‫ )ּוׁש ֵ דִּהו‬in the Garden.78 In Beale’s interpretation, Adam’s rest in the

Garden was an inaugurated rest, to be consummated in eschatological rest after victory

over his enemies. He writes,

Both the creation made by God and the garden in which Adam was placed are to
be considered temples, though not finally perfected for eternity… If this
[interpretation] is so, then Adam’s rest was of an inaugurated and not
74
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 66.
75
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 34.
76
Ibid. For Walton, the promise appears to be limited to the blessing of actual reproduction, seen
in the ancient world as a gift of God in itself; see Walton, Genesis, 134.
77
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 39.
78
Ibid.

121
 consummated nature. The likely intention of Gen 2:3 is that Adam was to observe
a Sabbath rest every seventh day as a token of the eternal, eschatological life and
rest to come.79

Beale here ties up several important themes from Genesis 1, establishing creation in its

initial, good (though not perfected) state, establishing Adam in a functionary imago dei

role, and establishing the purpose of creation as the eschatological rest between humanity

and God. These themes work together to form a plausible understanding of prelapsarian

ontology, where creation is good, but not perfected, and humanity has an important role

to play in this perfection. Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 2 sheds further light on the

role that humanity has to play and the status of earth as cosmic-temple.

G. K. Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Interpretation of Genesis 2

G. K. Beale’s cosmic-temple motif interpretation of Genesis 2 focuses on Eden as

primordial holy of holies and Adam as primordial Priest-King within the Garden of Eden.

Particularly, the Gen 1:26–28 commission to Adam is further clarified within Genesis 2

as the expansion of the Edenic presence of God within the rest of creation. This

interpretation has important ontological implications that can be applied to a theology of

creation, particularly related to the ontological distinction between the pre- and

postlapsarian world.

Eden as Primordial Holy-of-Holies

As presented in chapter two, there are numerous conceptual and linguistic parallels

between the Garden of Eden with its surrounding area of Eden and the

79
Ibid.

122
tabernacle/temple/post-exilic temple/eschatological temple.80 Here the focus can narrow

to the implicit gradation of holiness evident within the primordial garden-temple and the

later structure of the temple. In Beale’s words,

[O]ne may be able to perceive an increasing gradation in holiness from outside

the garden proceeding inward: the region outside the garden is related to God and
is ‘very good’ (Gen 1:31) in that it is God’s creation (= the outer court [of the
temple]); the garden itself is a sacred space separate from the outer world (=the
holy place), where God’s priestly servant worships God by obeying him, by
cultivating and guarding; Eden is where God dwells (=the holy of holies) as the
source of both physical and spiritual life (symbolized by the waters).81

Beale here presents the three-tier structure of creation as the ‘very good’ creation outside

the garden, the holy place of the Garden, and the holy of holies in Eden, corresponding

with the outer temple courts, the inner temple holy place, and the temple holy of holies.

The holy of holies within the temple represented “… the invisible, heavenly temple and

throne of God (=Isa 66:1a), and it was the actual place where the heavenly dimension

extended down to earth, that is, in Isaiah’s language, it was God’s ‘footstool’, which

referred precisely to the ark of the covenant.”82 This place was admissible only to the

high priest once a year on the Day of Atonement.83 The holy place within the temple was

admissible to priests only, and was the place that contained the table of showbread,

lampstand, and altar of incense.84 Unlike these two inner layers of the temple, the outer

court was accessible to all people.85 However, just as the entire temple structure was

80
Ibid., 66–75.
81
Ibid., 75.
82
Ibid., 134. Beale notes that ‘footstool’ language also occurs in 1 Chr 28:2; Ps 99:5; Lam 2:1.
83
Dan Lioy, Axis of Glory, 35.
84
Ibid.
85
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 45–46.

123
sacred space, the entire creation in Genesis 2 is understood to be sacred space, hence

there is no ontological dualism within creation itself.86 Rather, the distinction is between

God’s special revelatory presence and general revelatory presence.

Adam as Primordial Priest-King

Similarly, there are textual and linguistic connections between Adam in the Garden of

Eden and later priests in the tabernacle and temple. In Gen 2:15, Adam is called by God

to cultivate and keep the garden. Beale argues that the tasks of cultivating and keeping

the garden are both priestly activities and specific applications of the command to

humanity in Gen 1:26–28 to subdue and rule over creation.87 In this interpretation, rather

than a call for Adam simply to maintain the garden as a gardener, the call is for Adam to

fulfill a primordial priestly role within the garden. For Beale, this means that Adam is

called to “manag[e] the affairs of the sacred space,” to guard Eden “from the threat of

unclean things entering into and corrupting it,” and to teach God’s law to Eve within the

garden.88 Each of these responsibilities is priestly in nature. Beale argues that the two

Hebrew words translated as cultivate (‫ ) ָע ׁשבד‬and keep (‫ ) ַָ ׁשמר‬are elsewhere used together

numerous times in commands for Israelites to guard and keep God’s word, or to priests to

86
For the interpretation of the entire temple complex as sacred space, see Ibid., 75. Steven C.
Smith also finds a three-tier temple structure to Eden. In his reading, Eden was the holy mountain of God
(corroborated from Ezek 28:13–14), the Garden of Eden was the holy place dwelling of Adam the
primordial priest, and the wider creation outside of Eden was the outer courts; see Smith, The House of the
Lord: A Catholic Biblical Theology of God’s Temple Presence in the Old and New Testaments
(Steubenville, OH: Franciscan University Press, 2017), 42–48.
87
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 84. See also John Walton, Genesis, 174; William
Dumbrell, The Search For Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 24–26.
88
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 85.

124
guard and keep the order within the tabernacle.89 Beale also notes other similar

terminology between Adam and later priestly roles within the OT when he writes,

Adam’s priestly role of ‘guarding’ the garden sanctuary may also be reflected in
the later role of Israel’s priests who were called ‘guards’ (1 Chr. 9:23) and
repeatedly were referred to as temple ‘gatekeepers’ (repeatedly in 1 and 2
Chronicles and Nehemiah; e.g., 1 Chr. 9:17–27) who ‘kept watch at the gates’
(Neh. 11:19), ‘so that no one should enter who was in any way unclean’ (2 Chr.
23:19). Consequently, the priestly role in both the Garden and later temple was to
‘manage’ it by maintaining its order and keeping out uncleanness. The picture is
that of a ‘warden’ who ‘keeps charge of the temple’ (cf. Ezek. 40:45; 44:14) or
manages a sacred ward (indeed, the AV of Neh. 12:45 says that temple priests
‘kept the ward of their God’).90

This relation between Adam and later priests as guardians is important for understanding

Adam’s role in Genesis 2 and his failure to keep the command with the entrance of the

serpent in Genesis 3.

This priestly role also relates to the command of God given to Adam in Gen 1:26–

28 to rule over and subdue creation.91 In this interpretation, the understanding of Adam as

image-bearer of God is primarily functional in nature, copying God’s activities in

creation, although Beale believes that there is also an ontological aspect in that Adam

was made to be able to reflect God’s moral attributes and glory in creation.92 Beale’s

position enables the doctrine of the imago dei to be considered theologically rather than

89
Ibid., 66–67. Beale lists numerous sources who find a priestly interpretation of the passage
valid. See Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 67; Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis
Foundations For a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 54; Walton, Genesis, 173;
Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1998), 44. Each of these sources also advocates some form of the cosmic-temple motif
within their interpretation of Genesis 2. Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis, vol. 1, trans.
Sophia Taylor (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888), 137, also suggests that part of this command was for Adam
to guard the garden against temptation.
90
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 69.
91
Just as important for Beale is the notion that Adam’s role was both priestly and kingly in nature.
Similar to other ANE kings, Adam was viewed as God’s image-bearer in creation; see Beale, The Temple
and the Church’s Mission, 82–84.
92
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 32.
125
scientifically or based upon certain human capacities considered distinct from other

animal life.93 As noted above, Beale’s relational view of Gen 1:26–28 and Gen 2:15

incorporates the notion that Adam’s image-bearing responsibilities include copying

God’s creation through his own subduing and ruling over creation. In Beale’s words,

“Just as God, after his initial work of creation, subdued the chaos, ruled over it, and

further created and filled the earth with all kinds of animate life, so Adam and Eve, in

their garden abode, were to reflect God’s activities in Gen 1 by fulfilling the commission

to ‘subdue’ and ‘rule over all the earth’ and to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen 1:26,

28).”94 The role of Adam as God’s image-bearer in this construal is to expand the borders

of the gardens to cover all of creation. Once again, the implication here is that there is a

chaotic atmosphere in creation outside of the garden that needs to be subdued and ruled

over by Adam as he is fruitful and multiplies his family.95 As referenced in chapter two

and above, the idea of graded holiness within the tabernacle/temple and Eden is a

foundational construct for understanding the implications of Beale’s proposal. Philip

Jenson argues that each section of the tabernacle had a distinct quality of holiness

associated with its spatial dimension and furnishings.96 The holy of holies represented the

93
David P. Gushee points to several problems with what he calls the “capacity-based” construal of
the imago dei, with the chief problem being that it delineates between persons who have these capacities
and those who do not. For example, he points to fetuses and people with dementia as problematic for the
capacity-based view. See David P. Gushee, The Sacredness of Human Life: Why An Ancient Biblical Vision
Is Key to the World’s Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 43–46. For a position on imago dei similar
to Beale, see William P. Brown, The Ethos of the Cosmos, 43.
94
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 32.
95
Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, 35, rejects the connection between imago dei and kingly
representation of God because he claims it contrasts the New Testament idea that “every person is the ‘new
creature’ (2 Cor 5:17), crowned king/queen, entrusted with self-giving rule for the sake of others.”
However, both ideas can be held together within Beale’s interpretation because Adam is the kingly
representative who passes on the commission as he multiplies image-bearers.
96
Philip Peter Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World, JSOT
Supplement Series 106 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 90.
126
greatest quality of holiness, the holy place represented the “standard grade of holy

space,” and the outer court represented a lesser degree of holiness.97 When related to

Genesis 2, the implication is that Eden is the holy of holies of God, the place where

God’s holiness is most evident, while the Garden is the holy place of Adam’s dwelling in

holiness before God, and the rest of creation is considered as a lesser degree of holiness,

and hence more ambiguous in nature.98

Along this same line, Beale argues that there were possibly escalated creational

conditions that could have occurred had Adam fulfilled his role in subduing creation and

expanding the garden borders. Beale calls Adam’s prelapsarian garden role an

inauguration of what would be consummated in his completed rule over creation.99 In this

assessment, Genesis 1–2 infers that “… [b]oth the creation made by God and the garden

in which Adam was placed are to be considered temples, though not finally perfected for

eternity.”100 Therefore, there was work for Adam to do in expanding God’s presence

outward to all creation. However, Adam famously failed in his task, and as a result placed

creation in a postlapsarian state, which is the subject of Genesis 3.

G. K. Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Interpretation of Genesis 3

G. K. Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 3 focuses largely on the failure of Adam as

primordial priest in the garden and the results that ensued from his failure. One of the

97
Ibid., 91. See also Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service In Ancient Israel: An Inquiry
into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1985), 165.
98
Ambiguity is one way that Jenson describes the outer court of the temple, where various people
intermingle in transition between world inside temple and world outside temple; see Jenson, Graded
Holiness, 91.
99
Ibid., 39.
100
Ibid.
127
major ontological implications of Beale’s interpretation of this passage of Scripture is

that the effects of Adam’s sin were not ontological in nature, but rather relational. Hence,

the ontology of creation was not changed as a result of the fall. This is a far different

interpretation than has been put forth by other interpreters and theologians that see

creation itself as ontologically damaged as a result of Adam’s sin. For example,

prominent young-earth creationist Kurt P. Wise argues that even genetic mutations are a

result of Adam’s sin and the ensuing effects upon creation.101 Against this perspective,

Richard Bauckham comments that sin affected humanity’s relationship with the rest of

creation rather than with non-human creation itself. In Bauckham’s words, “nature

experiences the effects of our fall through our relationship with it,” rather than

experiencing ontological changes in itself.102 Bauckham further writes that original

creation was incomplete in its process, thus giving explanation to the “imperfections” of

creation.103 At the conclusion of his assessment on the effects of the fall on creation,

Bauckham leaves open the question of how far human fallenness is rooted in continuity

within creation.104 G. K. Beale’s interpretation corresponds with Bauckham and fills in

details for this perspective through its interpretation of Adam’s failure to expand the

borders of the Garden as the cause of relational change rather than ontological change to

creation.

101
Kurt P. Wise, Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms About
Creation and the Age of the Universe (Nashville: B&H Publishers, 2002), 129.
102
Richard Bauckham, “First Steps To a Theology of Nature,” Evangelical Quarterly 58 (1986):
240.
103
Ibid.
104
Ibid.

128
 From Beale’s perspective, Adam’s first test as primordial priest was to subdue the

serpent that appeared in the Garden. In his words, “Adam should have slain and thus

judged the serpent in carrying out the mandate of Gen 1:28 to ‘rule and subdue.’ Thus, he

was to rule over the serpent, which was to be reflective of God’s own activity in Gen 1 of

subduing the chaotic darkness of creation and ruling over it by his word.”105 If Adam had

successfully subdued this serpent, then he could have begun the quest to expand the

garden borders to all creation, thus turning all of creation into a holy place where

humanity dwelt before God and fulfilled their role in subduing and ruling over creation.

Rather, Adam was deceived by the serpent and—following Eve—ate the fruit from the

tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Following Meredith Kline, Beale interprets this

tree as the symbolic judgment tree where Adam should have gone to discern between

good and evil and judge the serpent in the name of God.106 For Kline, this tree signifies

both Adam’s role as “vassal-king,” in stewardship of the world rather than as ultimate

king of the world, and his role as royal priest in rendering judgment over the rest of

creation. In Kline’s words,

[T]his tree would be instrumental in man’s exercise of the royal-priestly function

of rendering judgment, the function inherent in his status as image of God. It
would be by the appearance of the satanic agent at this judgment tree in the
garden of God that man would find himself compelled to discern in judicial act
between good and evil. Here man as priestly guardian of the sanctuary would be
called upon to enforce the demands of God’s exclusive holiness against the
unholy intruder. It might seem strange that this tree should simultaneously signify
something to do as well as something not to do, that along with the prohibition
against partaking of its fruit it should also present the positive obligation to
perform the work of judgment expressed in its name as the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil. Perhaps the explanation of this combination is in part that
precisely when man was being exalted to the high authority implied in the
105
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 34.
106
Ibid., 35.
129
 requirement to pronounce judgment on heavenly beings it was opportune to
remind him, as the prohibition compellingly did, of his subordination to the
ultimate and absolute authority of God.107

Hence, for Kline (and Beale, who follows him on this point), the tree was not simply

negative in its placement in the Garden, but rather also had the positive connotation of

reminding Adam of his place as judge over the rest of creation.108

This interpretation runs counter to those which apply the temptation and fall of

Genesis 3 simply in terms of not trusting God’s word. For example, Umberto Cassuto

finds in the story a tale of Adam’s dissatisfaction with life in the Garden and desire to

enlarge his boundaries in the world.109 Contrary to this, Beale finds the sin of Adam not

in his desire to expand the borders of the Garden (which Beale argues is actually part of

Adam’s God-given commission), but rather in his failure as primordial priest-king to

guard the garden and allow a serpent to bring in disorder to the holy place of the Garden-

temple. Therefore, Adam was expelled from the Garden-temple and removed from his

commissary role as priest-king.

107
Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 105–106.
108
This interpretation accords well also with Seth Postell’s understanding of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil within his interpretation of the text as the foreshadowing of Israel’s failure to
obey God and exile from the Promised Land; see Postell, Adam as Israel: Genesis 1–3 as the Introduction
to the Torah and Tanakh (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), 132.

130
 Summary of G. K. Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Interpretation of Genesis 1–3

G. K. Beale presents a reading of Genesis 1–3 laced with temple imagery, symbolism,

and interpretative advantages for engaging certain issues within a theology of creation.

Genesis 1–3 is important within Beale’s interpretation not only for its story of creation

and fall, but for introducing five major themes that are recycled within the OT

narrative—cosmic chaos, new creation, commission of kingship for divine glory, sinful

fall, and exile.110 Within Beale’s interpretation of Gen 1:1–2:3, five major narrative

elements can similarly be discerned that are important for engaging prelapsarian

ontology—initial creation, chaos, new creation, commissioning of imago dei

representative, and divine rest. Amongst these elements, the most important is the

commissioning of the imago dei representative, because this introduces what Beale

believes to be the central storyline of the OT.111 Genesis 2:4–25 furthers this narrative

element by specifying Adam’s imago dei role within the Garden of Eden, and

symbolically connecting the Garden of Eden to the holy place within the Temple, thus

adding another important ontological implication for prelapsarian creation. Finally,

Genesis 3 presents the final two major themes to the OT storyline—fall and exile—that

are then recapitulated in various places within the text. While Beale’s own theological

application focuses mainly on the eschatological thrust of the biblical storyline, other

109
Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I: From Adam to Noah:
Genesis I-VI, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1978), 114. This type of interpretation
can also be found in David Atkinson’s commentary on Genesis, when he interprets the story as movement
from temptation to instant gratification to sin; see David Atkinson, The Message of Genesis 1–11: The
Dawn of Creation, BST (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 85–86. For a similar interpretation
that also includes an account of ontological effects of this fall on creation, see Richard Mayhue, “Is Nature
the 67th Book of the Bible?,” in Coming to Grips With Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth,
eds. Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 120.
110
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 58–61.
131
theological application is made plausible through Beale’s interpretation, particularly

related to the ontological distinction between pre- and postlapsarian creation, the subject

of the following section.112

Ontological Implications of the Cosmic-Temple Interpretation of Genesis 1–3

As detailed above, the most important element of Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 1–3

for his biblical storyline is the commission of Adam as God’s imago dei representative

within the Garden of Eden to expand this primordial holy place outward to all of creation

through mirroring God’s creative activity and bringing all of creation under the

submission of God. This has important ontological implications for understanding

prelapsarian creation in that it implies that this original creation was neither static nor

perfect, but was created in such a way that humanity had an important role to play in

completing God’s purposes for the world. Within Beale’s interpretation, the very

elements of the world need to be subdued and ruled over in order to avoid creational

chaos. Beale’s assessment is in line with Catholic theologian Jean Daniélou, who writes,

“God has in some way left creation unfinished and man’s mission is to bring it to

fulfillment.”113 The fall of Adam had the effect of distancing humanity from this God-

given role, and thus bringing about detrimental changes within postlapsarian creation.

However, Beale’s position opens the possibility for these changes to be understood

relationally rather than ontologically. In order to arrive at this consideration of the effects

111
Ibid., 63.
112
“My thesis … is that Gen 1–3 lays out the basic themes for the rest of the OT, which … are
essentially eschatological themes.” Ibid., 29.
113
Jean Cardinal Daniélou, “The Sign of the Temple: A Meditation,” Letter & Spirit 4 (2008):
256–257.

132
of the fall, three issues of prelapsarian creation need to be engaged theologically: the type

of goodness that prelapsarian creation exhibited, the relation between the chaos of Gen

1:2 and prelapsarian creation, and the role of humanity as imago dei within prelapsarian

creation. This section will consider each of these three issues within recent theological

engagement.

The Cosmic-Temple Motif’s Implications for Prelapsarian Ontology

The Goodness of Prelapsarian Creation in Gen 1:1 –2:3

The first question under consideration relates to the goodness of prelapsarian creation.

The Hebrew word ‫טוב‬, translated as ‘good,’ is used six times within the creation account

of Gen 1:1–2:3, and a seventh time with the adjective ‫ אמְיד‬, translated as ‘it was very,’ in

the passage. However, there have been disagreements over the precise understanding of

this description of goodness in creation. William Dumbrell gives three possible

interpretive understandings of goodness in Genesis 1: perfected creation, ethical

goodness, and aesthetic/functional goodness.114 Dumbrell does not provide much detail or

cite specific examples of each of these perspectives, but filling in these details will

provide a basis from which to understand the goodness of creation in Genesis 1 in the

scope of Beale’s cosmic-temple interpretation.

Dumbrell defines the first view, perfected creation, as understanding goodness“…

to refer to the complete harmony achieved by creation and its integration with all

114
William Dumbrell, The Search For Order, 20. The relation between aesthetics and
functionality will be discussed below.

133
details.”115 As Dumbrell notes, this view distinguishes the ontological perfection of initial

creation from the “pain, suffering, natural calamities, and the inevitability of decay [that]

mark the world we know.”116 Old Testament scholar H. C. Leupold describes the finished

creation of Genesis 1 as “a paradise-like state” where “[r]apacious and ferocious wild

beasts did not yet exist.”117 In Leupold’s account, original creation was a Golden Age,

where death, decay, and disharmony had no reality. Young-earth creationist Henry

Morris similarly describes this Golden Age as a time of abundance and lack of evil on

earth. He writes, “Since everything was ‘good,’ there was nothing evil—no disease, no

competition, no lack of harmony, no deterioration, and above all, no death of ‘living

creatures.’”118 Another young-earth creationist, Kurt Wise, argues for a similar

understanding, where the perfections of original creation went all the way down to the

DNA level of earth’s organisms. Of these perfections, he states, “There were originally

no mutations in the DNA of the earth’s organisms. In the young-age creation model, all

mutations have come into being since the Fall.”119 This Golden Age of creation is

distinguished from the current age by the introduction of sin, which brought about all of

the deteriorating effects of creation. John MacArthur sums up the role that Adam’s sin

played in the ontological changes to creation when he writes, “By sinning against God,

man brought hostility into human relationships and moral evil into creation. Sin also

affected the natural order. Since man was the pinnacle of creation and was tasked with

115
Ibid.
116
Ibid.
117
H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis: Volume I, Chapters 1–19 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1956),
99.
118
Henry Morris, Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches About Creation and
the Flood (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2000), 21.
119
Kurt P. Wise, Faith, Form, and Time, 129.
134
ruling and subduing the rest of creation, his sin impacted all nature. God cursed the

ground because of man’s sin, and thus, nature now works against man (Gen 3:17).”120

Umberto Cassuto presents a similar perspective when he writes concerning the thorns and

thistles of Gen 3:18, “These species did not exist, or were not found in the form known to

us, until after Adam’s transgression, and it was in consequence of his fall that they came

into the world or received their present form.”121 In summary, the perfected creation view

presents the original creation of Genesis 1 as ontologically perfect, lacking any

disharmony that later appears as the result of Adam’s sin. This sin produced ontological

changes in creation itself, such as thorns and thistles into the fields and disease, decay,

and death into human and animal life.

Dumbrell defines the second view, ethical goodness, as the understanding that

“[t]he human species [lived] in perfect harmony with the animal world and the remainder

of creation.”122 This view is distinguished from the perfected creation perspective by

manner of degrees, since that view posits complete perfection down to every detail of

creation, whereas the ethical goodness view focuses on the harmony between humanity

and the rest of creation. William P. Brown aligns with this perspective in his work The

Ethos of the Cosmos, where he describes creation not as perfect in terms of fulfillment,

but as containing an order par excellence.123 Within this creation account, Brown finds a

display of harmony and balance between all the constituent elements of creation. Of this

120
John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible
Truth (Wheaton: Crossway, 2017), 474.
121
Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press), 102.
122
Dumbrell, The Search For Order, 20.
123
William P. Brown, The Ethos of the Cosmos, 46–47.

135
harmony, he writes, “[T]he cosmos is a multiplex of discrete yet interrelated domains

filled with swarming, creeping, soaring, breathing species—a pluralistic universe. Yet

common order reigns. The Priestly cosmos is God’s peaceable kingdom at work.”124

Similarly, Norman Wirzba defines the goodness of creation in Genesis 1 in accordance

with the Sabbath as the height of creation, where creation finds pleasure in observing its

order.125 Aligned with the ethical goodness perspective, Wirzba argues that human life

finds itself closely connected with the rest of creation as it partakes in the Sabbath.

“[Human life] must be directed to the pleasure and menuha of God, which signifies the

noncontentious serenity of creatures being who they are meant to be.”126 Jürgen

Moltmann also connects the goodness of creation with the Sabbath rest on the seventh

day, where God “allows the beings he has created, each in its own way, to act on him.”127

For Moltmann, Gen 1:1–2:3 does not describe creation in a perfected or completed state,

but in a state of right ordering before God. As Moltmann comments on God’s rest in Gen

2:3, “This closeness of [God to creation] in the sabbath does not neutralize the tensions in

creation, nor does it do away with the possible opposition of created things to the Creator

and to themselves; but it thrusts towards their transformation to correspondence and to

identity.”128 Although tensions still exist within creation, there is harmony between God

and creation and between creation and creation. Finally, Richard Bauckham is in

accordance with this picture when he writes that “… [t]he fall disturbed humanity’s

124
Ibid., 48–49.
125
Norman Wirzba, The Paradise of God: Renewing Religion in an Ecological Age (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2003), 36.
126
Ibid., 38. Italics original.
127
Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God, The
Gifford Lectures 1984–1985, trans. Margaret Kohl (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 279.
128
Ibid.
136
harmonious relationship with nature, alienating us from nature, so that we now

experience nature as hostile, and introducing elements of struggle and violence into our

relationship with nature.”129 In Bauckham’s view, before the fall there was harmony

between humanity and nature, which was then alienated in postlapsarian creation.

Dumbrell defines the third view, aesthetic/functional goodness, as “… not only

beautiful, but more importantly it conformed to the divine purpose.”130 On the relation

between aesthetic and functional goodness Dumbrell cites Claus Westermann, who

argues that aesthetics and functionality were not separated within Hebrew thought. In

Westermann’s words, “The Hebrew does not contemplate the sheer beauty of what exists

prescinding from the function of what is contemplated.”131 Christopher J. H. Wright

similarly defines the goodness of creation in terms of both aesthetics and function when

he writes,

[T]he meaning of being ‘good’ includes the aesthetic sense that the creation is
beautiful as a work of stupendous art and craftsmanship. But it also has a
functional sense—something is good when it works according to plan, when it
dynamically operates as it was designed to. Viewed from this angle, we should
not envisage the goodness of creation as some kind of original, timeless or
changeless perfection. Time and change are built into the very structure of created
reality. And so are decay and death.132

Here, Wright sharply distinguishes the aesthetic/functional view from the perfected

creation view, arguing that change and decay are part of the very fabric of creation and

129
Bauckham, “Theology of Nature,” 240.
130
Dumbrell, The Search For Order, 20.
131
Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1994), 166–167.
132
Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics, 107.

137
thus should be included within theological understanding of God’s good creation.133

Further, beyond simply being aesthetically beautiful, prelapsarian creation functioned

properly in that it fulfilled God’s intentions for the initial state of creation.

G. K. Beale’s cosmic-temple interpretation of Genesis 1 fits most comfortably in

the third view, the functional/aesthetic understanding of ontological goodness of creation.

Beale’s interpretation implicitly rules out the perfected harmony view, because of the

calling of Adam in Gen 1:26–28 to mirror God’s creative activity by ruling over and

subduing creation.134 This suggests the need for continual subduing of the world in the

prelapsarian creation, an idea incompatible with perfect harmony. Also, as shown from

Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 2, Adam’s role in ruling over and subduing creation

included an outward expansion of God’s good order of the Garden of Eden, thus

implying prelapsarian disorderliness in the world to be overcome by Adam.135 This

suggests that creation was also not in a state of ethical harmony, particularly outside of

the Garden of Eden. Rather, creation was ontologically tenuous even before the fall,

needing mastery in order not to devolve back into chaos. However, prelapsarian creation

functioned properly in that it met God’s expectations for the world and enabled

eschatological completion of the world. This eschatological completion of the world

involved God’s commissioning of humanity as co-regents in continuing the creation

process by ruling over chaos. Thus, Beale’s understanding of the chaos of Gen 1:2 within

133
N. T. Wright makes a similar point in his description of creation as “transient,” with decay built
into good creation in order to serve “as a pointer to its larger purpose.” See N. T. Wright, Surprised By
Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York: HarperOne, 2008),
94.
134
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 32.
135
Ibid., 35–36.

138
the creation design is important for further assessing prelapsarian creation within his

interpretation of Genesis 1–2.

The Relation Between Chaos and Prelapsarian Creation

As analyzed above, G. K. Beale understands Gen 1:2 as a description of untamed creation

before God’s ordering of the elements in the particular acts of creation that make up the

world. However, other theologies of creation have posited different understandings of

God’s relation to the chaos of Gen 1:2 that are worth summarizing in order to

differentiate Beale’s interpretation for its prelapsarian implications. Each of the accounts

of creation analyzed here from Karl Barth, Jürgen Moltmann, Thomas Jay Oord, and

Catherine Keller exhibit the theological ramifications of differing interpretations of the

‫ ַיהו וָ ביהו‬of Gen 1:2. After demonstrating these theological engagements, the focus will

move to the similarities and differences between Beale’s cosmic-temple motif account of

creation and Oord’s kenotic account of creation.

In discussing the ‫ַ וָ ביהו‬

‫ הו יק‬of Gen 1:2, Karl Barth first lays out the two major

interpretive sides for understanding the idea of formlessness in creation within twentieth

century theology.136 The first side states that the ‫ ַיהו וָ ביהו‬is the primeval condition that

existed as a reality independent of God, while the second side states that creation began

with God creating this formless matter, and subsequently forming it into creation. Barth

quickly rejects the first option, because in the Old Testament “… there is no such thing as

136
Karl Barth, CD III.1, 102–111.

139
a ‘reality of chaos’ independently confronting the Creator and His works, and able in its

own power as matter or a hostile principle to oppose His operations.”137 Here Barth notes

that the passage of Genesis 1 does not itself present creatio ex nihilo, but that its

antithesis is excluded both “by the general tenor of the passage as well as its position

within the biblical context.”138 However, Barth also rejects the second option, in line with

his rejection that Gen 1:1 teaches creatio ex nihilo.139 Similarly to John Walton, Barth

views Gen 1:1 as a superscription referring to the development of creation beginning in

Gen 1:3.140 Therefore, Gen 1:2 does not proceed from Gen 1:1 as the first step of

creation. So, the question for Barth is, if Gen 1:2 does not refer to an independent reality

and it does not refer to the first stage of creation, then to what does it refer? Barth

believes that it refers to a past reality apart from the creative work of God. In his words,

“It is the world in a state in which it lacks the Word of God which according to what

follows is the ground and measure of its reality.”141 God does not make his ordered

creation out of the stuff of this formless matter, but in rejection of this formless matter.

Barth then ties this alternate reality with chaos, what he calls a shadow that humanity can

choose to embrace in the misuse of the freedom given by God. Because of the possibility

of humanity choosing this alternate reality, Barth considers creation a risk to God,

137
Ibid., 103.
138
Ibid., 104.
139
It is important to note that Barth affirms creatio ex nihilo, he simply does not believe that it is
the intention of Gen 1:1. In this section on Gen 1:2, Barth refers to Isa 45:18 as testimony to a doctrine of
creatio ex nihilo. This is why David Tsumura is incorrect in his assessment that Barth was one of a number
of twentieth century scholars who denied creatio ex nihilo. See David Toshio Tsumura, “A Biblical
Theology of Water: Plenty, Flood and Drought in the Created Order,” in Keeping God’s Earth: The Global
Environment in Biblical Perspective, eds. Noah J. Toly and Daniel I. Block (Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2010), 167.
140
Ibid., 101.
141
Ibid., 109.

140
although he is quick to note that it is “a risk for which He was more than a match and

thus did not need to fear.”142 In summary, the formlessness of Gen 1:2 is a chaos

antithetical to God’s establishment of creation beginning in Gen 1:3, a caricature of

God’s purpose for creation that humanity can choose to participate in misuse of the

freedom given by God. In Catherine Keller’s summary, “In Barth’s exegesis God creates

not from nothing but against the ‘nothingness’—which is the chaos.”143

Jürgen Moltmann’s account differs from Barth in that he offers a panentheistic

rendering of the contents of Gen 1:2, but similarly to Barth he still finds in this verse the

possibility of evil within creation. First, Moltmann affirms creatio ex nihilo as a “self-

alteration of eternity” on God’s part, which created room within his being for creation.144

Because this creation is within the being of God, it is a panentheistic creation that makes

the world a necessary part of God’s being. Therefore, Moltmann can advocate both

panentheism and a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, where the nihilo is the space created out

of God’s being to make room for creation. Tying this doctrine back in within

panentheism, Moltmann argues that the eschatological fulfillment of God’s plan for

creation thus also ontologically fulfills God’s being, leading to God’s “all-in-all”

dwelling with his creation.145

However, apart from God, this nihilo space is the basis for the possibility of

chaos, sin, and death. Moltmann is worth being quoted at length here in his description of

the nihilo. He writes,

142
Ibid., 110.
143
Catherine Keller, The Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming (London: Routledge, 2003),
85.
144
Moltmann, God in Creation, 114.
145
Ibid., 5.

141
 The space which comes into being and is set free by God’s self-limitation is a
literally God-forsaken space. The nihil in which God creates his creation is God-
forsakenness, hell, absolute death; and it is against the threat of this that he
maintains his creation in life. Admittedly the nihil only acquires this menacing
character through the self-isolation of created beings to which we give the name
of sin and godlessness. Creation is therefore threatened, not merely by its own
non-being, but also by the non-being of God its Creator–that is to say, by
Nothingness itself. The character of the negative that threatens it goes beyond
creation itself. This is what constitutes its demonic power. Nothingness
contradicts, not merely creation but God too, since he is creation’s Creator. Its
negations lead into that primordial space which God freed within himself before
creation. As a self-limitation that makes creation possible, the nihil does not yet
have this annihilating character; for it was conceded in order to make an
independent creation ‘outside’ God possible. But this implies the possibility of the
annihilating Nothingness.146

Through this doctrine of Nothingness, an interpretation of the ‫ ַיהו וָ ביהו‬of Gen 1:2

emerges, where the formlessness of initial creation is formed out of the self-withdrawal

of God’s being and is then made into God’s creation through his Word and is united to

him. Thus, for Moltmann, “The word of creation is the continuum joining the Creator and

his creation. The Creator and the creation are united first of all by his command, his

injunction, his behest and his decision.”147 Here, though, the question of God’s own

freedom emerges. Particularly, the space opened up by God for creation within

Moltmann’s doctrine of Nothingness thus makes God himself in need of the redemption

of creation in order to be fully whole. Paul Molnar summarizes this idea when he writes

of Moltmann’s view, “Here, God can no longer be free in the traditional sense, that is, in

the sense that he does not exist as the one who stands in need.”148

146
Ibid., 87–88.
147
Ibid., 76.
148
Paul D. Molnar, Divine Freedom and the Doctrine of the Immanent Trinity (London: T&T
Clark, 2002), 221.

142
 For both Barth and Moltmann, the ‫ ַיהו וָ ביהו‬of Gen 1:2 represents chaos outside

of God’s good order for creation, and thus the goal of creation is to reject this chaos by

following the ways of God. However, other recent theologies of creation have arrived at a

more positive understanding of the ‫ ַיהו וָ ביהו‬within the broader scheme of creation.

Thomas Jay Oord and Catherine Keller both offer more positive appraisals of this chaotic

element of creation.

Within Thomas Jay Oord’s creatio ex creatione a natura amoris (‘creation out of

creation in love’) model, the ‫ ַיהו וָ ביהו‬of Gen 1:2 is understood as previous creation

reshaped by God into the being of this world.149 Oord provides scientific evidence for this

type of model through his use of the “cyclical model” theory of the universe’s

formation.150 In this model, the big bang that began the universe’s formation was caused

by a collision of materials from a previous universe, and thus there have been a series of

universe births and deaths. Each universe has both continuity and discontinuity with the

universes that came prior and the ones that will come in the future. Oord here offers a

type of continual creation model, which has held a small place in Christian theology since

at least Origen, who wrote, “We can therefore imagine no moment whatever when that

power was not engaged in acts of well-doing. From this it follows that there always

149
Thomas Jay Oord, “God Always Creates Out of Creation: Creatio Ex Creatione a Natura
Amoris,” in Theologies of Creation: Creatio Ex Nihilo and Its New Rivals, ed. Thomas Jay Oord (London:
Routledge, 2015), 115.
150
Thomas Jay Oord, “An Open Theology Doctrine of Creation and Solution to the Problem of
Evil,” in Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science, ed. Thomas Jay Oord (Eugene, OR:
Pickwick, 2009), 45–48.

143
existed objects for this well-doing, namely, God’s works or creatures, and that God, in

the power of his providence, has been always dispensing his blessings among them by

doing good.”151 However, Oord emphasizes that he does not believe that the world is

coeternal with God or that God in any way depends upon creation for his being. Rather,

Oord believes that God has continually created “an everlasting chain consisting of

creatures and universes,” which are each in a sense contingent upon God and where each

are made upon what God has already created.152 Because each world goes into and out of

existence, no single world is coeternal with God. With each new creation, God uses the

material of previous worlds for creation of the new world, hence the ‫ ַיהו וָ ביהו‬are the

material sources of creation, rather than source of evil within creation. However, it

appears evident from Oord’s model that this ‫ ַיהו וָ ביהו‬itself is coeternal with God

because there is never a point where God is not creating as a necessary component of his

being, and each creation uses the “material stuff” of prior creations in forming the new

world.153

Catherine Keller also applies a positive connotation to the ‫ ַיהו וָ ביהו‬of Gen 1:2 as

the “tehomic” wellspring of creativity and difference within creation, in line with

liberation, feminist, and queer theologies of difference.154 Keller understands Gen 1:2 as

151
Origen, On First Principles, trans. G. W. Butterworth (Gloucester, UK: Peter Smith, 1973), 42;
quoted in Michael Lodahl, “Creatio Ex Amore,” in Theologies of Creation: Creatio Ex Nihilo and Its New
Rivals, ed. Thomas Jay Oord (London: Routledge, 2015), 100.
152
Oord, “God Always Creates,” 115.
153
Ibid., 116.
154
Keller, Face of the Deep, 12.

144
a parenthetical elaboration of Gen 1:1, which itself is read as a subordinate clause, rather

than as chronological movement from nothingness to initial creation. Gen 1:3 is then

interpreted as the first independent clause of the text. Keller therefore interprets Gen 1:1-

3 as, “At the beginning of the Creation of heaven and earth when the earth was without

form and void and there was darkness ... God said Let there be....”155 For Keller, this

interpretation of the text negates two other possible interpretations. In the first, matter is

created from nothing in Gen 1:1, described in Gen 1:2, and molded into form beginning

in Gen 1:3. This two-step ex nihilo interpretation has been advocated in various ways

since at least the Patristic theologian Theopholis.156 The other interpretation reads Gen

1:1–3 in conjunction with other ANE creation texts and argues that these verses represent

chaoskampf, where creation arises out of God’s conquest of primordial chaos. Typical of

this position is Hermann Gunkel, who argues that Genesis 1 was originally adopted from

Babylonian material, including with it the Babylonian idea that the world came into

existence out of the separation of primal waters.157 Other scholars who are hesitant to tie

the Genesis 1 account too closely with specific ANE creation myths, such as Walter

Klaiber, still advocate for a mythical understanding of the darkness and void, which

describes “… den völlig ungeordneten und lebensverneinenden Urzustand, aus dem Gott

die Welt schafft.”158 Keller argues that both of these interpretations produce forms of the

155
Ibid., 9.
156
M. C. Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation: The Cosmic Christ and the Saga of Redemption, ed. J.
den Boeft, et al., Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 91 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 44.
157
Gunkel, Creation and Chaos, 78.
158
This can be translated as “…the completely disordered and life-denying original condition, out
of which God creates the world.” Walter Klaiber, Schöpfung: Urgeschichte und Gegenwart, Biblisch-
theologische Schwerpunkte Band 27 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 20.

145
idea that God has omnipotent mastery over creation, an idea that she rejects in favor of a

more relational, panentheistic account of creation.159

In line with her panentheist account of creation, Keller rejects accounts that

picture God omnipotently shaping an ontologically distinct creation, along with any

ontotheological attempts to ascribe harmonious origins of being to the text prior to this

chaos, which leads to homogenous views of creation.160 Rather, she calls for an “origin-

free cosmology” that emphasizes the bottomless depth of different possibilities within

creation.161 Practically, Keller’s reading of Gen 1:1–3 is a call for affirmation of

difference and plurality in creation that, as she puts in another work, rejects “neon

certainty” for “a darkly luminious faith.”162

Each of these four theologies of creation offers a different understanding of the

‫ ַיהו וָ ביהו‬of Gen 1:2. For Barth and Moltmann there is a possibility of evil in creation

contained within these elements, while Oord and Keller both find within them the

positive material that undergirds formed creation. Beale’s recapitulation-based

understanding of the ‫ ַיהו וָ ביהו‬differs from each of these four accounts in important

ways. Against Barth, the chaos is not rejected by God in creation, but ruled and subdued

by God. In the terminology of John Walton, God harnesses the power of creation as he

rules over it.163 Against Moltmann, the chaos does not have an evil character and is not

159
Keller, Face of the Deep, 113.
160
Ibid., 218–220.
161
Ibid., 168–171.
162
Catherine Keller, “‘Nothingsomething’ on My Mind,” 39.
163
John H. Walton, Old Testament Theology For Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring
Belief (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017), 55–56.

146
produced from God’s kenotic self-emptying, but is rather outside of God and used by

God in his providential control of the world. Against Oord, the chaos is not preexistent

material and does not have eternal existence alongside of God. Finally, against Keller, the

chaos is not good in all the heterogenous differences of life, but rather must be subdued

in order for God’s creation to flourish.

Further, against all four of these interpretations, Beale’s recapitulation-based

understanding of the ‫ ַיהו וָ ביהו‬can be understood as the ontological potential of creation

for both order and disorder under the providence of God, with the default state of creation

in Gen 1:2 being disorder. As demonstrated above, in each of the recapitulations of

chaos-and-creation that Beale notes, the chaos is used by God to disorder creation in

order to bring about new creation. In Beale’s words, “[W]hen it is recalled that the chaos

of the first creation was resolved by God bringing about an ordered creation, the

subsequent judgments of the flood, the Egyptian plagues, and Israel’s desolated land can

be understood as recapitulations of the primordial chaos that precedes new creation.”164

Therefore, even within prelapsarian creation, there was within the fabric of creation the

potential for chaos, not in hostility toward God but in its natural state of being. As noted

above, this prelapsarian creation could be considered as unfinished creation rather than

perfect-state creation, in that humanity is charged with the task of completing the creation

that God has begun.165

Beale’s interpretation here has both similarities and distinctions from kenotic

164
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 60–61.
165
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 83.

147
accounts of creation, which portrays God as either voluntarily or necessarily limited in

relation to creation in order to account for free or indeterminate creatures.166 These

similarities and differences can be discerned through a specific engagement with Thomas

Jay Oord’s account of creation. From the position of necessary kenosis, Thomas Jay Oord

makes kenotic love God’s primary attribute, and thus he gives love the pride of place that

other theologians have given to such attributes as divine simplicity or sovereignty.

According to Oord, “The model of God as essentially kenotic says God’s eternal nature is

uncontrolling love. Because of love, God necessarily provides freedom/agency to

creatures, and God works by empowering and inspiring creation toward well-being.”167

Within this account, God never intervenes within creation nor omnipotently controls

creation, but rather non-coercively empowers creation as creatures cooperate with his

love.168

There are certain similarities between Oord’s kenotic account of creation and

Beale’s cosmic-temple account. First, in both accounts, God creates humans to be co-

creators within the world.169 Second, both accounts affirm a world created out of a

chaotic state, but a state which is not opposed to God.170 Third, in both accounts the

166
Thomas Jay Oord distinguishes between voluntary kenosis (which he ascribes to Moltmann)
and essential kenosis (his own view) by distinguishing the nature of God’s freedom as voluntarily or
necessarily limited in engagement with creation, See Oord, The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and
Relational Account of Providence (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 161–162; and Oord, “An
Open Theology Doctrine of Creation,” 29.
167
Oord, The Uncontrolling Love of God, 94.
168
Thomas Jay Oord, The Nature of Love: A Theology (Atlanta: Chalice, 2010), 147–150.
169
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 82; Oord, The Nature of Love, 136.
170
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 58–62; Oord, “An Open Theology Doctrine of
Creation,” 44.

148
world is originally created in an unfinished state in Gen 1:1–2:3.171 However, within

these broad similarities there are crucial differences between the two accounts related to

original creation as well as the role of humanity within creation.

First, while Oord rejects omnipotent accounts of creation, Beale’s account

suggests that God omnipotently created the cosmos by ruling over and subduing creation.

While both affirm a state of chaos in Gen 1:2, they interpret that chaos in radically

different ways. Oord’s creatio ex creatione a natura amoris account affirms the material

of creation out of the remains of past creation.172 However, it is unclear from Oord’s

account how this inanimate creation is organized apart from the direct intervention of

God, since there is no autonomous will to be persuaded in the beginning stages of

creation. From Beale’s creatio ex nihilo account of chaos, God first creates the chaotic

state and then organizes it into the state of creation that he desires through his submission

of creation, implying God’s omnipotent rule over all creation.173 Unlike Oord, the picture

here is not of God inviting creation (apart from humanity) to participate in his creation

process, but rather submitting creation to his rule.

This leads to a second major distinction between Beale and Oord in their accounts

of creation. While both affirm initial creation in an unfinished state at the end of Gen 2:3,

they offer differing accounts of why it is unfinished and the role of humanity within

unfinished creation. For Oord, following Nancey Murphy and George Ellis, original

171
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 82; Oord, “An Open Theology Doctrine of
Creation,” 36.
172
Oord, “An Open Theology Doctrine of Creation,” 45–48.
173
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 32.

149
creation is marked by both ordered patterns and indeterminacy.174 The ordered patterns of

creation are discerned at the higher levels of creation (such as the laws of nature),

whereas indeterminacy is discerned at the micro, or quantum, levels. This indeterminacy

is the basis of true randomness in creation, which itself is the basis of freedom within the

higher levels of creation.175 However, Oord also affirms regularities at higher orders of

creation, typically referred to as the laws of nature, and attributes them to God’s

immutable loving nature.176 God’s loving nature is non-coercive, and therefore humans

can either assent or oppose God’s desires and plans for the world. Oord proposes sin as

that which opposes God’s plans and thus “… makes the world worse than it might have

been had sinners freely chosen, instead to cooperate with God.”177 This includes

ontological change because Oord connects ontology with the interrelated universe that

humans can affect either for good or for evil.178 Two implications emerge here. First,

although Oord’s adoption of an evolutionary process leaves open an implicit rejection of

Adam as original human, his position does entail the idea of distinction between pre- and

postlapsarian creation, because in his system sin produces ontological change. Further, in

Oord’s system, humans seem to have more ontological power for change than even God,

because they can either make the world better or worse through actions, whereas God is

involuntarily limited from action apart from divine empowerment and inspiration.179

174
Oord, “An Open Theology Doctrine of Creation,” 33–34.
175
Oord, The Uncontrolling Love of God, 56.
176
Ibid., 49.
177
Ibid., 67.
178
Ibid., 75.
179
Ibid., 94.

150
 Within Beale’s account of original creation, God also left creation unfinished in

Gen 1:1–2:3, but not because of the type of self-limitation suggested by Oord’s kenotic

accounts of creation. Rather, God freely chose to work covenantally in and through his

imago dei representatives to bring about his stated Gen 1:26–28 eschatological goal for

creation.180 This could be thought of as a voluntary self-limitation on God’s part, in that

he has chosen to work primarily through humans rather than other means as his modus

operandi for accomplishing his eschatological goals for creation. However, contrary to

kenotic self-limitation, God is not dependent upon the world to reach these eschatological

goals nor ontologically limited in divine sovereignty, omniscience, or omnipotence.

Beale’s recapitulation account demonstrates the consistency of this position within

Scripture. Where Adam fails in his commission within prelapsarian creation, that

commission is then passed on to others in the recapitulation of the themes of Genesis 1–

3.181 Ultimately, that imago dei commission finds beginning fulfilment in Christ’s first

coming and consummated fulfillment in his final coming.182 Therefore, God is not self-

limited in his dependence upon creation for accomplishing his goals for creation, but

rather accomplishes those goals through Christ’s death, resurrection, and formation of the

Church.183

While there are certain similarities between the creation accounts of Beale and

Oord, the differences are important and reveal theological implications of Beale’s

180
This is not to say that Oord’s account rejects omniscience. Rather, as an open theist, Oord
denies that omniscience includes exhaustive foreknowledge, since that is an impossibility in an open
universe; see Oord, The Nature of Love, 141.
181
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 46–52.
182
Ibid., 161.
183
This topic will be further analyzed in chapter five of this dissertation, dealing specifically with
creation and eschatology.
151
account for a theology of prelapsarian creation. In Beale’s account, prelapsarian creation

is both good and unfinished, in that God has left the finishing touches of creation to

humanity as his co-regents over the rest of creation. The focus of the text is not upon

God’s voluntary or necessary self-limitation, as in kenotic accounts, but upon

empowerment of humans to fulfill their purposes in creation. Thus, the goal of creation is

not simply to return to this prelapsarian state, but to move forward in completing the task

of submitting creation to God and filling the earth with God’s image bearers.

Humanity as Imago Dei Within Prelapsarian Creation

Another important aspect of prelapsarian creation is the understanding of humanity as

imago dei. Although there are numerous questions related to imago dei that could be

engaged based upon Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 1–3, the focus of this chapter is on

the ontological relation between pre- and postlapsarian creation and thus Beale’s

interpretation of the imago dei will be focused in this direction. Therefore, the major

consideration here is over the nature and role of humanity before the fall, which will then

be compared and contrasted with the nature and role of humanity after the fall in the

following section.

In Gen 1:26–28, the creation of humanity is intertwined with the notion of imago

dei. There is ongoing theological debate over the precise relation between the imago dei,

the human constitution, and human functionality, with much recent scholarship moving

152
away from locating the imago dei within human constitution in favor of locating it in

human functionality.184 For G. K. Beale, the imago dei has a functional focus with an

ontological background. In Beale’s words, “[T]he focus of the divine image in Adam in

Gen 1–2 is on how Adam’s activities copy God’s, though there is the underlying

assumption that Adam was created with attributes that were reflective of God’s

attributes.”185 In Beale’s understanding, Adam has certain ontological capacities that

enable him to carry out the function of the imago dei, which is to fulfill his covenantal

role as God’s vice-regent amongst creation by reflecting God’s presence to creation.186

The imago dei itself is not these ontological capacities, but is enabled by them to fulfill

its functional role in mirroring God’s activity through proximity to God’s presence within

the Garden of Eden.

Therefore, Adam’s location is especially important for carrying out the imago dei

role given to him by God. He is placed in the primordial holy-place garden specifically to

carry out this function, which involves expanding God’s Eden presence out to cover all

creation. Just as God has created by ruling over chaos, Adam is commissioned to rule

over the remaining chaos in creation. As already detailed above, the notion of chaos plays

an important role within Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 1–3 and the rest of Scripture

184
For a survey of recent positions within the debate, see Matthew Levering, Engaging the
Doctrine of Creation: Cosmos, Creatures, and the Wise and Good Creator (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2017), 145–191. For recent examples of functional understanding of the imago dei, see J.
Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2015);
Hans Schwarz, The Human Being: A Theological Anthropology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 22–24;
Richard Lints, Identity and Idolatry: The Image of God and Its Inversion, NSBT 36 (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2015), 31–56; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation, 25–29.
185
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 32.
186
“Reflection” language is especially important in Beale’s detail of Adam’s sin in G. K. Beale,
We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic,
2008), 127–135.

153
through the recapitulation of chaos within several important stories of the OT. Within the

Genesis 1–3 account, humanity is called to mirror God’s activity in the commission to

rule over and subdue the chaos, with implicit promises of blessing as a result. Once again,

this idea has important implications for understanding the state of goodness within

prelapsarian creation not as perfection or ethical harmony, but as functional goodness. As

creation was functionally good in prelapsarian creation, so humanity was also

functionally good in this state. In Beale’s words, “[W]e can speak of the prefall

conditions as a ‘beginning first creation’ and the yet-to-come escalated creation

conditions to be a consummate ‘eschatologically’ enhanced stage of final blessedness.”187

Adam’s obedience to God would cause enhanced blessedness for Adam, his progeny, and

all creation. Adam was not yet in a state of perfection in the prelapsarian state, but was

created so that he could progress toward that state.

Beale arrives at this idea by understanding God’s relationship with Adam

covenantally.188 While Genesis 1–3 does not explicitly mention a covenant between God

and Adam, Beale sees the four major elements of a covenant found there: 1) two parties

are named; 2) a condition of obedience is presented; 3) a curse for disobedience is

threatened; and 4) an implication of blessing is promised for obedience.189 The fourth of

187
Ibid., 42.
188
Ibid. Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 45, notes that Reformed theology typically discerns three overarching
covenants within Scripture: the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works/creation/law, and the
covenant of grace. From these covenants, a number of smaller covenants are arranged.
189
Ibid., 43. For an overview of the covenantal understanding of Genesis 1–3 within Reformed
theology, see Mark W. Karlberg, “The Original State of Adam: Tensions Within Reformed Theology,”
Evangelical Quarterly 59 (1987): 291–309. However, with Beale’s position, it is not necessary that
covenant theology be affirmed, only that Gen 2:17 be understood to contain the implicit promise that
abstaining from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil entails the blessing of life.

154
these elements includes the idea of life, or conversely, security from death, in response to

Adam’s obedience. Contained within this covenantal element is the idea that Adam’s

prefall existence did not include immortality, but rather the promise of immortality after a

period of obedience to God. Beale develops this covenantal idea of the blessing of life

from 1 Cor 15:20–57, where Paul contrasts Adam’s prefall, earthly body, with the

resurrected body of Christ.190 Important for Beale’s interpretation is Paul’s quotation of

Gen 2:7 in 1 Cor 15:45, “So it is written: ‘The first man Adam became a living being’;

the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.” Here the contrast is clear between the prefall Adam as

living being and the resurrected Christ as life-giving spirit, which Beale notes involves a

contrast of lesser glory and greater glory.191 Further, Beale comments that in 1 Cor

15:38–41 Paul draws illustrations from Genesis 1 to describe “earthly” perishable reality

in contrast to “heavenly” imperishable reality.192 Important in this contrast is the

implication that prelapsarian creation, including humanity, was itself unfinished and

prone to corruption apart from the eschatological blessing of God.

One of the implications from Beale’s interpretation of the imago dei is the

naturalness of death within prelapsarian creation. While it could be argued that humans

190
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 43–45. For similar interpretations on the contrast
between Adam’s prefallen body and Christ’s resurrection body, see James Ware, “Paul’s Understanding of
the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:36–54,” Journal of Biblical Literature 4 (2014): 834; Benjamin L.
Gladd, “The Last Adam as the ‘Life-Giving Spirit’ Revisited: A Possible Old Testament Background of
One of Paul’s Most Perplexing Phrases,” WTJ 71 (2009): 297–309; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the
Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God Vol. 3 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 347–
356; Felipe de Jesús Legarreta-Castillo, The Figure of Adam in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5: The New
Creation and Its Ethical and Social Reconfigurations (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 136–142, also
notes the parallel between Gen 2:7 and 1 Cor. 15:45, but he connects this parallel with Philo’s account of a
first and second Adam in Gen 1:27 and Gen 2:7.
191
Ibid., 44.
192
Ibid.

155
were never meant to experience death within prelapsarian creation, this would have been

the result of God’s gift of life rather than the natural order of creation or ontological

status of humanity. In terms of curse language in Gen 3:14–19, death is the byproduct of

the removal of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and the presence of God, and

thus occurs within their natural state apart from God’s blessing.193 Because this state of

blessedness does not extend to animal life within Genesis 1–2, then there is reason to

believe that predation and death existed before the fall.

Summary of the Cosmic-Temple Motif’s Implications for Prelapsarian

Ontology

To summarize the applications of Beale’s cosmic-temple understanding of prelapsarian

creation, the goodness of prelapsarian creation (including humanity) is best understood as

aesthetic/functional goodness, rather than complete perfection or ethical harmony.

Creation was created good in that it was aesthetically pleasing to God and functioned

according to his eschatological plan. Humanity was also created in God’s image in order

to fulfill a functional role as his co-regents over creation, thus bringing creation to its

eschatological completion by spreading God’s special presence from Eden outward to all

creation. Human ontological capacities are subservient to its functional role within this

understanding of the imago dei, although these capacities are important for carrying out

this role. One of the major insights from this picture of prelapsarian creation is the

unfinished state of creation within God’s design. This world was not created in such a

way that perfect harmony and lack of death reigned within creation before the fall, but

193
James Barr comes to a similar conclusion, although from slightly different argumentation and a
different background understanding of Scripture in James Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of
156
rather the gift of everlasting life itself was an eschatological blessing offered to Adam

within a covenantal framework. Further, the commission to Adam in Gen 1:26–28 and

Gen 2:15 was to complete creation in the sense that, in Beale’s words, “Adam… and his

progeny were to put ‘the finishing touches’ on the world God created in Genesis 1 by

making it a liveable place for humans,” in order that the earth would be inhabited by

faithful image-bearers of God.194 This reading of Genesis 1–2 infers that part of this

commissioning task of Adam and his progeny was ruling over creation, bringing order to

chaos, and subduing it for the purpose of habitation and ultimately the worship of God

across creation.

The Cosmic-Temple Motif’s Ontological Implications for Postlapsarian Creation

The Effects of the Fall on Humanity and Creation

Turning to Genesis 3 and postlapsarian creation, the major issue concerns the extent and

type of effects that were produced by Adam’s fall. First, it should be noted that while

Beale holds to a theological, rather than literalistic, reading of Genesis 1–3, he does

affirm a literal, historical fall within creation as a result of Adam’s sin.195 However, in

Beale’s account the fall is anthropocentric, with the effects upon the rest of creation being

relational in nature. This view is in distinction from those that posit ontological effects of

the fall within creation or even within humanity. In order to understand the distinctions of

Beale’s position on the effects of the fall, he can be placed in conversation with

Christopher J. H. Wright and C. John Collins on the nature of the effects of the fall. As

Immortality: The Read-Tuckwell Lectures for 1990 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).

194
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 82.
195
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 381–384.

157
analyzed below, the question of the fall’s effects can be divided into two categories:

effects of the fall upon creation and effects of the fall upon humanity.

As quoted above, Christopher J. H. Wright presents two possibilities for

understanding the effects of the fall, ontological effects and relational effects.196 The

ontological effects view posits that Adam’s sin in Genesis 3 produced changes within the

being of creation itself, including the introduction of such elements as detrimental

changes to the physical world and the introduction of death for both humans and animals.

Theologian Douglas Kelly can be placed in this view through his commentary on the

effects of the fall within creation, where he writes,

When Adam, head of the human race, rebelled, and by his sin brought death into
the world (cf. Gen 3 and Rom. 5:12-21), it caused a disastrous marring of his
original beauty and integrity. God’s just judgment upon Satan, the woman, the
man, and the cosmos manifested the beauty of his pure righteousness, in which
he, consistent with his holy character, punished the ugly cancer of sin, and
provided a way for the restoration of mankind and the entire created order.... The
malign ugliness of the disintegration of the beautiful order brought about by sin
and death would not have the last word.197

Here Kelly apportions effects of the fall to humanity, Satan, and creation itself.

Particularly important is the idea that the good order of creation, and not simply the

relationship between humanity and creation was marred by sin. Kelly quotes approvingly

from Umberto Cassuto, who argues that thorns and thistles “… did not exist, or were not

found in the form known to us, until after Adam’s transgression, and it was in

consequence of his fall that they came into the world or received their present form ... as

196
Wright, Old Testament Ethics, 130.
197
Kelly, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2 (Nairobi: Mentor, 2014), 25.

158
a punishment to man.”198 Further, Kelly writes that the fall of Adam brought “death and

disintegration” into the entire creation, introducing death to a world that had not

previously experienced it.199 This means that human and animal death were both caused

by the fall, thus presenting radically different ontological pictures of pre- and

postlapsarian creation.

The relational effects view argues for a more limited understanding of the effects

of sin, reducing its impact to the relationship between humanity and the rest of creation.

In Wright’s view, the fall affected “the triangle of relationships between God, humanity,

and earth.”200 With these relationships maligned because of sin, creation no longer

functioned according to God’s eschatological purposes for it. This anthropocentric view

of the fall highlights the nature of humanity’s relationship with creation, in that humanity

was called to wisely govern and expand God’s purposes for creation, but as a result of the

fall incorrectly governs creation, thus needing redemption in order to once again fulfill

God’s design for the world.

John Collins makes a similar, but more nuanced, distinction between two

possibilities for understanding the effects of the fall, the fall of all of nature and the fall of

human nature.201 In the first view, which Collins rejects, the fall had ontological effects

upon all of creation, in the same vein as Wright’s first option. In the second view, which

Collins accepts, the fall had effects just within human nature, including ontological

198
Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 100–102; quoted in Kelly, Creation and
Change, 125.
199
Kelly, Creation and Change, 97.
200
Wright, Old Testament Ethics, 105.
201
C. John Collins, Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), 147–160.

159
effects. One example that Collins gives for this view is the possibility that postlapsarian

humanity can be affected by viruses and bacteria in ways that prelapsarian humanity

could not be affected.202 In Collins’s words, “[T]hese problems aren’t just moral (having

to do with our bent toward sinning); because of the body-soul tangle that we are, they

include emotional and psychological troubles, interpersonal problems, as well as

disorders in our bodily health.”203 This suggestion of an internal movement within

humanity from order to disorder as the result of sin can be read as an ontological change,

affecting the very being of the human person. For Collins, it is humanity that has been

changed by the fall, and the rest of nature only experiences these changes in relation to

humanity. So how exactly does this play out within creation? In answering this question,

Collins writes,

We have no reason to think that such natural things as animals preying on others,
or earthquakes and hurricanes, or the law of increasing entropy, go against the
will of God for his creation. However, we humans are infected with evil, which
means that we don’t have the sympathetic “feel” for nature that would enable us
to govern it to consistently good and wise purposes. This means that we’ll be out
of step enough with nature that earthquakes will take us by surprise, and will go
against what we want.204

In this interpretation, the fall brings distance between humanity and the rest of creation,

so that humanity is not in step with nature and therefore is taken by surprise by the

natural workings of nature. Therefore, working backwards, prelapsarian humanity would

have had an internal sense for the workings of nature and would have been able to

correctly predict and prepare for these natural workings.

202
Ibid., 160.
203
Ibid.
204
Ibid., 160. Italics original.

160
 Combining the possibilities given by Wright and Collins, there are three distinct

possibilities for understanding the primary effect of the fall: ontological change within all

of nature, ontological change within human nature, and relational change between

humanity and the rest of nature. Each of these possibilities has in common the idea that

there was a fall that occurred in the history of creation and produced some level of effect

within creation, thus making it a universal condition of the world. Using the categories

given above by William Dumbrell, the first position suggests a perfected harmony view

of nature in Genesis 1–2 that was then corrupted by the fall in Genesis 3. Therefore, this

position can be ruled out from the perspective of Beale’s cosmic-temple motif, because

Beale’s view posits a creation that needs to be subdued and ruled over even before the

fall occurred. The second position suggests that, while not ontologically affecting all of

creation, the sin of Adam did have ontological effects within the human person, and so

original sin carries with it (but is not limited to) ontological connotations. As noted

above, this is the position of John Collins, who writes that as a result of sin, “[C]hanges

have come into human nature—pain in childbearing, other afflictions of body and soul,

and death—but it does not follow that non-human nature is affected in the same way.”205

The third position suggests a more limited understanding of the effects of the fall. In

Beale’s account, the result of the fall is Adam’s removal from this primordial holy-place,

and thus his removal from the role assigned to him by God and the possibility for eternal

life that was offered as a covenantal blessing.206 Because of this removal from his place

205
Collins, Science & Faith, 151–152.
206
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 46.

161
near God’s presence, Adam is no longer able to fulfill the Gen 1:26–28 mandate by

reflecting God’s presence to the rest of creation.

An implication of Beale’s interpretation is here distinguished from Collins in that

sin does not produce an ontological change within Adam, but rather a locational change

that in turn produces a functional change. In Beale’s words, Adam’s removal from the

Garden causes a “… distortion in the image, so that humanity could not reflect God in the

way for which it was designed.”207 This idea of distortion is important, because it carries

with it the connotation of removal from God’s presence, so that Adam can no longer

reflect that presence in the way in which he was originally commissioned. Similarly, the

effects of the fall are not ontological in nature but relational. Because of this distortion of

the image of God, humanity was no longer able to fulfill their role properly as God’s

vice-regents over creation. From this perspective, each of the “curse” effects of the fall

listed in Gen 3:16–19 corresponds with this idea of relational change between humanity

and creation, rather than ontological change.208 In Beale’s words, because of sin,

Humanity’s labor of subduing the earth … became wearisome and vain (Gen
3:17–19; Eccles. 1:2–3; Rom. 8:19–23); instead of subduing, Adam became
subdued by the creation itself (a serpent). Instead of creating and filling the earth
with children bearing God’s image of glory, he created and filled it with offspring
bearing their own inglorious sin and ultimately reflecting the image of the fallen
created order. Eve’s labor of filling the earth became sorrowful (Gen 3:16). After
their fall, Adam and Eve and their progeny were unable to fulfill the divine
mandate of Gen 1:28 and thus to reflect the image of God in the way for which
they were originally designed. Even after their reintroduction into knowing God
personally again, they were not in a position to fulfill the original divine mandate
in the consummate way that God had intended.209
207
Ibid., 382.
208
The argument here is not that this is the only way to read these curses in Gen 3:16–19, but that
they can be read from this perspective without contradiction. For a commentary that suggests ontological
changes as a result of the fall, see Waltke and Fredricks, Genesis, 92–95.
209
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 384.

162
The ground is not ontologically cursed, nor is humanity ontologically changed with the

result that pain is introduced into creation. Rather, each of the changes presented as a

result of sin are relational in that they affect man’s relation with the earth that he is called

to subdue in the quest to fulfill the divine mandate, and with the children that the woman

is called to bear in the quest to fulfill the divine mandate.

Going even further, Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 2–3 seems to suggest that

the only ontological change possible in creation would have come not as a result of sin,

but as a result of abstaining from sin and fulfilling the Gen 1:26–28 mandate. Beale

suggests a number of possible eschatological blessings that Adam would have been given

had he fulfilled the divine mandate of subduing and ruling over creation.210 Chief among

these blessings are the “created eschatological conditions” that would have occurred had

Adam fulfilled his mandate.211 This suggests that there would have come a point in time

when Adam would have become morally incorruptible in that he was unable to sin again,

and creation would have experienced the eschatological rest for which God began

creating the world.212 In summarizing Beale’s view on postlapsarian creation, Old

Testament scholar Ingrid Farro writes, “Perhaps the tragedy of human disobedience was

not a loss of good, but the failure to carry God’s good to the rest of creation. Instead of

spreading goodness, humanity spread corruption and violence: aborting God’s mission to

bring order into the world, to subdue the animals, to still the wind and the waves, to be a

210
Ibid., 33–46.
211
Ibid., 39.
212
Ibid., 39–40.

163
blessing in the earth, so that the presence of the Lord would fill the whole earth.”213 From

Farro’s summary, the result of the fall within Beale’s interpretation is plainly stated as the

spread of corruption and violence rather than goodness, with corruption and violence

understood here as relational, rather than ontological, changes to creation.

Beale’s relational understanding of the effects of the fall is also important for

understanding God’s continual love for and commitment to creation. As stated above,

Beale holds to a traditional understanding of creatio ex nihilo, according to which God

freely created the world out of love. This implies what Simon Oliver calls “the radical

implication” of creatio ex nihilo, namely that “… creation, by itself, is nothing and yet is

the totally free and utterly gracious expression of God’s love.”214 If there are not

ontological changes, changes to the very being of creation, then postlapsarian creation

can continue to be understood in the same sense, as the continued expression of God’s

love.

Summary of the Cosmic-Temple Motif’s Implications for Postlapsarian

Ontology

Beale’s understanding of the effects of the fall is most clearly displayed in his description

of Adam as imago dei. Before the fall, Adam was commissioned as a primordial priest-

king to spread God’s presence in eschatological fulfillment of God’s creation plan.

However, because of the fall, Adam was removed from the presence of God through his

213
Ingrid Farro, “The Question of Evil and Animal Death Before the Fall,” Trinity Journal 36
(2015): 209. Although Farro mentions Beale’s cosmic-temple motif twice in the article and finds its
premise promising for understanding creation, she writes from the perspective of teleology rather than
ontology and focuses mainly on animal death and a definition of evil from Scripture.
214
Simon Oliver, Creation: A Guide for the Perplexed, Guides for the Perplexed (London: T&T
Clark, 2017), 2.

164
exile from the primordial holy place, the Garden of Eden. Therefore, he was no longer

able to fulfill his commission in the same fashion as before the fall. This reading of

Genesis 1–3 implies relational, rather than ontological, changes as a result of the fall. The

being of creation and the being of Adam were not ontologically changed, but placed into

relational disharmony. As a result, while creation is still ontologically good as the place

of God’s ultimate dwelling with his creation, there are now relational damages that need

to be repaired as the result of sin.

Conclusion

This chapter has demonstrated the applicability of G. K. Beale’s cosmic-temple motif in

the area of a theology of creation concerned with understanding the distinction between

pre- and postlapsarian creation. Beale’s interpretation of Genesis 1–3 places great

importance on the effects of the fall for humanity and wider creation, but it does not

interpret these effects as ontological in nature. Rather, the fall affected humanity and

wider creation relationally. No longer was humanity in the default position of nearness to

God’s presence, and because of this, humanity could not extend the presence of God

outward to the entire world in fulfillment of God’s eschatological goal for creation. As

will be shown in chapter five, this eschatological goal involves the presence of God

filling an ontologically altered new creation that contains both similarities and

distinctions from present creation. Thus, the only possible ontological change within

Beale’s account of Genesis 1–3 would have occurred had Adam succeeded in his

commission to extend the presence of God outward to creation by practicing God’s rule

and submission of creation as the imago dei priest-king.

165
 This understanding of creation also includes the notion that prelapsarian creation

was not perfect in nature, nor did it include ethical harmony amongst all creation. Rather,

it was good in that it functioned properly according to God’s desires for creation, thus

enabling humanity to fulfill their commission. Because creation was not perfect, then

certain transient features of creation, such as death and predation, can be understood as

part of the natural order of creation, rather than the result of sin. However, as Beale

proposes, one eschatological goal for Adam was the eventual introduction of everlasting

life as he brought creation to its consummate state in accordance with God’s plan.

Although beyond the scope of the present chapter, there are some obvious affinities

between Beale’s position and the current paradigm of science, which proposes an old

earth and death as a natural part of the order of creation. The following chapter will

analyze the relation between Beale’s cosmic-temple motif in the Old Testament and the

question of natural theology.

166
 CHAPTER FOUR
TEMPLE AS CREATION: THE CREATION PURPOSE OF THE TEMPLE IN THE
COSMIC-TEMPLE MOTIF

This chapter moves from G. K. Beale’s cosmic-temple motif into another area of the

theology of creation, concerning the topic of natural theology. Natural theology will be

considered in this chapter in relation to two other interrelated theological concepts,

revelation and the theology of nature. After introducing the topic in the following section,

G. K. Beale’s cosmic-temple motif will be examined through his interpretation of the

patriarchal altars, the tabernacle, and Solomon’s temple, with particular interest given to

areas where Beale’s interpretation might be applied to current discussion surrounding

natural theology. The chapter will then examine Beale’s use of revelation and place him

in dialogue with three theologians in the Reformed tradition, Karl Barth, Colin Gunton,

and Alister McGrath. While Barth famously rejects natural theology, Gunton and

McGrath have each proposed revelation-based approaches to natural theology that can be

amplified by Beale’s cosmic-temple motif. In particular, this chapter will show

significant parallels between Beale’s cosmic-temple motif and the accounts of Gunton

and McGrath, and suggestions will be made for how Beale’s interpretation can add to

theirs by revealing the temple’s creation symbolism as an interpretive key for

understanding creation.

167
 Introduction

Although the term natural theology has a number of possible connotations, in the words

of Michael Sudduth, it broadly concerns “… what can be known or rationally believed

about the existence and nature of God on the basis of human reason or our natural

cognitive faculties.”1 Another work defines natural theology similarly as “… a branch of

theology that examines the existence and attributes of God (or the gods, in polytheistic

tradition) without reliance on special revelation.”2 In this sense, it is concerned with

knowledge of God apart from any form of revealed theology, which constructs

theological and philosophical claims out of accepted forms of revelation.3 In establishing

the Gifford Lectures, a lecture series pertaining to natural theology begun in 1888, Adam

Lord Gifford calls for just this type of approach, as he writes in his will, “I wish the

lecturers to treat their subject as a strictly natural science, the greatest of all possible

sciences, indeed, in one sense, the only science, that of Infinite Being, without reference

to or reliance upon any supposed exceptional and so-called miraculous revelation. I wish

it considered just as astronomy or chemistry is.”4 Thus, for Gifford, natural theology is

strictly concerned with approaching the topic of God from an evidential standpoint, rather

than from sources of revelation.

1
Michael Sudduth, The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology (Burlington, VT: Ashgate,
2009), 1. A similar definition is proposed by Charles Taliaferro, “The Project of Natural Theology,” The
Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, eds. William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 1, where he writes, “Natural theology is the practice of philosophically reflecting
on the existence and nature of God independent of real or apparent divine revelation or scripture.”
2
Helen De Cruz and Johan De Smedt, A Natural History of Natural Theology: The Cognitive
Science of Theology and Philosophy of Religion (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2015), 5.
3
Ibid.
4
From Adam Lord Gifford’s will, quoted in Max Müller, Natural Religion, The Gifford Lectures
1888 (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1892), 6–7.

168
 On the basis of the first definition given above, Michael Sudduth divides natural

theology into two categories: natural theology concerned with natural knowledge of God

and natural theology concerned with rational proofs or arguments for the existence and

nature of God.5 The former category focuses on innate or spontaneous knowledge of

God, while the latter category focuses on philosophical and scientific argumentation.

Various forms of theistic arguments such as the ontological argument, moral argument,

cosmological argument, and teleological argument can be placed within this second

category of natural theology.6 Theistic arguments for the existence and nature of God can

be further divided into two categories: a priori arguments concerned with natural

reasoning and a posteriori arguments concerned with the nature of reality.7 For example,

while the ontological argument in its classic Anselmian conception focuses on natural

reasoning, the teleological argument focuses on the nature of reality along with its

physical features.

As is well known, natural theology has had its share of recent critics, some of

whom go so far as to dismiss natural theology completely as a theological/philosophical

project.8 One of the more famous rejections of natural theology is from Karl Barth’s

5
Sudduth, The Reformed Objection, 4.
6
A number of these arguments are introduced, analyzed, and defended against critiques in
William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Malden,
MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).
7
Jonathan R. Topham, “Natural Theology and the Sciences,” The Cambridge Companion to
Science and Religion, ed. Peter Harrison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 61.
8
Michael Sudduth details several Reformed objections to natural theology in Sudduth, The
Reformed Objection to Natural Theology; Kevin Diller has also recently examined Karl Barth and Alvin
Plantinga’s critiques of natural theology in Kevin Diller, Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma: How Karl
Barth and Alvin Plantinga Provide a Unified Response, Strategic Initiatives in Evangelical Theology
(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014); Alister McGrath offers a more positive construal of natural
theology from within the Reformed tradition, although with considerable modifications, in several of his
works, most recently McGrath, Re-Imagining Nature: The Promise of a Christian Natural Theology
(Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017); McGrath’s work will be discussed in more detail below.
169
published reply to Emil Brunner’s modified natural theology, simply titled Nein! Within

this account, Barth rejects all notions of natural capacities, described as points of contact

or formal factors in receiving revelation, within humans anterior to divine revelation.9 He

writes, “If … there is an encounter and communion between God and man, then God

himself must have created for it conditions which are not in the least supplied (not even

‘somehow,’ not even ‘to some extent’!) by the existence of the formal factor.”10 In Paul

Capetz’s summary of Barth, “[T]he only route to knowledge of God is that made

available through God’s free decision to be known.”11 Thus for Barth, there is no

possibility for knowledge of God within human reason or experience apart from divine

revelation.

In a more recent critique of natural theology, Colin Gunton argues that all

knowledge of God is grounded in revelation and thus is not gained on the basis of

argument.12 He points to the intrinsic rationality of the world as an example often used

within natural theology, noting that because this rationality is intrinsic rather than

extrinsic (e.g., it is not ontologically continuous with God), it is not immediately

available knowledge but rather known by revelation.13 Thus it is understood within a

revelatory-based theology of nature rather than through natural theology. Norman Wirzba

9
Karl Barth, No!: Answer to Emil Brunner, in Natural Theology: Comprising “Nature and
Grace” by Professor Dr. Emil Brunner and the reply “No!” by Dr. Karl Barth, trans. Peter Fraenkel
(London: Centenary Press, 1946), 88–89.
10
Ibid., 89.
11
Paul E. Capetz, “The Old Testament as a Witness to Jesus Christ: Historical Criticism and
Theological Exegesis of the Bible According to Karl Barth,” Journal of Religion 90 (2010): 481.
12
Colin E. Gunton, A Brief Theology of Revelation (London: T&T Clark, 1995), 61.
13
Ibid. Gunton here specifically argues that this rationality of creation has only been understood
within cultures where the Bible has had a determinative influence; see ibid., 61–62. The totality of this
claim does not need to be defended in order to accept the prior claim that the intrinsic rationality of the
world is understood through revelation.

170
also grounds knowledge claims about reality within interpretive frameworks, arguing that

every attempt to understand the natural world is undertaken through particular

perceptions that are themselves neither simple nor automatic, but rather are based upon

interpretive approaches to nature.14 Alvin Plantinga similarly rejects natural theology,

which he defines as “the attempt to prove or demonstrate the existence of God.”15 His

major argument against natural theology is that it proceeds from classical

foundationalism, a philosophical position that limits basic beliefs within a person’s noetic

structure to those that are self-evident, evident to the senses, or incorrigible.16 For

Plantinga, a number of other types of beliefs can be considered properly basic within

noetic structures, including the belief in God. He approvingly cites John Calvin, for

whom belief in God should not be based upon other propositions or arguments.17 For

Gunton, Wirzba, and Plantinga, rejection of natural theology is based upon a doctrine of

revelation that finds the basis of all knowledge of God within God’s own revealed

sources.

Natural theology can be distinguished from a theology of nature, which, in one

summary, “… does not set out to infer the existence of God but, rather, aims to

14
Norman Wirzba, From Nature to Creation: A Christian Vision for Understanding and Loving
Our World, The Church and Postmodern Culture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 62; see also
Norman Wirzba, “On Learning to See a Fallen and Flourishing Creation,” in Evolution and the Fall, eds.
William T. Cavanaugh and James K. A. Smith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 156–180.
15
Alvin Plantinga, “The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology,” Philosophical Knowledge,
eds. John B. Brough, Donald O. Dahlstrom, and Henry B. Veatch, Proceedings of the American Catholic
Philosophical Association 54 (Washington, DC: American Catholic Philosophical Association, 1980), 49.
16
Ibid., 56–57.
17
Ibid., 58. Elsewhere, Plantinga writes, “[I]f Christian beliefs are true, then the standard and most
satisfactory way to hold them will not be as the conclusions of arguments”; see Alvin Plantinga, Warranted
Christian Belief (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 201; quoted in Kevin Diller, Theology’s
Epistemological Dilemma, 197.

171
understand and interpret the natural world under the assumption of his existence.”18

Using this definition, a Christian theology of nature understands the natural world

through the revelation-based claims of Scripture. Appropriating John Calvin’s famous

analogy, revelation enables interpretation of the world through the spectacles of faith.19

Certain approaches, such as Barth’s, put revelation and natural theology at odds with

each other. Alan Torrance argues that Karl Barth’s doctrine of revelation goes against the

grain of much of the Western Reformed scholastic tradition that distinguished nature and

law as the means of general revelation from special revelation as the means to particulars

about God, creation, and humanity. For Torrance, “[T]he Western ordo salutis was

characterized at the epistemological level by the primacy of law and nature over grace.

That is, it is God’s legal purposes for humankind which we apprehend in the first

instance, and it is only in the light of this primary revelation that we can recognize and

interpret God’s redemptive purposes as these are revealed in Christ.”20 According to

Torrance, Barth moves in the reverse order, interpreting general revelation through

special revelation. In Torrance’s words, “It is in God’s Word to humanity (perceived as

the one through whom and for whom all things were made) that we have the

hermeneutical key to God’s creative purposes, to the ultimate telos and purpose of the

18
De Cruz and De Smedt, A Natural History, 6.
19
For Calvin’s use of this analogy related to Scripture as special revelation, see John Calvin,
Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of
Christian Classics 21 (Louisville: Westminster, 2006), I.IV.1.
20
Alan J. Torrance, Persons in Communion: An Essay on Trinitarian Description and Human
Participation: With Special Reference to Volume One of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1996), 61.

172
created order.”21 Two theologians influenced by Barth, Colin Gunton and Alister

McGrath, follow Barth’s

direction but move their projects further in arguing for special revelation-based

understandings of the validity of general revelation. G. K. Beale’s cosmic-temple motif

can add to this discussion by recognizing the role that the Old Testament temple played

in providing knowledge of God and creation. Therefore, it is important first to examine

his motif in search of possible significant application to a revelation-based approach to

natural theology.

G. K. Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Motif in the Old Testament

Chapter three of this dissertation analyzed G. K. Beale’s cosmic-temple motif in Genesis

1–3, demonstrating its interpretive validity and giving theological application in the area

of ontology. This chapter will further examine Beale’s use of the cosmic-temple motif

across a wide swath of Old Testament literature and apply it in the area of natural

theology. It will summarize and analyze Beale’s notion of the revelatory function of the

temple from the Patriarchal altars, the wilderness tabernacle, and Solomon’s temple in

order to reveal the role of all three structures in conveying and spreading God’s special-

revelation presence to all creation. As this chapter will demonstrate from Beale’s insights,

each iteration of the temple can be considered as a microcosm of heaven and earth. For

Beale, the most important theological application for the temple in movement from

archetypal garden-temple to Israelite temple is the divine mandate “to enlarge the

boundaries of the temple until they formed the borders around the whole earth,” revealing

21
Ibid., 64.
173
the eschatological purpose for creation as the eventual permanent dwelling place for God

and humanity.22 However, this chapter will argue that there are also other important

theological applications of the cosmic-temple motif, particularly concerning

methodological questions related to natural theology. Therefore, Beale’s cosmic-temple

focus in the Old Testament will be analyzed with an eye toward application within this

area.

The Patriarchal Altars as Conveyors of God’s Special Revelation

Picking up on Beale’s biblical-theology storyline after the Garden temple, the next major

iteration of the temple is the tabernacle, which acted as a reestablishment of God’s

dwelling place with his people.23 However, Beale argues that there were a number of

smaller-scale sacred space structures built by patriarchs in between the Garden of Eden

and the tabernacle. He points to several passages in Genesis that possibly allude to

“inchoate or small-scale temple-building [activities].”24 These passages include Noah’s

altar in Gen 8:20; Abraham’s altars in Gen 12:8; 13:3–4; 13:18; 22:9; Isaac’s altar in Gen

26:25; and Jacob’s altars in Gen 33:20 and 35:7.25 These structures are important because

they signify the continuation of God’s eschatological plan to dwell with his people. On

this point, Beale notes several similarities amongst these altar-building passages related

to the Gen 1:28 commission given to Adam. He writes,

22
G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place
of God, NSBT 17 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 123.
23
G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the
New (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2011), 626–627.
24
Ibid., 622, fn. 22.
25
James Strong, “Altar,” in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, Compact Edition, ed. James Strong
(Nashville: Broadman, 1979), 55.

174
 Just as the Gen 1:28 commission was initially to be carried out by Adam in a
localized place, enlarging the borders of the arboreal sanctuary, so it appears to be
no accident that the restatement of the commission to Israel’s patriarchs resulted
in the following: (1) God appears to them (except in Gen 12:8; 13:3–4); (2) they
“pitch a tent” (LXX: “tabernacle”); (3) on a mountain; (4) they build “altars” and
worship God (i.e., “calling on the name of the Lord,” which probably included
sacrificial offerings and prayer) at the place of the restatement; (5) the place
where these activities occur often is located at “Bethel,” meaning the “House of
God” (the only case of altar-building not containing these elements or linked to
the Gen 1 commission is Gen 33:20). The combination of these five elements
occurs elsewhere in the OT only in describing Israel’s tabernacle or temple.26

When brought together, these five elements present a formidable case that the patriarchal

altars in Genesis were small-scale versions of the later Israelite temple, and thus offer a

bridge between the Garden of Eden and the tabernacle. Beale goes even further in

arguing that these altars represented the Gen 1:26–28 commission to “spread out to

subdue the earth from a divine sanctuary.”27 Thus, for Beale, there is a pattern of

sanctuaries connecting the Garden of Eden with the later tabernacle and temple in

eschatological purpose.

Beale does acknowledge that this patterned interpretation of the Genesis altars as

small-scale pointers to the later temple is rare amongst commentators.28 However, this

interpretation provides an answer to a key component of each of these Genesis texts,

namely concerning the association between tents and altars. On this association, Beale

writes, “The combination of ‘tent’ … and ‘altar’ … occurs in Exodus and Leviticus only

26
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 625; see also Beale, The Temple and the Church’s
Mission, 96–99.
27
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 625.
28
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 98. Beale gives the following list of scholars he
has found to offer similar interpretations: Augustine Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs, JSOTS 277
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 70; Geerhardus Vos, The Eschatology of the Old Testament,
ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001), 85–86; Tremper Longman, Immanuel
In Our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel’s Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001), 16.

175
with respect to the tabernacle and associated altar (e.g., Lev 4:7, 18). ‘Altar’ … and

‘house’ … occur 28 times in the OT with reference to the temple and its altar. Rarely do

any of these words in these two combinations ever refer to anything else other than the

tabernacle or temple.”29 Others have noted what appears to be an unusual detail in the

Gen 12:8 text concerning Abram’s pitching of a tent by the altar. James McKeown writes

of this association between altar and tent, “As well as building an altar, Abram also

pitches a tent, but this is a strange detail to include here. Significantly, in Genesis most

references to pitching tents are closely associated with building an altar. However, it is

not altogether clear what significance should be attached to this.”30 McKeown gives three

possible interpretations for this significance within recent scholarship. First, Gordon

Wenham suggests that Abram’s tent-pitching simply indicates a lengthy stay in Bethel.31

McKeown notes the difficulty with this interpretation is that the tent-pitching is

mentioned twice in the passage (Gen 12:8 and Gen 13:3), thus implying that it has more

significance than Wenham’s interpretation allows.32 Second, Derek Kidner suggests that

there is an implied contrast between Abram’s temporary tent and the lasting altar, which

emphasizes Abram’s transience and the land as God’s property.33 McKeown does not

offer a critique of this proposal, and it does not contrast Beale’s own proposal that the

association of tent and altar alludes to the later temple. Third, similarly to Beale, D. J.

29
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 96–97 fn. 29.
30
James McKeown, Genesis, The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2008), 79.
31
Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1–15, WBC 1 (Waco: Word, 1994), 280.
32
McKeown, Genesis, 79.
33
Derek Kidner, Genesis, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 126.

176
Wiseman notes that tents and altars are often closely associated, which suggests a

religious significance to their association in Gen 12:8.34 In particular, Wiseman finds in

Gen 12:7–8 and again in Genesis 13 a tent-shrine “to mark [Abram’s] acceptance of the

divine land-grant.”35 In a later assessment of Genesis in relation to 2 Samuel 7,

McKeown picks up on this theme of divine land-grant in Genesis as precursor to God’s

promise to David of rest from his enemies.36 In Beale’s work, the theme of rest from

enemies is closely related to the cosmic-temple building of Genesis 1 and the

eschatological implications of God’s covenant with Adam in Gen 1:26–28 and Gen 2:15–

17.37 McKeown also notes the linguistic parallel of “to plant” in both God’s promise to

David in 2 Sam 7:10 and his garden-dwelling presence in Gen 2:8 and 3:8, although he

does not explicitly relate the Garden of Eden to the later temple.38 Thus, similarly to

Beale although not as explicitly, both Wiseman and McKeown pick up on the relation of

tents and altars to the later temple in Israel.39

For Beale, the key theological feature of these Patriarchal altars is the

continuation of the Gen 1:26–28 commission to Adam to spread out and subdue the earth

as God’s image bearer.40 Closely related to this feature is the idea of God’s special

34
Donald J. Wiseman, “Abraham Reassessed,” in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, eds. A. R.
Millard and D. J. Wiseman (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1983), 143.
35
Ibid.
36
McKeown, Genesis, 363.
37
See Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 39–40; see also ch. 3 of this work for summary
and analysis of Adam’s eschatological rest. Beale also highlights the relation between rest from enemies
and temple-building in 2 Samuel; see Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 70–71.
38
McKeown, Genesis, 363.
39
Also inadequate is the assessment of Claus Westermann, who affirms the altars as sacred space,
but places too great a distinction between “ordinary” sacred place in the transitory lives of the Patriarchs
and “settled” sacred place later in the temple; see Westermann, Genesis: An Introduction, trans. John J.
Scullion S. J. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 202–203.
40
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 97.

177
revelatory presence within sacred-space divine sanctuaries. In Beale’s interpretation,

these altars were not simply worship sites, but temporary sites of sacred dwelling. Thus,

divine revelation is closely connected within the OT to these sanctuaries as the conveyors

of God’s divine presence and the commission to Adam and the patriarchs to spread this

divine presence to all creation. This idea becomes even more explicit in the construction

of the tabernacle and the creation symbolism contained within its design and décor.

The Wilderness Tabernacle as Conveyor of God’s Special Revelation

G. K. Beale argues that the wilderness tabernacle and later temple “were comparable in

symbolic design to the heavens and earth.”41 In order to understand this design, Beale

first points to the meeting between Moses and God on Mount Sinai in Exodus 19–34 as

the archetype for both the later tabernacle and temple designs. According to Beale, there

are five major similarities between Mount Sinai and the tabernacle and temple.42 First,

Beale notes the parallel between Sinai as ‘the mountain of God’ (Exod 3:1) and the later

temple as the mountain of God (Isa 2:2).43 Second, the basic three-part structure of the

Wilderness Tabernacle was first displayed at Mount Sinai, where Moses left most of the

Israelites at the base of the mountain (Exod 19:12–13), brought priests and elders a

certain distance up the mountain (Exod 19:22; 24:1), and ascended by himself to the top

of the mountain to experience God’s presence (Exod 24:2).44 Third, similarly to the altar

at the outer section of the temple (Exod 27:1–5), an altar was established at the base of

41
Ibid., 32.
42
Ibid., 105–107.
43
Ibid., 105.
44
Ibid.

178
Mount Sinai for the people to offer sacrifices to the Lord (Exod 24:5–6).45 Fourth, the top

of Mount Sinai revealed God’s theophonic presence in a manner like the later holy of

holies within the tabernacle and temple (Exod 24:15–17; Num. 7:89).46 Fifth, there is a

linguistic parallel between the ‘unconsumed burning tree’ presence of God at Sinai

during Moses’s previous encounter with God (Exod 3:2), the ‘holy place’ area around the

burning tree (Exod 3:5), and the Holy Place outside of the Holy of Holies in the

tabernacle (Lev 7:6).47 Beale finds within these similarities links not only with the later

tabernacle and temple, but also with the themes introduced in Gen 1:28. In his words,

“God sends Moses to deliver Israel out of Egypt’s womb because the embryonic seed of

Jacob has come to full term, in fulfillment not only of the Abrahamic promises but also of

the promissory Adamic commission: ‘But the sons of Israel were fruitful and swarmed

greatly, and multiplied, and became exceedingly numerous, so that the land was filled

with them [Ex 1:7].’”48 Here the tenets of the Gen 1:28 commission are implied with the

parallel terms in Gen 1:28, thus connecting Adam with Israel and God’s continued

commission. Mount Sinai thus acts as an archetype of the tabernacle that is patterned by

God for Moses during their encounter at Sinai (Exod 25:8–9), which was itself later

replaced by the temple in Israel.49

Beale further maintains two important purposes of the tabernacle worth

45
Ibid.
46
Ibid., 105–106.
47
Ibid., 106.
48
Ibid. Italics original. This is Beale’s translation of the verse, in correspondence with the NASB.
49
Ibid., 107. Steven C. Smith offers a number of comparisons between the tabernacle and the
temple, including the fluid transition from tabernacle to temple in the life of David. See Steven C. Smith,
The House of the Lord: A Catholic Biblical Theology of God’s Temple Presence in the Old and New
Testaments (Steubenville, OH: Franciscan University Press, 2017), 133–148.

179
developing, its polemical purpose in relation to Egyptian war tents and its identical

functional purpose in relation to the later Israelite temple. In understanding the polemical

purpose of the tabernacle, Beale claims that the tabernacle was “at least in part” modeled

upon Egyptian military war tents that contained the same three-part structure (courtyard,

inner reception area, and innermost chamber with Pharaoh’s image accompanied by

images of two winged-creatures), same measurements, and same orientation to the east as

the tabernacle.50 Beale follows Michael Homan’s article “The Divine Warrior in His

Tent: A Military Model for Yahweh’s Tabernacle” in arguing that this similar

construction was for polemical reasons, revealing Yahweh rather than Pharaoh as the true

god within the tabernacle.51 Homan expands this research in his monograph To Your

Tents, O Israel!: The Terminology, Function, Form, and Symbolism of Tents in the

Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, which offers a defense of the tabernacle’s

existence based upon similar ANE structures and a reconstruction based upon the Old

Testament and ANE parallels.52 Within this monograph, Homan notes the preponderance

of war tents within ANE cultures, including Egypt, Assyria, and Canaan.53 While he

notes that the Old Testament uses the term ‫“( ְ ֶּיהל‬tent”) only a few times with clear

martial context, he claims that this is probably due to the “relative uninterest in the

50
Ibid., 64.
51
Michael M. Homan, “The Divine Warrior in His Tent: A Military Model for Yahweh’s
Tabernacle,” Bible Review 16 (2000): 22–33, 55.
52
Michael M. Horan, To Your Tents, O Israel!: The Terminology, Function, Form, and Symbolism
of Tents in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 12
(Leiden: Brill, 2002).
53
Ibid., 61–78; see also Richard J. Clifford, “Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of Meeting,”
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1977): 221–227; Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological
and Biblical Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 202–205.

180
techniques of warfare” by Old Testament writers rather than the lack of use of war

tents.54 As Old Testament scholar Myung Soo Suh similarly argues, because the function

of the tabernacle has to do with the function of the ark in its center, and because the ark

was closely tied with Israel’s war campaigns (Num 10:35–36), there is good reason to

believe that the tabernacle was constructed in part as military headquarters.55

As Beale states, “Israel’s tabernacle may well have been conceived to be a

travelling war headquarters from where the Lord directed the troops until all opposition

was put down.”56 Further, as Suh notes, the explicit purpose of the exodus in Exod 7:5;

8:22; 9:14, 29; 10:2; 14:4, 18, is “… the demonstration of the universal lordship and the

incomparability and power of the God of the Hebrews.”57 There is also a connection

between the materials taken from the Egyptians (Exod 12:35–36) and the materials used

in construction of the tabernacle (Exod 35:20–29).58 This understanding of the tabernacle

in relation to Egyptian war tents corresponds with Beale’s recapitulation understanding of

chaos and creation.59 As God called Adam to subdue creation in Gen 1:28 in a similar

manner to God’s own submission of creation in Gen 1:3–2:3, he directs Moses and Israel

to subdue creation in route to permanent rest in the Promised Land. In Beale’s words,

“[T]he ‘ruling and subduing’ of Gen 1:28 [after the fall] includes spiritually overcoming

54
Horan, To Your Tents, 74–75.
55
Myung Soo Suh, The Tabernacle in the Narrative History of Israel from the Exodus to the
Conequest, Studies in Biblical Literature 50 (New York: Peter Lang, 2003), 56–60. Suh also notes the
warfare imagery and themes associated with God’s theophanies, such as the trumpet as signalling
instrument, the use of fire and lightning as divine weapons, and the call for men to abstain from sexual
activities; see ibid., 52–54.
56
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 64.
57
Suh, The Tabernacle, 30.
58
Ibid., 35–36.
59
See chapters two and three for further explanation on Beale’s use of recapitulation.

181
the influence of evil in the hearts of unregenerate humanity that has multiplied upon the

earth.”60 Thus, God’s purpose for redeemed humanity as co-regents in creation remains

the same, with the added element of humanity outside of Israel as part of the process of

submission of creation.

The second functional purpose of the tabernacle noted by Beale is the functional

equivalence with the later temple. As with the temple, the tabernacle functioned as

meeting place between God, priest, and humanity. Further, as documented in chapters

two and three of this work, Beale follows Menahem Haran in finding a gradation of

holiness from the holy of holies to the outer courts of the temple.61 Haran also finds these

“grades of sanctity” within the tabernacle, manifested in the prohibitions concerning

touch, sight, and approach.62 It can be assumed that Beale also follows Haran in finding

decreasing gradation of holiness in the tabernacle from the tent of meeting outward, since

the two structures were “functionally identical” within the life of Israel.63 This

understanding corresponds with what Myung Soo Suh calls the cultic purpose of the

tabernacle as the dwelling place of God in the midst of Israel.64 Thus, God’s presence

was most revealed within the tent of meeting, the small sanctuary in the middle of the

tabernacle to which only Moses was granted access. According to Suh, within this

meeting place, God “… would ‘testify’ to Moses about himself, his Law, and his

redemptive deeds for Israel, all of which … demonstrated his presence with the entire

60
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 53. Italics original.
61
Ibid., 32–33; Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1978), 158–188.
62
Ibid., 175.
63
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 293.
64
Suh, The Tabernacle, 56.

182
nation.”65 The purpose of the tabernacle, and particularly the tent of meeting, was thus to

reveal God’s presence with a goal of expanding that presence within creation.

There are certain difficulties for understanding the specific construction of the

tabernacle, namely because of the lack of certain details within Exodus 25–40.66

However, the major features of the tabernacle are clearly explained within the text, and

there are notable similarities between the tabernacle’s architecture and the creation

accounts in Genesis 1–2. John Sailhamer gives several similarities between these

accounts: 1) the seven speech-acts of creation in Gen 1:1–2:3 and the seven speech-acts

of tabernacle construction in Exod 25–31; 2) both Garden of Eden and tabernacle contain

pure gold and precious jewels, and both are guarded by cherubim; 3) the close of the

creation account in Gen 2:1–3 and the close of the tabernacle account in Exod 31:12–18

both end in observations of Sabbath; 4) In both accounts there is inspection and

evaluation of the creations; 5) both accounts precede “fall narratives.”67 Within the

tabernacle architecture the central feature was the tent of meeting, where Moses would

meet with God. Within this tent of meeting the Ark of the Covenant contained the ten

commandments, which are considered as God’s testimony of himself to the people (Exod

25:21).68 The images of two cherubim were placed on top of the Ark, thus signifying a

relation between the tent of meeting as the place of God’s presence and the Garden of

65
Ibid., 119.
66
For a variety of explanations related to the tabernacle’s architecture, see Homan, To Your Tents,
137–185.
67
John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 298–299.
68
Ibid., 119.

183
Eden (guarded by cherubim) as the place of God’s presence.69 Beale also notes the

relation between the presence of God and the testimony of God within the tent of

meeting. He argues that this relation between presence and testimony set the precedent

within Israel for how God’s presence would then spread to the world (in keeping with

Beale’s interpretation of the Gen 1:28 commission). On this relation he writes,

“Consequently, the way God’s presence was to spread out from the holy of holies was for

his people to pay heed to his testimony deposited there by giving testimony in word and

obedient deed before the nations to God’s truth. If Israel did this, it would show that

God’s presence was with them as the enabler of their faithfulness.”70 The presence of

God followed from the testimony of God, so that the presence of God came from the

knowledge of God through his commandment-testimony given to Israel. As shown

below, this has implications for methodological engagement with natural theology.

Beale also finds creation symbolism in the furnishings of the tabernacle and

priestly garments. Within the tent of meeting, sculptures of cherubim surrounded the Ark

of the Covenant and were embroidered onto the curtains separating the tent of meeting

from the holy place (Exod 25:18–21; 26:1, 31).71 The colors of these curtains separating

the tent of meeting also contained creation symbolism, resembling lightning, the sun, the

sky and clouds.72 He also notes that the priests “… were to cover all the furniture of the

69
J. Daniel Hays, The Temple and the Tabernacle: A Study of God’s Dwelling Places From
Genesis to Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016), 38.
70
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 119–120.
71
Ibid., 38.
72
Ibid. Following Josephus, William Johnstone asserts that the colors of the curtains represent
“the four elements of the earth, air, fire, and sea. See William Johnstone, Exodus 20–40, Smyth & Helwys
Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2014), 275; Flavius Josephus, The War of the Jews,
The Works of Flavius Josephus Vol. 1, trans. William Whiston (Nashville: Broadman, 1974), 375.

184
tabernacle with ‘blue’ material when dismantling the tabernacle for transport (Num 4:5–

13).”73 The Ark of the Covenant was itself understood as the footstool of God’s heavenly

throne (1 Chr 28:2).74 Further, the priest’s clothing represented the temple and creation its

symbolism. Beale notes that there were three sections of the priest’s garment to represent

the three sections of the temple/tabernacle. He writes,

First, the outermost part at the bottom (the outer court), on which were sewn
‘pomegranates of blue and purple and scarlet’ along ‘with variegated flowers’
represented the fertile earth. Secondly, the main body of the bluish robe (the holy
place), within which and on the upper part of which are set the jewels, symbolized
the stars that are set in the sky. Thirdly, the square ephod resembles the square
holy of holies, within which were placed the Urim and Thumim, stones
representing God’s revelatory presence (the priest’s crown) with ‘holy to the
Lord’ inscribed on it may represent the divine presence in heaven or above the ark
in the temple’s sanctuary that the ephod symbolized.75

Thus, from feet to head the priest represented the three major areas of the

temple/tabernacle, with certain symbols of creation contained in each one.76

Therefore, within Beale’s interpretation, the tabernacle had functional equivalence

with the later temple in Israel as the place of God’s special presence. As a form of war

tent, the tabernacle continued the eschatological purpose of expanding God’s presence

through redeemed humanity. Also important for this chapter is the relation of the

tabernacle to the knowledge of God and the presence of God, as demonstrated by the Ark

73
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 38.
74
Ibid., 35.
75
Ibid., 39–40.
76
Margaret Barker argues, contra Beale, that the tabernacle contained a two-part representation of
the cosmos rather than three. She writes, “The hekal [Holy Place] represented the Garden of Eden, the
created world, and the holy of holies was heaven, the place of the presence of God.” Margaret Barker, On
Earth as It Is in Heaven: Temple Symbolism in the New Testament (London: T&T Clark, 1995), 8. In
support of Beale’s position is Menahem Haran’s description of the priestly undergarments as composed of
linen, suggesting equivalence “in material and workmanship” to the outer courts, while the overgarments
and ephod are composed gold, linen-wool mixtures, or a combination of gold cords and linen-wool fabric;
see Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel, 171.

185
of the Covenant within the holy of holies. Finally, the tabernacle (like the temple

described below) contained creation symbolism, and thus it demonstrated a conception of

creation in line with God’s special revelation.

Solomon’s Temple as Conveyor of God’s Special Revelation

As noted above, Beale finds functional identity between the wilderness tabernacle and

Solomon’s temple.77 Both structures were meant to convey the revelatory presence of

God from within as the continued means of God’s creational plan to extend his presence

through his people to the entire world. Like the tabernacle, Solomon’s temple contained

three major divisions: holy of holies, holy place, and outer court (2 Chronicles 3–5; 1

Kings 6–7).78 However, similarly to the tabernacle, there is some difficulty in

reconstructing the temple because there is meager architectural evidence and certain

prima facie differences in the 1 Kings 6–7 and 2 Chronicles 3–5 accounts.79 Important for

77
Ibid., 293.
78
Ibid., 32–33. See also H. H. Rowley, Worship in Ancient Israel: Its Forms and Meanings
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 79–80; Smith, The House of the Lord, 153–158. Daniel Hays notes
certain important differences between the construction of the tabernacle and temple, including the role of
God in construction, the attitudes of Israelites regarding the construction, the identity and training of the
craftsmen, and the materials used in construction. Hays argues that the author of 1–2 Kings “employs the
differences we have observed to continue his serious and negative critique of Solomon [as disobedient
king];” see Hays, The Temple and the Tabernacle, 68–87. However, none of these differences subtract from
Beale’s observance of functional identity related to the presence of God in tabernacle and temple.
Victor Hurowitz argues that 1 Kings 3–9 represents a literary “building” genre that is used across a
wide spectrum of ANE texts for a variety of purposes, including: 1) building or restoring of a building; 2)
preparation for the project; 3) description of the building process; 4) dedication of the building through
population, celebration, and ritual; 5) a prayer for blessing; see Hurowitz, I Have Built You An Exalted
House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings, Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 115 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 311–
312. Hans Barstad responds to Hurowitz’s research by emphasizing that even in the employment of a
building genre, there is “little cause to deny the existence of Solomon or the fact that he built a temple in
ancient Israel.” See Hans M. Barstad, History and the Hebrew Bible, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 61
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 20.
79
Victor Hurowitz, “YHWH’s Exalted House,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel:
Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament
Studies 422 (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 66–67.

186
Beale’s project, though, are the features of the temple that are reminiscent of the Garden

of Eden and thus reveal similar purpose between the Garden and temple within creation.

Notably, Beale finds prominent creation symbolism within the temple’s

architecture and decoration.80 First, Beale finds resonance between the temple’s outer

court and the visible earth and sea in the description of the courtyard wash-basins and

altar as the ‘sea’ and ‘bosom of the earth’ (1 Kgs 7:23–26; Ezek 43:14). Also, the figures

of twelve bulls, which seem “to present a partial and miniature model of land and life

surrounding the seas of the earth,” were used to support the large wash-basin in the outer

court (2 Chr 4:2–5).81 Second, Beale finds resonance between the temple’s holy place and

the visible sky in the description of the lamps on the lampstand (2 Chr 4:7; 1 Kgs 7:49),

representing light-sources in association with Genesis 1.82 Third, Beale finds resonance

between the temple’s holy of holies and the unseen heavenly dimension of the world in

the description of sculpted cherubim around the Ark of the Covenant (1 Kgs 6:23–28).83

Also, within the holy of holies, the Ark of the Covenant was understood as the footstool

of God’s heavenly throne (1 Chr 28:2).84 As mentioned above, Beale also finds resonance

between the priest’s clothing and the three-division structure of the temple. Each of these

features represents creation through its symbolism of the Garden of Eden as holy place

within the surrounding creation.

80
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 32–45.
81
Ibid., 34. See also Hurowitz, “YHWH’s Exalted House,” 82.
82
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 34; see also Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, “Solomon’s
Temple: The Politics of Ritual Space,” in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of
Israel, ed. Barry Gittlen (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 88–89.
83
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 35. see also Bloch-Smith, “Solomon’s Temple,”
85.
84
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 35–36.

187
 As with Beale’s interpretation of Eden as holy of holies in Genesis 2 and the tent

of meeting in the tabernacle, he understands the holy of holies in Solomon’s temple as the

conveyor of God’s special revelation to the high priest, who acted as mediator of God’s

presence to other Israelites, who in turn were to act as God’s mediators “… in spreading

the light of God’s tabernacling presence to the rest of the dark world.”85 This idea of holy

of holies as conveyor of God’s special revelation is most clearly seen in the dedication of

the temple in 1 Kgs 8:10–13, where a cloud associated with God’s glory filled the temple

upon Solomon’s dedication. Beale notes that this cloud was identified with the visible

heavens, but also quite likely identified with the invisible heaven that represents the

presence of God.86 This cloud-covering association with God’s glory is also reminiscent

of the cloud that covered Sinai and the tabernacle, thus connecting each of them with the

heavenly presence of God and, therefore, the dwelling place of God.87 In particular, the

holy of holies “was the actual place where the heavenly dimension extended down to

earth,” setting it apart from any other place in creation as the means to access God’s

presence.88 This idea of divine revelatory presence is also found in other ANE temple

writings, and thus can be compared and contrasted with the biblical writings.

Beale notes that ANE temples often exhibited the same three-part structures as

Solomon’s temple, including the outer court, inner court, and holy of holies.89 As an

85
Ibid., 117.
86
Ibid., 36–37. Following Vern Poythress, Beale gives Ps 19:1–6 as one example of the visible
heavens pointing to the invisible heavens of God’s glory; see Vern Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the
Law of Moses (Brentwood: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991), 17–18.
87
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 37.
88
Ibid., 134. Here Beale cites Isa 66:1; 1 Chr 28:2; Ps 99:5; 132:7; Lam 2:1, each of which speaks
of the earth as God’s footstool.
89
Ibid., 54.

188
example, he describes Egyptian temples in the New Kingdom period (1570 BC), which

“… exhibited an increasing gradation in sacredness beginning with the outer court and

proceeding to a zone of greater holiness and then climaxing in an inner womb-like

sanctuary.”90 ANE scholar Michael Hundley corroborates this assessment, finding three

major units in the “Standard Temple Plans” of Egyptian temples in this period: a large

open-air court, a hypostyle hall, and a temple core which housed the divine statue.91 The

divine statue within the sanctuary “… was the Egyptian solution to divine absence, a way

to localize the deity within the human sphere, at the heart of human community.”92 Here,

similarly to the OT description of divine presence in the temple, the divine presence was

specifically represented within the inner core of the temple. Also, as in the Bible, the

divine presence was not contained within the temple, which acted as a connecting point

for the true presence of the deity in the heavenly abode.93 Further, Hundley finds within

the architecture and furnishings of these Egyptian temples the symbolic representation of

“the initial act of creation and the ideal world it created.”94

However, in distinction from Egyptian temples, there was no physical

representation (such as Egyptian statues) of YHWH within Solomon’s temple, but rather

90
Ibid. For a historical survey of the archaic period, old kingdom, middle kingdom, new kingdom,
and late period in Egypt, see Glenn S. Holland, Gods in the Desert: Religions of the Ancient Near East
(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009), 3–14.
91
Michael B. Hundley, Gods in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near
East, Writings from the Ancient World Supplement Series 3 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013),
27; Hundley, ibid., 19–26, diagrams several Egyptian temples.
92
Ibid., 42. See also David Lorton, “The Theology of Cult Statues in Ancient Egypt,” in Born in
Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, ed. Michael B. Dick
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 123–210.
93
Hundley, Gods in Dwellings, 46.
94
Ibid., 45.

189
the Ark of the Covenant functioned as royal footstool.95 One implication of this

distinction involves the different roles of priests within Egypt and Israel. In Egypt, part of

the daily priestly ritual involved waking, washing, feeding, dressing, and anointing the

god in the form of his temple statue.96 As Hundley comments on the reason for this daily

ritual, “On a fundamental level, the Egyptians pictured their gods as human-like with

human-like needs. As such, Egyptians crafted their temples and temple service to meet

the deities’ human-like needs and appetites.”97 This marks a clear distinction between

Egyptian and Israelite priestly rituals, because for Israelite priests there was no

representational object for YHWH and he did not have human-like needs to be met.

Rather, within the OT, the only representative image of God was humanity itself, which

Beale distinguishes from human-made idols primarily through the related Genesis 1–3

concepts of image-bearing and life.98 Whereas God brings life to those who reflect his

image, idols are lifeless and bring death to idolaters.99 Thus, the presence of God was not

contained or embodied by a statue representation, but was encountered within the temple

by his worshippers.100 This notion is important for considering the revelatory function of

the temple within Beale’s cosmic-temple interpretation, which provides natural links with

certain issues related to natural theology discussed below.

95
Holland, Gods in the Desert, 260.
96
David Lorton, “The Theology of Cult Statues,” 133.
97
Hundley, Gods in Dwellings, 44.
98
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 358–368.

190
 Summary of G. K. Beale’s Interpretation

G. K. Beale presents a series of temple designs, moving from the cosmic-temple in

Genesis 1–2 to Solomon’s temple in Israel in 2 Chronicles 3–5 and 1 Kings 6–7. Within

Beale’s interpretation, the relation between creation and temple does not stop in Genesis

3, but continues in the similar designs of the tabernacle and temple. As examined above,

both structures featured creation symbolism that was meant to call to the mind the

goodness and importance of creation in relation to God’s presence. However, In Beale’s

development of the temple motif, there is an implication that revelation is not inherent

within nature, but rather it is given by God in proximity to his presence, and thus the

further removed from the presence of God, the more that revelation will be marred, as

can be demonstrated by the similarities and differences between Israel’s temple and other

ANE temples.101 Other nations outside of Israel built temples that had important

similarities, particularly related to holy space and the separation of distinct sections,

moving from inner holy of holies (generally accessible to only certain members of

society) to outer courts (generally accessible to a wider spectrum of the public as they

participate in religious rituals). For Beale, the reason for the similarities between these

temples and the Israelite temple is the revelatory notion of temples as microcosms of

creation.102 Before the fall, as Adam dwelt in close proximity to divine presence, the

revelatory significance of divine space within creation was clear, but after the fall this

99
Ibid., 363.
100
For statues as embodiments of deities, see Hundley, Gods in Dwellings, 199–200.
101
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 29–31; this idea will be analyzed more fully
below in theological assessment.
102
Ibid., 29.

191
revelatory knowledge was marred and thus distanced from its true meaning. Revelation is

closely related to knowledge, which itself is closely related to participation in God. Thus,

participation in God is a key requisite for revelatory knowledge about God. The further

removed from God’s presence, the more distorted this knowledge becomes. Also, this

marred revelatory knowledge partly concerns nature itself, providing distorted lenses

from which to gauge the purposes and order of nature as creation. On the reverse side,

close proximity to divine presence enables correction to this distortion of the purposes

and order of nature as creation.

Within this interpretation, the importance of the temple as revelatory conveyor of

God’s presence becomes obvious as the temple design is God’s continual choice of self-

revelation to Israel. However, Beale’s interpretation is not simply of historical

importance for understanding Israel’s temple, but presents God’s revelatory design for all

of creation in that Israel is called to extend God’s revelatory presence outward from the

temple to the rest of creation, thus making all of creation in effect a temple. There are

clear eschatological implications from Beale’s interpretation which will be the focus of

the following chapter, but there are also implications for natural theology.

To summarize, Beale’s account presents knowledge of creation not as

independently known by humans, but as grounded in revelation. As described in Beale’s

account of ANE temple-building as reflections of marred revelation, God revealed the

order and purposes for creation within original humanity as a constitutive element of their

imago dei role in expanding God’s presence to all creation. Thus, according to Beale,

while creation portrayed a macrocosmic temple in Genesis 1–2, the temple itself was a

192
microcosm of creation in the Old Testament. The temple could therefore be considered as

an interpretive key for understanding the order and purposes of the world within

postlapsarian creation. In terms related to systematic theology, within Beale’s cosmic-

temple motif, natural theology is grounded in revelation. These ideas have close parallels

within recent accounts of natural theology, particularly in the Reformed stream following

Karl Barth’s rejection of natural theology.

Theological Application of G. K. Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Motif

Moving from biblical theology to systematic theology, G. K. Beale’s theological

development of the temple finds significant parallels with Karl Barth, Colin Gunton, and

Alister McGrath as revelation-based theological accounts of nature. It is therefore

important to analyze certain themes within each of these accounts, such as the ways that

Gunton and McGrath distinguish themselves from Barth while also holding to certain key

insights from his work, in order to demonstrate how Beale’s model agrees with and can

add to these treatments of nature through his fuller development of the temple as a key

theme in the Old Testament related to creation. Beale’s implication of the temple as

interpretive key for creation will be of particular importance for demonstrating the

possibilities of the temple motif to inform natural theology, an idea underutilized in other

engagements.

Karl Barth’s Antithetical Distinction Between Natural Theology and Revelation

Karl Barth places a sharp distinction between natural theology and revelation, two

doctrinal ideas that he believes can only oppose each other within Christian theology.

Barth’s most famous construal of this distinction is in his reply to Emil Brunner, Nein!, in
193
which he lambasts natural theology as abstract speculation far removed from the doctrine

of revelation of God in Jesus Christ.103 In Barth’s understanding, natural theology begins

with “alien principles,” rather than the revelation of Jesus Christ.104 This rejection of

natural theology is in lockstep with Barth’s rejection of an analogia entis, which he

believes subsumes God’s being into a general ontological category of being, thus giving

analogical basis for human knowledge of God.105 In the exchange with Barth, Brunner

proposes an analogia entis based upon an ontological interpretation of the imago dei in

Gen 1:26–27, which functions as a point of contact between God and nature.106 For

Barth, who rejects ontological conceptions of the imago dei, this rendering gives

autonomous human reason independent access to God through natural theology.107 One

of Barth’s great concerns in this twin rejection of natural theology and an analogia entis

is to maintain a vision of God’s being as distinct from created reality, thus making God’s

being ontologically discontinuous from any creaturely being.108

In distinction from the interrelated concepts natural theology and analogia entis,

Barth posits that God reveals himself through an analogia fidei, a “point of contact,”

established solely by God.109 In Barth’s words, “Between our views, concepts and words,

103
Barth, No!, 75.
104
Barth, CD I/1, 6; quoted in Diller, Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma, 69.
105
Diller, Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma, 246. For a detailed treatment of Karl Barth’s
rejection of an analogia entis, see also Keith L. Johnson, Karl Barth and the Analogia Entis, T&T Clark
Studies in Systematic Theology (London: T&T Clark, 2010).
106
Brunner, Nature and Grace, 40–42; for an account of the debate sympathetic to Brunner’s
position, see McGrath, The Open Secret, 159–164.
107
On Barth’s conception of the imago dei, Andrew Gabriel writes, “[I]n contrast to those who
have argued that the image of God consists of a quality in each person, Barth argues that the image of God
is relational, consisting of one’s relationship with God and with other people.” See Gabriel, Barth’s
Doctrine of Creation: Creation, Nature, Jesus, and the Trinity (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), 67.
108
Johnson, Karl Barth and the Analogia Entis, 158.
109
Ibid., 168.

194
and God as their object, there exists, on the basis of the revelation of God, the

relationship of analogy, of similarity, of partial correspondence and agreement.”110 God is

known through his self-revelation, and concepts are subsequently developed to

analogously speak of the revealed God. Thus, for Barth, all concepts are one step

removed from the self-revelation of God and are therefore always both necessary and

insufficient. Barth views Scripture, which acts as a witness to God’s self-revelation in

Christ, in just this manner. For Barth, the Old Testament is “the witness to the genuine

expectation of revelation.”111 He distinguishes this definition from the New Testament,

which he labels a witness to the fulfillment of revelation in Christ.112 Thus, the unity of

the two testaments is provided in Christ, of whom the entire Bible acts as witness, in OT

expectation and NT fulfillment. However, in distinction from the New Testament,

revelation in the Old Testament is only a partial indication, proceeding from the “hidden

God,” of the fulfillment of revelation in Christ.113 This partial revelation is most

prominently given in the covenant, of which Barth finds manifestations in each individual

covenant of Israel.114 Barth also finds within each of the major themes and ideas of the

Old Testament “an eschatological thread” moving towards the realized covenant between

God and man in Christ.115 So for Barth, the people of Israel, the land of Israel, the temple

in Israel, the lordship of God over Israel, the judgment of Israel, and the kings of Israel all

have reality within themselves, but point forward in expectation to ultimate fulfillment of

110
Barth, CD I/1, 227.
111
Barth, CD I/2, 70.
112
Ibid.
113
Ibid., 86.
114
Ibid., 82.
115
Ibid., 95.

195
their purpose in Christ.116 This Israel-centered revelation begins for Barth in Genesis 1–2,

which closely ties creation with Israel’s history. Barth finds close parallels between

Adam and Israel, between the Garden of Eden and the Promised Land, and between the

trees in the Garden of Eden and God’s revelation to Israel.117 Thus, the meaning and

purpose of creation is revealed in a partial sense within Israel’s history and status and

fully in the incarnation of Christ. In Barth’s words, “Jesus Christ is the Word by which

the knowledge of creation is mediated to us because He is the Word by which God has

fulfilled creation and continually maintains and rules it.”118 In both OT and NT, the path

of revelation moves from above to below, so that even the mediums of revelation—Israel,

land, temple, etc.—are not revelatory by nature or in independence of God, but only

through God’s revelatory action upon them.119 Bruce McCormack gives two conceptions

of mediums of revelation that Barth specifically rejects in Der Romerbrief,

It is conceivable that a medium could function as a medium solely by virtue of its

existence as such and our innate capacity to ‘see through it’, so to speak. It is also
conceivable that a medium of revelation, having no capacity in itself to be such,
might be granted such a capacity by grace, through a past revelation-event, so that
where once it had no capacity to be a bearer of revelation, it has now acquired
such a capacity through the use which God has made of it in bearing witness to
Himself in the past. Both of these understandings are roundly rejected by Barth.120

Rather, for Barth, mediums of revelation are veils that make the unintuitable intuitable

through an event-oriented act of God (signifying its specific rather than general nature)

116
Ibid., 95–101.
117
Barth, CD III/1, 268–269.
118
Ibid., 27.
119
See Kevin Diller, Theology’s Epistemic Dilemma, 46 fn. 14.
120
Bruce McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and
Development 1909–1936 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 250.

196
that makes the veil transparent to the recipient of revelation.121 Thus, the revelation

belongs to God and not to any object or being in ontological distinction to God’s being.

Once again the reasons for Barth’s rejection of natural theology and an analogia entis are

clear, because Barth posits that acceptance of these concepts would make a created

reality, rather than God, responsible for revelation.

Barth’s revelatory-based approach to theological knowledge has found a

following in several important natural theologies, such as those of Colin Gunton and

Alister McGrath. However, both of these scholars have critiqued Barth’s position in

important ways that enable them to move toward more positive assessments of natural

theology. Gunton holds a more positive assessment than Barth of the potential of natural

theology in disclosing truth about God and the world, although firmly entrenched in a

doctrine of revelation.122 Further, Gunton accuses Barth of proposing unmediated

knowledge of God, by which God directly reveals himself to the recipient apart from

means of knowledge.123 Of particular concern to Gunton is Barth’s lack of trinitarian

mediation in this conception of unmediated revelation. Gunton follows Alan Spence, who

argues that “… Barth’s insistence that God is revealed through God … detracts from the

121
Ibid. McCormack here is summarizing from Karl Barth, Der Romerbrief 1922 (Zurich: TVZ,
1940), 73–80.
122
Gunton offers critiques of portions of Barth’s position throughout A Brief Theology of
Revelation, although it is clear from this work and others that Gunton has an overall positive assessment of
Barth’s theological project and portions of his position on revelation; for Gunton’s detailed historical
summary and assessment of Barth’s doctrine of revelation, see also Colin E. Gunton, Revelation and
Reason: Prolegomena to Systematic Theology, ed. P. H. Brazier (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2008), 140–189.
123
Gunton, A Brief Theology of Revelation, 3–4. Barth’s account of revelation and knowledge in
Barth, CD I/1, 226–227, seems to open him up to just this sort of critique.

197
incarnational and pneumatological mediation of revelation.”124 Gunton notes that even if

Barth holds to mediated revelation by the humanity of Christ, his account of revelation

minimizes humanity and thus implicitly poses a distinction between the Word of God and

Jesus the man.125 Alister McGrath similarly notes problems with Barth’s doctrine of

revelation, particularly in the place that Barth gives it within his theological system.

Significantly, McGrath argues that, in a rightful rejection of anthropocentric theology,

Barth gives the doctrine of revelation primacy of place over the doctrine of soteriology.126

This criticism is important because it highlights Barth’s understanding of revelation, with

God revealing himself, rather than truth about himself, to the recipient of revelation. This

critique is therefore in lock-step with Gunton’s critique of Barth’s unmediated account of

revelation. Gunton and McGrath also both critique Barth’s rejection of analogical relation

between God and world. Remarking on Barth’s accusation that this analogical relation is

idolatrous because it brackets God and creation in the same ontological category, Gunton

notes that “any concept used analogously will attempt something of the kind.”127

Therefore, there is a place within theology for analogous consideration of God and world,

though Gunton offers limitations on this idea through his use of transcendentals, an idea

developed below. McGrath also distinguishes his view of natural theology from Barth in

part by his openness to an analogia entis. McGrath presents an analogia entis that

124
Ibid., 5. Gunton is here paraphrasing from Alan Spence, “Christ’s Humanity and Ours,” in
Persons, Divine and Human: King’s College Essays in Theological Anthopology, Colin E. Gunton and
Christoph Schwöbel, eds. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992), 89.
125
Gunton, A Brief Theology of Revelation, 5.
126
Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2nd ed
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 363.
127
Colin E. Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many: God, Creation and the Culture of
Modernity: The 1992 Bampton Lectures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 138.

198
emphasizes the ontological distinction between God and creation, yet asserts that the

world has “a created capacity … to model God.”128 Therefore, as with Gunton, there is a

place for an analogical development of this relation. For both Gunton and McGrath, there

are opportunities for developing conceptions of natural theology through developments of

the doctrine of revelation that enable true knowledge of the world and God’s relation to

the world through available mediated concepts. As will be emphasized below, Beale can

add to these accounts because neither one acknowledges the place of the temple in this

mediation within Scripture.

Colin Gunton’s Revelation-Based Natural Theology

Following Barth, Colin Gunton sets his account of revelatory knowledge of God within a

wider account of revelation, which he defines generally as “the making known of that

which otherwise remains hidden or unknown.”129 For interpersonal relationships, this

requires the persons opening up themselves to be known. However, according to Gunton,

this is also true of self-knowledge because it is impossible to know the self apart from

mediated relationships with others.130 Extending beyond human relationships, Gunton

argues that even scientific knowledge of the natural world is mediated knowledge in two

important ways. First, scientific knowledge is mediated through theories, and second, it is

mediated by the ways parts of the world act in experiments.131 Thus, no direct knowledge

128
McGrath, The Open Secret, 189.
129
Colin Gunton, A Brief Theology of Revelation, 68.
130
Ibid., 24.
131
Ibid., 27–28. In Colin E. Gunton, The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Study, New
Studies in Constructive Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 136–138, Gunton further argues that
scientific knowledge of the world through developed concepts and metaphors demonstrates the possibility
of knowledge and also the need for mediation.

199
of the world is immediately available by intuition, and therefore all knowledge requires

mediation.132 Gunton makes this argument for a general conception of mediated

revelation in order to lay the groundwork for the following understanding of theological

revelation.

For Gunton, this general account of revelation is important because it signifies

that “there can be revelation because the world is so made that it may be known,” a claim

which invokes a doctrine of creation undergirding a doctrine of revelation.133 In short, the

type of doctrine of creation that Gunton affirms teaches of a rationally operating world

that can be explored and known, and thus a world that makes revelation possible. This

idea links the doctrine of creation with the ideas of general revelation and divine grace,

which together insist that knowledge of God is available in creation.134 For Gunton, the

world’s discontinuity, rather than continuity, with God in its ontological otherness—

including its intrinsic rationality, its cultural framework, and its combination of unity and

diversity (thus exhibiting analogies with the trinitarian being of God)—reveals its

createdness.135 However, Gunton distinguishes general revelation from human reason,

which grounds certain conceptions of natural theology. Of this distinction, Gunton writes,

“God may be revealed in the things that have been made, but it does not follow that the

discernment of this truth is achievable by unaided reason alone.”136 Thus there is a circle

132
Gunton, A Brief Theology of Revelation, 34. Gunton is here building on the work of Michael
Polanyi, who emphasizes the embodied character of all knowing, in his argument that if knowledge is
embodied, then it is mediated; see Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical
Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015).
133
Ibid., 33. Also important in Gunton’s work are the doctrines of anthropology and
pneumatology as sources of mediation in revelation.
134
Ibid., 40–50.
135
Ibid., 61–62.
136
Ibid., 55.
200
of knowledge, with knowledge of general revelation itself being given through special

revelation. Gunton also finds a circle between revelation and the doctrine of creation.

Specifically, as noted above, a doctrine of revelation is grounded in a doctrine of

creation. However, a doctrine of creation is available only through revelation, so that

apart from God’s revelation it is impossible to come to understanding of creation. Of this

circle, Gunton writes,

The doctrine of revelation—the general concept of revelation … —depends upon

the doctrine of creation, for it is an implication of that doctrine’s affirmation of
the reality and meaningfulness, both in itself and to the human mind, of the world
as God’s world. Yet the doctrine of creation is itself the product of revelation for
… without revelation we should not have a doctrine of creation. Is the circle a
vicious one? Not if one important point is made... The solution is to realise that
the two doctrines, of creation and revelation, are to be understood at different
levels. The doctrine of creation is a material teaching, which, if we are orthodox
Christians, we have come to hold, not irrationally, but not on the basis of
autonomous reason either. By contrast, the doctrine of revelation tells us where
the belief in creation has come from: that is to say, it gives some reasons for
holding beliefs that cannot be discovered by ourselves.137

As Gunton remarks, the circle is not vicious because the doctrines make sense of each

other. It could be said that between the two doctrines there is both internal coherence and

correspondence with reality.

When it comes to the specific sources of theological revelation, Gunton articulates

a doctrine of revelatory authority of Scripture in that it “reveals things that are to be

found nowhere else.”138 However, Gunton goes beyond this idea of Scripture as

providing unique information to speak of Scripture as bearing salvific knowledge,

knowledge of God, and knowledge of humanity.139 Thus, for Gunton, “the distinct mark

137
Ibid., 58.
138
Ibid., 72.
139
Ibid., 73.
201
of the revelatory character of the Bible is its relation to salvation in Christ the mediator of

salvation.”140 While this focus on revelation of Christ’s mediation is New Testament-

centered, Gunton also explains the Old Testament’s revelatory character in relation to the

prophets who mediated the word of God in their cultures and in relation to the writers of

the Old Testament who functioned as the markers of the “historic community called by

God to be a light to the nations and the people out of whom Jesus of Nazareth came.”141

Unfortunately, Gunton’s comments on the Old Testament’s revelatory character are

limited in his treatment of revelation in A Brief Theology of Revelation, and further muted

by his notation of the difficulties in discerning the Old Testament’s revelatory character

because of what he sees as the need to make choices concerning the validity of the full

Old Testament record, including what he calls “the less acceptable sides of the record.”142

However, in another work, Christ and Creation, Gunton further explains the revelatory

character of the Old Testament in the anticipatory sense of God’s revelation in Christ. He

gives three ways that the New Testament signifies Christ’s lordship in continuity with

and fulfillment of Old Testament themes: first, Christ is the culmination of “patterns of

divine-human action” begun by priestly and kingly figures in the OT; second, Christ

reestablishes and perfects “the dominion given to the first human creatures” in Genesis

1–2; third, Christ exemplifies the OT idea that God orders and sustains creation in all its

complexities.143 Thus, Christ acts as the interpretive key for understanding important OT

140
Ibid.
141
Ibid., 78–79.
142
Ibid., 79.
143
Colin E. Gunton, Christ and Creation: The Didsbury Lectures 1990 (Eugene, OR: Wipf &
Stock, 1992), 18–20. Gunton builds on the research of H. H. Schmid, “Creation, Righteousness, Salvation:
‘Creation Theology’ as the Broad Horizon of Biblical Theology," in Creation and the Old Testament, ed.
Bernard Anderson (London: SPCK, 1979), 102–117.
202
themes concerning God’s relation to humanity and wider creation. Further, within this

interpretation of the OT, there is a close relation between Israel and wider creation. God

mediates knowledge of himself, the framework for creation, and his purposes for creation

through various components of Israelite society.

However, what can be added to Gunton’s account is the idea that Christ embodies

the temple, and thus also fulfills a priestly role in the incarnation. As will be

demonstrated from Beale in chapter five, there is an important place for conceptualizing

Christ’s priestly status in accordance with the role of the temple in Israel.144 Further,

Gunton’s construction of the Old Testament’s anticipatory character in revelation limits

the possibilities for understanding the Old Testament as inspired Scripture, and thus

limits the contributions it can make to a theology of nature. As Gabriel Fackre notes

concerning the further revelatory Old Testament possibilities in his review of A Brief

Theology of Revelation, “[Gunton’s work] lacks an overarching theology of revelation

that warrants the incorporation of the variety of elements Gunton rightly seeks to include.

(He has the potential for such a conception in the biblical macro-narrative to which

fugitive reference is made).”145 Thus, Gunton goes further than Barth in producing a

conceptual framework for understanding a doctrine of revelation undergirded by a

doctrine of creation, but there is room within his account for an expanded understanding

of the Old Testament’s revelatory purposes.

144
On this subject, Terry J. Wright uses Beale to detail the relation between creation, temple, and
Christ as temple embodiment in a doctrine of divine providence; see Wright, Providence Made Flesh:
Divine Presence as a Framework for a Theology of Providence, Paternoster Theological Monographs
(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 114.
145
Gabriel Fackre, Review of A Brief Theology of Revelation. Pro Ecclesia 6 (1997): 119–120.
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 23, 2017).

203
 As noted above, Gunton also distinguishes himself from Barth in his openness to

analogical relation between God and creation. However, because Gunton holds the

otherness of God and the necessity of mediation as necessary theological positions, he

does not hold to a straightforward analogy between the being of creation and the being of

God.146 Rather, Gunton argues that there are notions contained in the fabric of reality

which point to universal truth, a concept he labels open transcendentals.147 Summarizing

Gunton’s thought, Lincoln Harvey clarifies transcendentals as “… those universal

features of the world, the description of which is an attempt to capture conceptually the

true nature of reality.”148 Following Aquinas, Gunton stresses the analogical character of

likeness between God’s being and the world, where “… the relations between finite and

infinite are made conceivable, while the otherness of God and the world is also

preserved.”149 The emphasis on analogy allows the transcendentals to be developed based

upon God’s own being and action in the world, while also stressing the deep mystery of

God’s being as distinct from the being of the world. Hence, the Trinity itself is not a

transcendental, because it characterizes the being and otherness of God. Rather, the

Trinity produces transcendentals, which reflect His being in some fashion. Gunton writes,

“The expectation is that if the triune God is the source of all being, meaning and truth we

must suppose that all being will in some way reflect the being of the one who made it and

146
For more on Gunton’s use of analogy, see Christoph Schwöbel, “The Shape of Colin Gunton’s
Theology: On the Way Towards a Fully Trinitarian Theology,” The Theology of Colin Gunton, ed. Lincoln
Harvey (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2010), 197.
147
Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many, 136.
148
Lincoln Harvey, “The Double Homoousion: Forming the Content of Gunton’s Theology” in
The Theology of Colin Gunton, ed. Lincoln Harvey (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2010), 88.
149
Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many, 138.

204
holds its being.”150 Gunton draws on Rom 1:20 to establish this point, which states that

God’s nature can be perceived in His creation. Although the world is only marked

analogically to God’s being because of its constitutional limitations in time and space, the

concept is still useful to understand the being of the world and the relations of beings

within the world. However, following Barth, Gunton does not give human reason access

to the meaning of transcendentals apart from revelation. Gunton notes both his

similarities and distinctions from Barth in this regard when he writes,

Barth is right in arguing that by reason of human finitude and sin there is need for
revelation if God is to be known as he truly is. He is also right, I believe, in
arguing that such knowledge cannot be merely a human achievement, but rather
must, as a human achievement, also be the gift of the Holy Spirit. But I believe
that we can go further and hold that links can and may be drawn between the
articulated theological implications of revelation and all other intellectual, moral
and aesthetic concerns. Revelation speaks to and constitutes human reason, but in
such a way as to liberate the energies that are inherent in created rationality.151

So for Gunton, there is wider use of revelation than proposed by Barth. The Holy Spirit

uses means of revelation, such as human reason and the natural world itself, in order to

give knowledge of God and creation. This knowledge is not available independently

through human reason, but comes solely as the gifting of the Holy Spirit.

Alister McGrath’s Revelation-Based Natural Theology

One of the foremost advocates of natural theology, albeit in modified definition, in

modern theological engagement is Alister McGrath. In four recent monographs, McGrath

has posited a distinct and limited approach to natural theology that shares important

150
Ibid., 145.
151
Ibid., 211–212.

205
presuppositions with a theology of nature.152 Across these works, McGrath follows C. S.

Lewis’s dictum, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen—not only

because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.”153 For McGrath, this means “…

set[ting] out the Christian view that belief in God illuminates the intellectual landscape,

allowing things to be seen in their true perspective, so that the inner coherence of reality

may be appreciated.”154 Going beyond Barth, McGrath holds to the possibility of this

revelatory framework presenting truths about nature, particularly related to its ontological

wholeness, and truths about God’s being and action.

Similarly to Gunton, McGrath affirms a positive role for analogy based upon

revelation that enables perception of creation.155 This revelation-based perception is

particularly important for McGrath’s natural theology project. He refers to the dilemma

of human perception of nature as that “… which identifies its constituent parts, yet fails

to discern its meaning—the ‘big picture’ which transcends its individual components.”156

This need for revelation-based perception is due to the ambiguous nature of nature.

McGrath believes there are at least three concepts of nature that have been adopted

152
Although McGrath previously considered natural theology in several of his works, his renewed
natural theology project finds its starting point in Alister E. McGrath, The Open Secret: A New Vision for
Natural Theology (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008). He followed this work with two related, overlapping
projects, including Alister E. McGrath, A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and
Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009); and Alister E. McGrath, Darwinism and the Divine:
Evolutionary Thought and Natural Theology (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011). His most recent work
on natural theology is the previously mentioned McGrath, Re-Imagining Nature, which synthesizes the
content of the aforementioned works.
153
C. S. Lewis, “Is Theology Poetry?,” in Essay Collection and Other Short Pieces (London:
HarperCollins, 2000), 21; quoted in McGrath, The Open Secret, 17; McGrath, A Fine-Tuned Universe, 21;
McGrath, Re-Imagining Nature, 26.
154
McGrath, The Open Secret, 17.
155
McGrath notes the “dogmatic relocation of the concept of natural theology from the domain of
‘the natural’ to that of ‘the revealed’” in McGrath, Re-Imagining Nature, 4.
156
Ibid., 198; see also James K. Dew, Jr., Science and Theology: An Assessment of Alister
McGrath’s Critical Realist Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 79–80.

206
throughout history: a realist concept that refers to structures, processes, and causal

powers studied by natural sciences; a metaphysical concept that refers to humans positing

their nature and identity in relation to the non-human world; and a surface concept that

refers to the ordinary observable features of the world.157 McGrath himself argues that

nature is a socially-constructed concept, and no self-evidently correct definition of it can

serve as the basis for a system of thought.158 Rather, history shows a fluent understanding

of nature. According to McGrath, “There is no self-evidently correct definition of

‘nature’ which has been accepted at all times, in all places, and by all people—or

anything even approaching such a consensus. The history of the concept of nature

demonstrates that a wide variety of concepts have been developed, discarded, invented

and reinvented, throughout the long period of human reflection on the world around

them.”159 Therefore, understanding nature involves an interpretive process by which the

seer brings presuppositions to the task of organizing the sensory data. McGrath here

grounds Christian understanding of natural theology within the concept of revelation. In

particular, he cites the doctrine of the incarnation as demonstrating “the capacity of the

natural to disclose the divine” based upon God’s revelation in Christ.160 Thus, the

incarnation provides the foundation for understanding perception within McGrath’s

“renewed natural theology” project.161 Within his ministry, Jesus often appealed to parts

157
Alister McGrath, A Scientific Theology: Nature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 82.
158
Ibid., 88.
159
Alister McGrath, The Science of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 36–37.
160
McGrath, The Open Secret, 15.
161
Ibid., 208.

207
of nature to both disclose and conceal the divine. McGrath finds this idea particularly

apparent in Jesus’s parables, of which he writes,

The parables of Jesus thus make it clear that the empirical world—the ordinary,
unsanitized, everyday domain of human experience—can function as a channel
for the good news of the kingdom of God, when appropriately interpreted. That
belief lies at the heart of a Christian natural theology. Yet the correct
interpretation of nature is not self-evident. Nature is a “mystery,” something that
needs to be disclosed. It is an “open secret,” a publicly accessible entity with a
hidden inner meaning. Nature can indeed tell us about God—but only if it is seen
in a certain light, which is not self-evident.162

Thus, for McGrath, natural theology is capable of disclosing God as it is approached

through God’s revelation in Christ.

McGrath ties his incarnational understanding of natural theology closely to a

particular understanding of the imago dei as “enactive nature,” mirroring God’s enactive

nature.163 This understanding is similar in important ways to Beale’s own understanding

of the imago dei as representational.164 McGrath argues that in the Old and New

Testaments, God is presented through his actions, such as his rescue of Israel from

Egyptian bondage, his rescue of Israel from Babylonian exile, his shepherding of Israel,

his incarnation, and his redemption.165 In bearing the imago dei, humans are called to

replicate this divine activity, including divine creativity. Related to perception of nature,

McGrath states, “God and humanity are not to be understood as mutual observers, but as

mutual actors or agents.”166 McGrath points to God’s creative activity and Jesus’s

162
Ibid., 125.
163
Ibid., 196.
164
For a treatment of Beale’s interpretation of the imago dei in Gen 1:26–27, see chapter 3 of this
work.
165
McGrath, The Open Secret, 196. For a similar understanding from a biblical theology
perspective, see John H. Walton, Old Testament Theology For Christians: From Ancient Context to
Enduring Belief (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017), 46.
166
Ibid.
208
miracles as two ways that God acts as active agent in creation. In both God’s creative

activity and Jesus’s miracles, nature is subdued under the authority of God in order to

reveal divine mastery over creation.167

Beyond these implications, McGrath also emphasizes the importance of place

within the incarnation. Jesus entered into a world ripe with interpretation, meaning,

symbols, and particular involvement with creation. In McGrath’s words, “God enters into

a world shaped by memory, and invested with value and meaning—rather than into an

abstract four-dimensional realm.”168 Within Israel’s history, this means that Jesus’

ministry involved “the inhabitation of human psychological and cultural categories”

developed in Israel’s history, including the understanding of and relation to nature.169

McGrath points to the “I Am” statements in John’s gospel as demonstrating Jesus’

particular use of nature in identifying his role within Israel’s history. To summarize

McGrath’s major idea, Jesus used nature through Israel’s culturally-shaped interpretive

framework in order to give perception to his identity and purpose. For this reason,

McGrath acknowledges place as an important category for understanding natural

theology. So for McGrath, “Incarnation is thus about God inhabiting the place and history

of humanity. It is a cultural and historical, not merely a physical assertion.”170 Jesus did

not simply become incarnate; he became incarnate within the cultural life and interpretive

framework of Israel. Further, Jesus didn’t simply interpret nature as a neutral observer,

but within Israel’s established framework.

167
Ibid., 211.
168
Ibid., 212.
169
Ibid., 131.
170
Ibid., 212.

209
 Similarly to Gunton, McGrath’s exegetical implications for natural theology are

mostly limited to the New Testament, particularly to the Gospel accounts of Jesus and the

writings of Paul.171 When McGrath considers revelation in the Old Testament, he focuses

on certain figures in Israel, such as Moses and the prophets, who acted as mediators

between God and Israel, with little consideration of the temple.172 Thus, building on

McGrath’s account, it can be argued from Beale’s interpretation that the Israelite cultural

framework was not simply an evolutionary result of cultural development, but was the

result of divine revelation. Thus, Israel’s way of seeing nature and Jesus’ use of nature

were both ways that God revealed truth about nature to Israel. This relates to Beale’s

conception of special revelation in the temple’s purpose, where Israel continued the true

purpose of the temple through continual engagement with God, even while other nations

only carried on a marred and fragmentary understanding of the temple’s purpose.173 As

the temple provided a framework for understanding creation through its symbolism

related to creation and the Garden of Eden in particular, a revelatory and interpretive

framework for understanding creation continued in Israel.

The Revelatory Function of the Temple in G. K. Beale’s Account

Having analyzed natural theology from the works of Barth, Gunton, and McGrath,

Beale’s temple motif can now be appraised for theological implications related to natural

theology. Important for Beale’s cosmic-temple motif is the idea of similarities between

171
McGrath does spend some time in Genesis 1–3 detailing implications of the doctrines of imago
dei and the fall for natural theology; see McGrath, The Open Secret, 190–197.
172
Ibid., 179. As one example, he finds evidence of the unperceivable God becoming “…
accessible to human perception, both in the natural world and in Jesus Christ” in the story of Samuel in 1
Sam 3:3–10, where Samuel hears the voice of God but must discern that it is God; see Ibid., 174.
173
This point will be developed anon.
210
the Israelite temple and ANE temples in certain profound respects, by which the temples

can be compared and contrasted.174 This comparison model enables Beale to relate

specific links between creation and temple in other ANE temples with the mostly implicit

links between creation and the Garden of Eden/tabernacle/temple within Israel. Beale

suggests three ways that the similarities between the Israelite temple and surrounding

ANE temples can be understood, involving polemics, common culture, and revelation.175

While common culture is important for understanding Israel’s relation with surrounding

nations and certain OT texts, the first and last ways will be the major concern here. As

detailed below, the polemical and revelatory purposes of the temple go hand in hand in

addressing natural theology from the temple motif.

The first important feature in Beale’s comparison model is the polemical feature

of the Israelite temple. As referenced above in comparison between the tabernacle and

Egyptian war tents, Beale finds a polemical purpose in the tabernacle and temple’s

particular construction. Here he references Psalm 29 as one “… well-known example of

applying the sovereign attributes of the fertility god Baal to Yahweh in order to

demonstrate that only Yahweh possesses such characteristics.”176 Beale is not alone in

this polemical assessment of the character of the Old Testament. In his work on the

subject, John Currid finds a number of other polemical expressions and motifs in the Old

Testament that serve to “… demonstrate the essential distinctions between Hebrew

174
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 29–30.
175
Ibid. In these pages, the ordering is revelation, polemics, and common culture, but revelation is
saved for last here because of its importance for theological application.
176
Ibid., 30.

211
thought and ancient Near Eastern beliefs and practices.”177 For Beale, the temple carries

in part a similar polemical function, using notions and imagery from surrounding nations

in order to distinguish the attributes of God from the surrounding gods.178 In other words,

the vast similarities between constructions make the distinctions all the more obvious.

One such distinction is between the abundance of venerated objects within ANE temples

and the minimum of venerated objects within the Israelite temple. In a classic study on

Egyptian religion, Adolf Erman notes that within the new kingdom, Egyptian temple

furniture was often venerated in association with lesser gods who were considered closer

to the cares of humankind than the greater gods.179 Michael Hundley similarly notes that

within the Egyptian new kingdom, “[S]tatues and the reliefs of deities and of the king

also served as objects of veneration. Visible from the gate and on the exterior walls, they

functioned as access points to the hidden deities or as accessible manifestations of deities

themselves because the common people could get no closer to them.”180 Hundley also

finds this conception of sacred objects within Mesopotamian temples, of which he writes,

“[V]arious elements of the temple, including ziggurats, temple doors, door locks,

platforms for cult statues, temple pipes, and hybrid guardians, were deified, such that not

only the deity but also the elements of its environment were considered divine.”181

Contrary to these sacred objects intimately connected with gods, the Israelite temple

177
John D. Currid, Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament (Wheaton:
Crossway, 2013), 26.
178
Ibid.
179
Adolf Erman, A Handbook of Egyptian Religion, trans. A. S. Griffith (London: Archibald
Constable & Co., 1907), 75. John Currid expands on Erman’s idea in asserting that within Egyptian
religion there was held “… the idea that inanimate objects could be charged with … the power of the
gods;” see Curid, Against the Gods, 116.
180
Hundley, Gods in Dwellings, 35.
181
Ibid., 76.
212
contained no statues or reliefs of God, and while there were objects considered sacred in

the temple, only the Ark of the Covenant itself was associated with the presence of God.

Further, the ark’s symbolism as footstool contained ideas of both God’s presence and

separation from creation, rather than simply his indwelling as in the statues and objects

within ANE temples. The sacredness of other objects within Israel’s temple can be

understood as conveying symbolic sacredness rather than ontological sacredness,

invoking a sense of creational order rather than containing deified elements. These

elements were thus important for Israel’s own theology of nature, in that they gave Israel

a sense of the order and purpose of creation.

The second important feature of Beale’s comparison model is his identification of

Israel’s temple and surrounding ANE temples as signs of revelation. In Beale’s words,

[T]his resemblance of pagan temples to Israel’s temple probably was due, at least
in part, to a refracted and marred understanding of the true conception of the
temple that was present from the very beginning of human history. As history
unfolded, God’s special revelation about the temple continued only with the
faithful remnant of humanity. The recollection of the true temple by those outside
God’s covenant community probably continued, but its memory became dim over
time. Nevertheless, refracted glimmers of truth may have continued, so that some
temples were designed that still retained features corresponding to God’s own
view.182

Beale introduces three terms here that need parsing in order to engage with natural

theology: true conception, special revelation, and refracted and marred revelation. These

concepts are not developed systematically in Beale’s writings, but each can be

understood within his larger project and applied to systematic theology.

The first important term is true conception, which Beale presumably connects

182
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 29.

213
with the Garden of Eden temple given at the beginning of human history and then carried

on by a remnant of humanity through special revelation. This implies that the original

conception of the temple is intimately related to creation, conceived elsewhere by Beale

as the Garden of Eden in relation to wider creation.183 However, also implicit in this

concept is the idea that creation needs interpretation, even within prelapsarian humanity.

In other words, God revealed his temple purposes for creation to humanity through a

conception of creation at the beginning of human history and continued to reveal these

temple purposes within a remnant of humanity after the fall. In language related to

natural theology, this notion of true conception is consistent with the idea that the world

is not self-interpreting but requires interpretation in order to make sense of its order and

purposes. It could be argued that Beale here simply means that humanity naturally

understood creation as temple before the fall, but this understanding belies Beale’s

interpretation of Gen 1:26–28 and Gen 2:15–17, where God gives Adam a mandate and

commands for continuing God’s eschatologically-oriented creation purposes.184 Thus,

within Beale’s interpretation, the creation-as-temple concept is not simply innate to

Adam, but is revealed to him by God supernaturally.

The second important term is special revelation, used by Beale to describe the

ongoing true conception of the temple within a remnant of people. Beale does not define

special revelation, but his use of the term seems consistent with Paul Helm, who defines

special revelation in contrast to general revelation as “… revelation truly or allegedly

183
The relation between creation and temple in Genesis 1–3 is analyzed in ch. 3 above.
184
Beale defines Adam’s role as in part “to put ‘the finishing touches’ on the world God created in
Genesis 1 by making it a liveable place for humans.” Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 82. See
also chapter 3 of this work for extended analysis of this concept.

214
given to some group—a family, a nation, or a church—and not given to others who are

not members of that group, whereas general revelation is universal or indiscriminate.”185

Louis Berkhof similarly speaks of revelation as “… [resting] on the basis of re-creation

… addressed to men as sinners with a view to their redemption.”186 Both definitions are

consistent with Beale’s usage of special revelation as a postlapsarian revelation addressed

to specific people or groups of people, rather than to humanity as a whole.

However, a question can rightfully be asked as to how this understanding of

revelation is distinguished from the prelapsarian supernatural revelation given to Adam.

Geerhardus Vos’s distinction between preredemptive and redemptive special revelation

can here shed light upon Beale’s own conception of revelation. For Vos, Adam was in a

probation state before the fall and could advance “from unconfirmed to confirmed

goodness and blessedness,” thus needing God’s special revelation in order to understand

his condition and make this advancement.187 After the fall, special revelation became

redemptive in nature, enacted in the Old and New Testaments as a covenant of grace to

humanity.188 Summarizing Vos’s use of preredemptive special revelation, Peter Leithart

writes, “[S]pecial revelation is necessary not in the contingent sense that the incarnation

is necessary, special revelation is absolutely necessary as man to man. Without special

revelation, even prelapsarian Adam would not have been able fully to obey and know

185
Paul Helm, The Divine Revelation: The Basic Issues, Foundations for Faith (Westchester, IL:
Crossway, 1982), 4.
186
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Combined Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 128.
187
Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1948), 31.
188
Ibid., 32–33.

215
God or correctly interpret the world around him.”189 Thus, in Leithart’s words, “Adam

could never have deduced the prohibition on the tree of knowledge either from his innate

knowledge or from the appearance of the tree itself.”190 This prelapsarian knowledge

required revelation, which fits well into Beale’s cosmic-temple understanding of

revelation. Like Vos, Beale advocates the idea of a preliminary state in the Garden from

which Adam could either fall or obtain escalated blessings, depending upon his

obedience to God’s commands.191 Also similarly to Vos, Beale finds an added

redemptive dimension to postlapsarian special revelation concerned with humanity’s

commission.192 Particularly, the task of ruling over and subduing creation took on the

added dimension of “… spiritually overcoming the influence of evil in the hearts of

unregenerate humanity that has multiplied on the earth.”193

Moreover, Beale continually connects pre- and postlapsarian special revelation

with the building of temples. Within prelapsarian humanity, special revelation was

closely related to the cosmos conceived as temple, as discussed above. Within

postlapsarian humanity, each iteration of the temple, from small shrines to Solomon’s

temple, was a necessary pre-condition for the introduction of the revelatory presence of

God in the land. Following Vos, Beale argues that the altar-site theophanies, leading to

the more permanent temple theophany, were necessary for the renewal of the paradise-

189
Peter J. Leithart, “That Eminent Pagan: Calvin’s Use of Cicero in Institutes 1.1–5,”
Westminster Theological Journal 52 (1990): 11.
190
Ibid.
191
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 33–46.
192
Ibid., 53.
193
Ibid.

216
condition and the reminder of the future eschatological cosmic condition.194 Thus, the

temple (in each form) was intimately related to God’s special revelation, whereby

covenant humanity was reminded of the rightful conception and purpose of creation.

The third term to be explained is marred or refracted revelation, which is

attributed to postlapsarian humanity outside of the chosen remnant. Specifically, Beale

states that this revelation was in the form of “… recollection of the true temple by those

outside God’s covenant community [which] probably continued, but its memory became

dim over time.”195 What is clear from this understanding is that this marred revelation

was a dimmed conception of the original prelapsarian revelation given to Adam, rather

than a continuing general revelation related to the temple. As described above in relation

to prelapsarian supernatural revelation, this concept of marred revelation can be

understood through Beale’s interpretation of the imago dei in Genesis 1–3. According to

Beale, Gen 1:26–27 indicates that “… the divine image is not something that humans are

in themselves but rather something that humans do in reflection of what God does.”196 As

demonstrated in chapter 3 of this work, the imago dei in Beale’s interpretation is not

primarily ontological in nature, but functional, meaning that it is a mandate for action

rather than a description of being. Therefore, the fall of humanity in Genesis 3 was a fall

from calling rather than a fall from being. Beale describes unbelieving postlapsarian

humanity as containing “the marred image of God,” thus poorly able to reflect God to

194
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 98; Beale here follows the argument of
Geerhardus Vos, The Eschatology of the Old Testament, 85–86.
195
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 29.
196
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 382.

217
creation in accordance with the imago dei calling.197 This marred imago dei language

corresponds with Beale’s notion of marred revelation given above. Within original

humanity, God revealed his purposes for creation through the temple conception, which

was then passed down in a marred sense after the fall to both believing and unbelieving

humanity. Because believing humanity had continual special revelation concerning the

temple, the true conception of the temple was carried on in Israelite life. Because

unbelieving humanity did not have continual revelation concerning the temple, it was

only conceived in concordance with a dimmed conception shaped by sin. Thus, for Beale,

there are non-surprising parallels between ANE temples and the Israelite temple that can

serve polemical purposes, but the distinctions between these conceptions are where God’s

revelational temple purposes can be gleaned.

Implications of Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Motif for Natural Theology

Implications from Beale’s cosmic-temple motif can now be made in conversation with

the natural theology projects analyzed above from Karl Barth, Colin Gunton, and Alister

McGrath. Gunton and McGrath have shown potential weaknesses in Barth’s doctrine of

revelation and the ensuing rejection of natural theology. In particular, both theologians

critique Barth’s doctrine of revelation as event-based immediate revelation of God’s

being. Beale’s account similarly breaks with Barth’s limitations of natural theology,

while also holding with Gunton and McGrath a conception of natural theology within a

theology of revelation. Here will be suggested ways in which Beale’s cosmic-temple

motif parallels and expands the work of Gunton and McGrath.

197
Ibid., 384.
218
 As Gunton notes (following Alan Spence), Barth’s formulation of revelation

implicitly weakens the idea of trinitarian mediation.198 Rather, for Gunton, all revelation

involves mediation and is thus concept or proposition-laden. This understanding of

revelation finds significant parallels within Beale’s treatment of the temple. Unlike Barth,

Beale’s cosmic-temple conception of revelation is propositional-laden, so that the

knowledge of God and the presence of God are intimately linked together within the

temple. In fact, within Beale’s account, the presence of God follows from the knowledge

of God.199 This idea can be demonstrated through Beale’s eschatological understanding

of the purpose of creation as the cosmic-temple filled with God’s presence. Within

postlapsarian creation, covenant humanity is called to extend God’s presence in part by

making him known to unredeemed humanity.200 This association of presence with

knowledge can be found in Beale’s own application of the cosmic-temple motif, where he

writes, “How do we first experience God’s presence? By believing in Christ: that he died

for our sin, he rose from the dead, and reigns as the Lord God. Then God’s Spirit comes

into us and dwells in us, in a similar manner as God dwelt in the temple of Eden and

Israel’s temple.”201 Thus, the presence of God proceeds from the knowledge of God,

signifying the role of mediation within a doctrine of revelation.

This idea also has significant parallels with Alister McGrath’s presentation of the

need for revelation-based perception of nature in order to understand its order and

purpose. Within McGrath’s account, all understandings of nature are interpreted

198
Gunton, A Brief Theology of Revelation, 8.
199
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 119.
200
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 53.
201
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 395.

219
constructs, and thus there is no theory-free vision of nature. As McGrath writes, “In

pointing out that ‘nature’ is a socially mediated concept, we are noting that nature is

necessarily viewed through a prism of beliefs and values, reflecting the historical and

social location of the observer, which inevitably skews the resulting notion.”202 In “On

Learning to See a Fallen and Flourishing Creation,” Norman Wirzba makes clear the

importance of this idea in his contrast between a Christian conception of nature marked

by generosity and a Darwinian conception marked by scarcity, two notions which are

presupposed by certain interpretive models.203 Within Beale’s account, the temple—as

connected with God’s presence—plays an important role in presenting nature as God’s

creation through its creation symbolism and imagery. An implication of Beale’s

presentation of the temple is that a person who walked into the temple would be

surrounded by creation imagery and reminded of God’s creation of the world and the

purposes for the world. Therefore, when that person left the temple they would have an

interpretive key for viewing nature as God’s handiwork. In other words, within Beale’s

account, creation is rightly viewed as God’s creation, an idea which is not immediately

available within creation itself and thus is beholden to revelation.

As noted above, both Gunton and McGrath have Christologically-centered

conceptions of revelation within their theological accounts of nature, but neither makes

use of the temple. It can be argued that without understanding the place and importance

of the temple in the Old Testament, an important aspect of Christ’s incarnational work is

lost. While the relation of Christ to temple awaits development in the following chapter,

202
Alister McGrath, A Scientific Theology: Nature, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 132.
203
Wirzba, “On Learning to See,” 162.
220
there is a clear correlation between the purpose of the temple as conveyor of God’s

special revelation and the purpose of Christ as conveyor of God’s special revelation. In

Beale’s terminology, the Old Testament temple foreshadows Christ’s presence as God’s

true temple.204 However, not only does the temple foreshadow Christ, it also aids in

understanding the purpose of the incarnation. Thus, there is not simply a forward

movement from temple to Christ as anticipation to fulfillment, but an intertextual link by

which Christ and temple enable mutual clarity. Following the work of Richard Hays on

intertextuality, Beale makes just this claim for Scripture, where the “… OT text keeps

imposing its original sense on the later text’s author (albeit sometimes subliminally),

even as that author is creatively developing that original sense beyond what may appear

to be the ‘surface meaning’ of the text.”205 While intertextuality is a hermeneutical

principle, its application can be shared with the relation between temple and Christ, since

they are understood in relation to each other within the New Testament.206 As McGrath

demonstrates in The Open Secret, Christ’s ministry involved the interpretation of nature

as product of God’s workmanship, and thus space is opened up for an appeal to natural

theology based in revelation.207 It can be argued from Beale’s account of the temple that

this type of natural theology had deep roots within Israelite culture, particularly as the

temple embodied and interpreted nature as God’s creation. Beale’s account of the temple

thus amplifies their accounts by presenting an important encompassing feature of the Old

204
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 365.
205
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 4; Beale here follows the line of argumentation
from Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 173–176.
206
For example, see Matt 12:6–8; Matt 21:12–13; Matthew 24; John 7:37–39; John 20:21–23;
Acts 15:16; Acts 17; 1 Cor 3:16–17; Eph 2:19–22.
207
McGrath, The Open Secret, 113–116.
221
Testament that also suggests a revelation-based account of nature in anticipation of

Christ’s fulfillment of the temple’s purposes.

A further implication of Beale’s account is the theological place and function of

humanity within creation, and thus is concerned with a theology of nature. Humans are

called to be God’s co-regents over creation, and therefore they are to understand it and

act as wise stewards in developing and using creation.208 Within Beale’s cosmic-temple

motif, there is a distinction between humanity and the rest of creation, although this

distinction is not primarily ontological, as demonstrated in chapter three.209 Rather,

humanity understands this distinction in part through both the pre- and postlapsarian

conceptions of the temple. Specifically, humanity is conceived as mediator between God

and creation with the divine calling to subdue and rule over creation in part “… by

demonstrating sovereignty through cultivating the earth and having mastery over all the

creatures of the earth.”210 Beale likens this to Adam’s role as primordial king-priest in the

garden and the role of later priests within the temple, who were to guard, protect, and

cultivate the temple area.211 Implicit in this account is the need for humans to understand

nature as God’s creation, and thus to engage nature with wisdom rather than simply for

utilitarian benefit. To borrow phrasing from Norman Wirzba’s Christological account of

creation, the temple acted as hermeneutical lens that enabled the Israelites to understand

the world as God’s flourishing creation, and to thus engage creation as God’s stewards.212

208
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 82.
209
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 32.
210
Ibid., 53.
211
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 66–70.
212
Wirzba, “On Learning to See,” 167.

222
 One final implication can be drawn from Beale’s account in relation to revelation

and natural theology. Within Beale’s account, the temple storyline of Scripture is itself

revelation, rather than simply the testimony to past revelation.213 As the temple provided

revelatory witness of creation as God’s handiwork to Israelites, the Old Testament

depiction of the temple also provides revelatory witness of creation as God’s handiwork

to Christians today. This notion is in keeping with Beale’s evangelical view of inspiration

of Scripture.214 Important here is the idea that the cosmic-temple motif is not simply

useful in historical understanding, but acts as an important part of the storyline of

Scripture by demonstrating the goodness of creation as God’s work and the importance of

creation in God’s eschatological plan. Beale’s account can thus be distinguished further

from Barth in that, in Beale’s view, Barth limits the truth of Old Testament conceptions

of the cosmos to theological truth communicated through erroneous ideas of the

universe.215 Beale responds to this idea by arguing that the conception of the universe

presented in the Old Testament is itself true, though not necessarily scientifically

accurate. Rather, the focus of the Old Testament writers was on giving true theological

conceptions of the universe.216 Thus, related to the cosmos and temple, the revelation of

Scripture is not behind the text in theological truths that need to be separated from

mythical accounts of creation, but rather in the correct understanding of the text itself.

Beale writes,

213
For Beale’s development of the concept of storyline in biblical theology, see chapter two of this
work and also Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 163–168.
214
For Beale’s account of the inspiration of Scripture, see G. K. Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy
in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
215
Ibid., 162.
216
Ibid., 163.

223
 [M]any of the descriptions of the cosmos [in Scripture] are charged with a temple
theology to one degree or another, so that in these numerous cases, at least, the
writers were not thinking according to the mythical conventions of their
acculturation or even giving mere descriptions of what appeared to their eyes.
While other ANE cultures shared some of these ideas about a cosmic temple, God
was filling Israel’s understanding with special revelatory truth.217

What distinguished Israel’s conception of the cosmos as temple from the conceptions of

other ANE cultures was God’s special revelation that enabled Israel to conceptualize

creation in its present and future forms. From Beale’s reasoning about the revelatory

presence of God in Israel and the coinciding special revelatory truth, an account of

Scripture itself as special revelation can be gleaned. Thus, unlike in Gunton’s account,

the Old Testament does not need to be divided into different strands of revelatory

communication, but rather it offers a unified focus that includes the purposes of the

temple. For example, Gunton argues that the New Testament writers drew upon certain

strands of the Old Testament tradition, particularly “the more universalistic strands of

Israel’s mission,” at the expense of other strands, such as those representing the military

glory of the messiah.218 However, within Beale’s account, the temple is portrayed as

more than just one of a number of possible theological strands, bringing unity to the

storyline of Scripture. Thus, the universality of Israel’s mission in connection with the

expanding purpose of the temple is consistently presented in Scripture as the

eschatological goal of creation, rather than as one possible strand that stands in contrast

to other strands. This consistent conception of the temple also includes a consistent

conception of nature as God’s good and purposeful creation. As a byproduct, there is a

217
Ibid., 194–195.
218
Gunton, A Brief Theology of Revelation, 79.

224
unity within Beale’s account of a biblical understanding of nature, thus making possible a

consistent theology of nature.

Summary

This chapter has analyzed Beale’s cosmic-temple motif pertaining to temple structures in

the Old Testament, from the altar shrines to the Jewish temple, in order to demonstrate

the value that the Old Testament temple has in providing knowledge of the character of

creation and God’s purposes for creation. Each iteration of the temple in the Old

Testament provided this revelatory knowledge, functioning as an interpretive key for

understanding God and creation. Thus, the temple has an important role to play in

conversations surrounding natural theology. In looking more closely at natural theology

within systematic theology, this chapter has focused on the possibilities for natural

theology based in a doctrine of revelation. While Karl Barth rejected natural theology in

favor of revelation, both Colin Gunton and Alister McGrath argue for a place for natural

theology within revelation. Like the projects of Gunton and McGrath, Beale’s account

implies a revelation-based understanding of natural theology, where Israelites held a true

conception of God and creation through the temple’s purpose, features, and symbolism.

Two features of Beale’s comparison model of the Israelite temple and surrounding ANE

temples, polemics and revelation, are particularly important for theological implications

in natural theology. Israel’s temple held both similarities and differences with

surrounding temples, and through both similarities and differences the revelatory function

of the temple can be gleaned. Also, temple revelation was conceived in close relation to

propositional knowledge, so that the presence of God came through the knowledge of

225
God obtained from the temple. Unlike Barth’s conception of revelation, the temple

portrays a mediated account of revelation of God and creation. This chapter has argued

that the temple thus acted as an interpretive key for understanding God and nature, so that

as a person walked into the temple they gained important knowledge of God and the

world. Similarly, the Bible’s portrayal of the temple can also inform understandings of

nature today within an account of scriptural revelation. Thus, this conception shows the

possibility of natural theology, although undergirded by a doctrine of revelation.

Conclusion

This chapter has provided a second test case for the thesis that G. K. Beale’s cosmic-

temple motif can serve as a valuable resource within an evangelical theology of creation.

Specifically, it has argued that Beale’s cosmic-temple motif has important implications

for natural theology, particularly in the discussions over the possibility of revelation-

based natural theologies within theologies of nature. In particular, the Old Testament

temple was used by God in its structure, symbolism, and elements to present revelatory

knowledge of God’s presence and the rightful conception of nature as creation in

association with his presence. For Israelites, the temple was given as God’s special

revelation of his design of and eschatological purpose for creation. For Christian

believers today, the account of the temple within Scripture can provide this same

revelatory knowledge of creation. The next chapter will provide the third test case for

Beale’s cosmic-temple motif by examining it in the area of systematic theology

concerning the temple and eschatology.

226
 CHAPTER FIVE
NEW CREATION AS TEMPLE: UNDERSTANDING NEW CREATION IN THE
COSMIC-TEMPLE MOTIF

This chapter moves G. K. Beale’s cosmic-temple motif into a third and final area of

theological consideration, focusing on the doctrine of eschatology related to a theology of

creation. The major argument of this chapter is that the Already and Not Yet of Beale’s

inaugurated eschatology within his cosmic-temple motif provides understanding of

continuities and discontinuities between creation and new creation. After introducing the

topic in the following section, the focus will move to Beale’s interpretation of the

eschatological temple of Ezekiel 40–48, the eschatological relation of Jesus to the temple

in the Gospels, and the eschatological temple of Rev 21:1–22:5. Following this analysis,

Beale’s eschatologically-driven interpretation of Scripture will be placed in conversation

with two important theological voices related to eschatology in recent theological

engagement, Wolfhart Pannenberg and Jürgen Moltmann. Similarly to Beale, Pannenberg

and Moltmann both offer future-oriented eschatologies, and thus important similarities

and distinctions can be made between the works. All three scholars find close relation

between creation and eschatology, which, in the words of Daniel Hardy, together concern

“… the nature of the configuration of the world and what occurs there in its trajectory to

its outcome.”1 However, the three scholars differ on the nature of the relation between

1
Daniel W. Hardy, “Creation and Eschatology,” in Doctrine of Creation: Essays in Dogmatics,
History, and Philosophy, ed. Colin E. Gunton (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 105.
227
creation and new creation, particularly concerning continuities and discontinuities.

Through accentuating these differences, this chapter will demonstrate important

implications for eschatology from the cosmic-temple motif.

Introduction

Although eschatological concepts have been discussed since the beginning of Christian

theology, the introduction of eschatology as a distinct category of doctrinal consideration

can be traced to 17th and 18th century developments within Protestant, and particularly

Lutheran, Orthodoxy.2 From its doctrinal introduction through the 19th century, Markus

Mühling notes five different senses in which the term was used: eschatology as doctrine

of all possible concepts of future, eschatology as doctrine of last things, eschatology as

historical concept of Jesus’ proclamation, eschatology as doctrine of the ‘ultimate’ thing

or condition, and eschatology as description of Jesus Christ as ultimate person.3 Within

20th century theology, two important classifications of eschatology developed,

particularly in accordance with New Testament theology and systematic theology:

Present-Oriented Eschatology and Future-Directed Eschatology.4 Typical of the present-

oriented eschatology position is Rudolf Bultmann’s existential approach to eschatology,

whereby he distinguishes between the mythical framework surrounding New Testament

statements regarding eschatology and the true meaning of the statements, which he posits

2
For historical overview, see Markus Mühling, T&T Clark Handbook of Christian Eschatology,
trans. Jennifer Adams Maßmann and David Andrew Gilland (London: T&T Clark, 2015), 3–13.
3
Ibid., 13.
4
For historical overview of eschatology in the 20th century, see Hans Schwarz, Eschatology
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 108–172. Markus Mühling, Eschatology, 14–22, similarly defines the
first two groups as eschatologies from above and eschatologies from ahead.

228
as existential in nature.5 In Hans Schwarz’s summary, “In Christ the appearance of the

future has become a present possibility. Judgment and resurrection are happening now …

The future is open to us in the present as a dialectic existence of indicative and

imperative, an existence according to flesh or to spirit.”6 Thus, for Bultmann, the

incarnation of Christ “… is the eschatological event by which God ended the old course

of the world and introduced the new aeon.”7 In essence, Bultmann distinguishes between

eschatology and any future-oriented apocalyptic event.8

Typical of the future-directed eschatology position are Wolfhart Pannenberg and

Jürgen Moltmann, who both formulate their doctrines of God in accordance with their

future-oriented eschatologies, albeit with significant differences between them. For

Pannenberg, the meaning of creation, including the nature of all things and events, is

found in the future eschatological event, by which God will reign over all creation. In his

words, “On the path of their history in time objects and people exist only in anticipation

of that which they will be in light of their final future, the advent of God.”9 Unlike

Bultmann, Pannenberg does not find eschatological completion in the incarnation, but

rather in the future reign of God on earth. Moreover, the truth of all Christian doctrine

rests upon “… the future of God’s own coming to consummate his rule over creation.”10

He criticizes Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Barth for their “[recovery of] the apocalyptic

5
Schwarz, Eschatology, 125.
6
Ibid., 126.
7
Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel, vol. 1 (New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951), 278.
8
For development of this idea, see David Congdon, Rudolf Bultmann: A Companion to His
Theology (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2015), 14–20.
9
Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998), 531.
10
Ibid.
229
urgency of Jesus’ message at the price of stripping it of its temporal prospect of a final

future of this world.”11 In Pannenberg’s view, every truth claim of Christianity is

provisional as it waits confirmation through God’s reign. Moltmann similarly envisions a

future reign of God over all creation in a new-creation state. Moltmann also similarly

construes this future reign in terms of advent when he writes, “Christian proclamation …

is the announcing, revealing and publishing of an eschatological event. As proclamation,

the gospel has to do with the advent of the coming lordship of Christ, and is itself an

element in this advent.”12 Thus, for both Pannenberg and Moltmann, eschatology is the

foundational doctrine of Christianity and is directed toward a future event consummating

the reign of God in creation.

Within future-oriented eschatologies, a further important distinction was made in

the 20th century with the introduction of the concept of inaugurated eschatology, which

distinguishes between beginning eschatological fulfillment in the life of Jesus and

eschatological consummation in the parousia. A pioneer of this concept, Oscar Cullmann,

famously used the analogy of D-Day and VE-Day in World War II to distinguish between

the “already” and “not yet” eschatological tension in which Christians currently reside

between the resurrection of Christ and the parousia.13 While the Kingdom of God has

11
Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Constructive and Critical Functions of a Christian Eschatology,”
Harvard Theological Review 77 (1984): 119. Moltmann similarly notes that Bultmann (along with C. H.
Dodd) holds a view that “swallows up history” by offering a “… partly Platonizing, partly existential
interpretation of the early Christian message, which stresses the presence of salvation in the Spirit, in the
proclamation and in faith. It attempts to eliminate early Christian apocalyptic as being a mythical view of
history belonging to its own time;” see Jürgen Moltmann, The Future of Creation: Collected Essays, trans.
Margaret Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 19.
12
Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian
Eschatology, trans. James W. Leitch (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 299.
13
Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 84.

230
already come in Christ, it will not come in fullness until the advent of God’s future reign.

One of the advantages of the inaugurated eschatology approach is its ability to alleviate

the tension in the New Testament between what seem to be promises of Jesus’ soon

return and the delay of this return over the ensuing years of Christian development.14

George Eldon Ladd, one of the mid-20th century popularizers of inaugurated

eschatology, distinguishes between eschatological fulfillment and consummation. For

Ladd, Jesus began the fulfillment of the eschatological reign of the Kingdom of God,

while the consummation of this reign would occur at the end of the age.15 G. K. Beale

follows this conceptual understanding of eschatological language in the New Testament,

distinguishing between eschatological inauguration (the conceptual driving force of New

Testament theology) and eschatological consummation (the traditional systematic

treatment of eschatology as doctrine of end times).16 For Beale, the temple plays a

significant role in the eschatology developed across Scripture, particularly as it relates to

the life and ministry of Jesus. Because of its significant role, it is important to analyze

Beale’s use of the temple in three eschatologically-tinted parts of Scripture. The

following section will trace Beale’s understanding of eschatology related to the temple

from the eschatological temple of Ezekiel 40–48, to the relation of Jesus and temple in

the Gospel accounts, to the eschatological temple of Rev 21:1–22:5. These three parts of

14
On this point, albeit from a critical perspective, see Congdon, Bultmann, 14–20.
15
George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 307.
16
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 18.

231
Scripture, especially in accordance with the cosmic-temple motif developed in the

previous chapters, are significant for understanding the relation between creation and new

creation in Beale’s account.

The Eschatological Temple in G. K. Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Motif

One of G. K. Beale’s most consistent applications of his temple theology is in the

doctrinal area of eschatology. For Beale, Genesis 1–3 lay out the basic themes that drive

the rest of the Old Testament, and these themes are essentially eschatological.17 These

themes also find fulfillment in the New Testament in correspondence to the life and

ministry of Jesus. As chapters two and three of this dissertation clarify, these

eschatological themes are chaos, new creation, personal commission, sin, and judgment

and exile.18 Each of these themes are initially found in Genesis 1–3 and then continue in

recapitulation throughout the storyline of the Old Testament.19 However, as Beale

emphasizes, these eschatological themes are developed not only in light of their

introductions in Genesis 1–3, but also in light of their ultimate fulfillment in Revelation

21.20 Thus, the two passages that Beale describes as the “two bookends” of biblical

revelation are informative for the entire storyline of Scripture.21 These eschatological

themes of the Old Testament, and their beginning fulfillment in the New Testament, point

toward a new creation that exhibits the temple’s ultimate purpose as the dwelling place of

God. Every iteration of the temple in Scripture points forward to this ultimate non-

17
G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the
New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 29.
18
Ibid., 60.
19
Chapters two and three of this work offer further analysis of this idea.
20
Ibid., 59.
21
Ibid.
232
structural fulfillment, as God’s presence fills all creation. Therefore, eschatology is

closely related to creation in Beale’s account. This close association can be seen in

Beale’s understanding of the future temple described in Ezekiel 40–48, the relation

between Jesus and temple in the Gospel of John, and the eschatological temple in

Revelation 21.

The Eschatological Temple of Ezekiel 40–48

The first temple to be assessed is in the new temple vision described in Ezekiel 40–48, a

prophetic passage that envisions a future temple within Israel after Solomon’s temple is

destroyed in the period of exile.22 After the destruction of Israel’s temple, one of the

major questions for Israel concerned the relation between the temple and the presence of

God and how God’s presence can be understood apart from a temple. As Old Testament

scholar John Kutsko notes, the issue of the presence of God was difficult in an ANE

climate where divine statues enabled surrounding nations to claim the self-evident

presence of their gods.23 The book of Ezekiel is especially concerned with this issue of

God’s presence, and thus portrays the plan for a future temple that would return the

presence of God to Israel.24 In a scene reminiscent of Moses’s vision on Mount Sinai,

Ezekiel receives a vision for the architectural layout of a temple, which he is then told to

22
The term “new temple vision” is taken from Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–
48, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 497.
23
John F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of
Ezekiel, ed. William Henry Propp, Biblical and Judaic Studies 7 (Winona Lake: IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 1.
24
Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary, trans. Cosslett Quin (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1970), 549–550, notes the lack of description of sacred objects in Ezekiel’s eschatological temple,
instead favoring to emphasize the real presence of God with the people of Israel.

233
relay to the people of Israel (Ezek 40:4).25 This architectural plan had the dual effect of

announcing both a restored future temple and the return of God’s glory to Israel.26

There is debate over the proper interpretation of the temple layout given to

Ezekiel in this vision, particularly related to whether or not the passage has an

eschatological focus. Beale lays out four major interpretive possibilities for this temple

vision: 1) a vision of a literal physical temple to be built in Jerusalem; 2) a vision of an

ideal heavenly temple that was never intended to be built upon earth; 3) a vision of an

ideal earthly temple; 4) a vision of a heavenly temple that would be established on earth

in non-structural form in the latter days.27 Beale holds to the fourth view of the temple,

arguing that the unusual architectural features point beyond a localized temple to an

eschatological reality.28 He establishes his point by emphasizing several features of the

described temple.29 First, the envisioned temple is much bigger than a typical structure,

with the passage describing the temple in relation to a city (Ezek 40:35). In fact, Beale

notes that the boundaries of the temple are approximately the same size as Jerusalem

during the second temple era. Second, reminiscent of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2,

the passage describes water flowing from the temple that has healing properties for the

entire earth (Ezek 47:1–12). Third, also reminiscent of the Garden of Eden, the temple-

city sits upon a high mountain (Ezek 40:2), which Beale notes is not consistent with the

25
Block, Ezekiel, 500.
26
Christopher J. H. Wright, The Message of Ezekiel: A New Heart and a New Spirit, The Bible
Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001), 316.
27
G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place
of God, NSBT 17 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 335.
28
Ibid., 340.
29
Ibid., 340–345.

234
geography of Jerusalem, thus pointing toward eschatological fulfillment.30 Fourth, Beale

points out several features of Ezekiel’s vision that seem to call for symbolic

interpretation. These features include the perfectly square shape of the city, the

description of the city’s dimensions in multiples of five, the lack of vertical distances

necessary for architectural plans, and the seemingly supernaturally-produced river

flowing from the city without tributaries feeding into it. As Kalinda Rose Stevenson

writes of the architectural design for this temple, “[I]f this is supposed to be a blueprint, it

is not a very good one.”31 All of these features work together to point toward a non-

localized temple, and thus to the possibility of an eschatological temple.

Beale also notes that many of the prominent features of the Solomonic and post-

exilic temples are missing from the temple plan given to Ezekiel. These missing features

include: 1) the bronze basin (‘bronze sea’) in the temple courtyard; 2) the golden

lampstand; 3) the table of showbread; 4) the altar of incense; 5) the veil separating holy

of holies from holy place; 6) the high priest; 7) the anointing oil; 8) the ark of the

covenant; 9) the cherubim statues.32 While Beale notes the difficulty of arguing from

silence as to whether these items are intentionally missing or whether they are simply

assumed to be part of the temple’s structure, he argues that the cumulative effect of these

missing items suggests that there is an explanation beyond the assumption that they are

simply part of the temple’s structure. Beale notes that Jer 3:16–17 speaks of the lack of

Ark of the Covenant in the future temple because God’s ruling presence would

30
Ibid., 336.
31
Kalinda Rose Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40–
48, SBL Dissertation Series 154 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 5.
32
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 354.

235
encompass Jerusalem, and therefore there is precedent for understanding the reason for

these missing items.33 Relating back to the debate over Ezekiel’s temple as literal or

eschatological reality, Beale writes,

[I]t is best not to formulate the debate about Ezekiel’s temple in a ‘literal versus
non-literal’ framework. The question of whether or not the future literal temple
will take the basic material and architectural form of Israel’s first two temples is a
better way to address the issue. Our contention has been that the presence of God
filling the whole new creation is the ‘literal’ reality to which Israel’s first two
temples pointed. Indeed, all along, these architectural temples were but copies or
reflections of the heavenly temple.34

In keeping with Beale’s cosmic-temple motif, each iteration of the temple, including the

temple vision given to Ezekiel, points toward an eschatological purpose for creation to

become the dwelling place of God. Beale relates Ezekiel’s temple with the temple of Rev

21:1–22:5, which he argues presents a consummated fulfilment of this eschatological

temple vision in its “… end-time picture portraying the one reality of God’s communion

with his people.”35 Thus, for Beale, the temple portrayed by Ezekiel is intimately related

to the Garden of Eden, the tabernacle, and Solomon’s temple in its demonstration of

God’s eschatological purposes for creation related to the expansion of his presence. For

Beale, it is also intimately related to the NT picture of new heavens and new earth that

finds beginning fulfillment in the incarnation and ultimate fulfillment in the description

of new creation in Revelation 21.

The relation between temple and creation becomes obvious in Beale’s reading of

Ezekiel 40–48. In this eschatologically-oriented reading of Ezekiel’s vision, the earth

33
Ibid., 356.
34
Ibid., 352.
35
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 350.

236
itself is being made holy to accommodate the dwelling of God. As Kalinda Rose

Stevenson argues, the new temple vision presents a landscape marked by holiness, an

idea represented by the squared dimensions given in the temple layout. Of these

dimensions, Stevenson writes, “In the landscape of temple and land in Ezekiel, the square

shape is not simply an accident of design. It is rhetorically meaningful and is intended to

be the material representation of a theology of holiness.”36 She goes on to note the

relationship between the Holy of Holies and altar, both marked by square spaces. In her

words, “The House [of YHWH] is a square matrix with the square Inner Court and the

square Altar at the absolute center. This is the place of purgation, where the effects of

impurity are cleansed. This spatial arrangement is a profound acknowledgement that the

true beneficiary of the House is not YHWH but Israel, and through Israel, both heaven

and earth, cosmos and society.”37 In this interpretation, the vision temple includes a

picture of creation being healed of sin and made holy through Israel. David Petersen thus

describes a hierachical picture of creation within Ezekiel’s vision,

In this new Israel, there is a hierarchy of space. In the middle of the land will be a
sacred “strip” or district (45:1–5; 48:8–14). That district, “the holy portion,” runs
laterally through the country and is twenty thousand cubits wide (LXX). A central
band, ten thousand cubits wide, belongs to the Zadokites. That territory is “the
most holy portion” of the country. In the midst of that territory sits the
sanctuary—in a square area five hundred cubits to a side (45:2).38

As Stevenson makes clear, within this hierarchical picture of creation, the holy of holies

and altar are the central features of the spatial layout of the temple given to Ezekiel. She

36
Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation, 42.
37
Ibid., 41.
38
David L. Petersen, “Creation and Hierarchy in Ezekiel,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World:
Wrestling with a Tiered Reality, eds. Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton, SBL Symposium Series 31
(Atlanta: SBL, 2004), 176.

237
notes that there are no boundary walls within this temple layout, so that the activity

within the holy of holies can be seen by everyone. Rather, the boundaries are defined by

elevation.39 As Beale observes, the boundary elevations are related to the mountainous

geography of this future temple, which is set on the southern part of a high mountain in

Israel.40 This mountain imagery is similar to the imagery of the Garden of Eden, which is

also understood to be on a high mountain.41 Further, both the Garden of Eden and this

temple vision (also including the temple description in Ezekiel 31) picture water flowing

from the temple and producing widespread fertility, thus demonstrating the healing of the

land. Thus, there is a natural relation between the cosmic-temple picture of creation in

Genesis 2 and the temple vision of Ezekiel 40–48. Moreover, the same basic

eschatological emphases can be understood in the two passages, particularly related to the

movement of God’s holy presence from Eden/the holy of holies outward to all creation.

However, because there are still descriptions of appropriate sin offerings within

the temple (Ezek 43:18–27), this vision cannot be the completed eschatological picture of

new creation. Rather, it could be understood as a vision of the process of purifying the

world in beginning fulfillment of renewed creation. Beale seems to take just such a stance

when he writes,

The notorious problem of what to make of the sacrifices in Ezekiel’s temple may
be solved by seeing them beginning fulfilment in Christians who offer themselves
to God by suffering for their faith.... Implicitly, Christ’s great sacrifice is the
ultimate fulfilment of Ezekiel’s temple vision, since Revelation 11 portrays the
career of the church according to the outline of Christ’s career. Hence, it is not
incorrect to say that Ezekiel speaks in the language and images familiar to his
audience in portraying sacrifices in a temple to prophesy about the escalated
39
Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation, 44.
40
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 336–337.
41
Ibid., 342.
238
 redemptive-historical realities of Christ’s sacrifice and the church’s imitation of
that sacrifice.42

Thus, the beginning fulfillment of the temple vision of Ezekiel 40–48 happens through

the incarnation and Christ’s own sacrifice, from which Christians also participate through

imitation of that sacrifice. In this interpretation, Christ’s incarnation begins the process of

eschatological fulfillment of God’s purpose for creation. As Beale notes of Jesus’ own

allusion to this temple reality, “Jesus alludes to the water flowing from Ezekiel’s end-

time temple in John 7:38 and interprets it of himself and of the Spirit in relation to

believers, a passage that further develops the ‘living water’ theme of John 4.”43

Therefore, the beginning of eschatological fulfillment of the cosmos as temple can be

found in the life of Jesus, the next subject of consideration.

The Eschatological Relation of Jesus to the Temple

G. K. Beale gives an extensive treatment of the place and purpose of the temple within

each book of the New Testament canon.44 Although Beale offers a number of important

themes and ideas in his New Testament approach to the temple, this section will focus on

one specific question: How does the New Testament depict the relationship between

Jesus and the temple? As demonstrated below, Beale finds in Jesus the beginning

eschatological fulfillment of the temple’s purposes. In his words, the New Testament

portrays “… Christ and his people either composing the beginning form of God’s end-

42
Ibid., 343.
43
Ibid., 345.
44
See Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 169–334; Beale, A New Testament Biblical
Theology, 129–184.

239
time temple or being a part of its consummate fulfillment.”45 Three important themes that

Beale finds in the New Testament concerning the relationship between Jesus and temple

are: 1) Jesus as last Adam; 2) Jesus as new creation temple; and 3) Jesus as cornerstone

of the new temple. These three themes will therefore be the focus of this section.

Jesus as last Adam

G. K. Beale finds in the synoptic treatment of Jesus as last Adam the beginning

eschatological fulfillment of the commission given to Adam in Gen 1:26–28 and Gen

2:15. As analyzed in chapters two and three, Beale finds within Adam’s commission the

mandate to spread the Garden of Eden outward as part of God’s eschatological plan for

creation. In Beale’s language, the penultimate goal of God in creation was to make

creation a liveable place for humanity so that humanity could fulfill the ultimate goal in

worshiping him. Of this goal, Beale writes, “God’s ultimate goal in creation was to

magnify his glory throughout the earth by means of his faithful image-bearers inhabiting

the world in obedience to the divine mandate.”46 This plan involved widening the

Garden’s boundaries outward into previously uninhabitable places so that humanity could

dwell and worship God.47 Beale finds in this expectation of Adam the implicit promise of

eschatological blessing as a result of Adam’s obedience, which would include an

irreversible ontological state of eternal life and permanent blessing for humanity in

creation.48 However, because of Adam’s sin, this eschatological plan was passed on to

45
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 171.
46
Ibid., 82.
47
Ibid., 85.
48
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 43–46. See also ch. 3 of this work.

240
other Israelites, and ultimately to the nation of Israel itself as a corporate Adam.49

Ultimately, Israel also failed in spreading the temple’s boundaries outward to all creation

because of ongoing national sin that led to Babylonian exile. This exile led to God’s

removal of his presence from Israel’s temple, a situation unresolved by the building of a

new Jerusalem temple upon return from exile. Thus, in Beale’s words, “The nation’s task

was to do what Adam had first been commissioned to do. Noah and his seed and Israel

and its seed failed even as had Adam. And like Adam, Noah’s seed and Israel were

exiled, the latter also banished from its ‘garden land’…. Although a remnant of Israel

returned from Babylonian exile, its failure to carry out the Adamic task continued until

the beginning of the first century AD.”50 Therefore, the eschatological expectations went

unfulfilled within the OT period.

Within the Synoptic Gospels, Beale finds several of the national hopes of Israel

fulfilled within the life of Jesus that can be summarized here. Matthew and Luke both

trace the genealogies of Jesus back to Adam. According to Beale, “Matthew’s point in

using the phrase [biblos geneseōs] is to make clear that he is narrating the record of the

new age, the new creation, launched by the coming, death and resurrection of Jesus

Christ.”51 Beale also notes the purpose from Luke’s account “to identify Jesus as the last

Adam.”52 While Mark does not include a genealogy, Beale notes the opening phrasing of

Mark, “the beginning (archē) of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” as similar to the Greek

49
Ibid., 46–58.
50
Ibid., 57.
51
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 171.
52
Ibid., 172.

241
translation of Gen 1:1, en archē.53 While the genealogical relation between Jesus and

Adam might not warrant eschatological relation on its own, Beale finds this relation made

even more explicit in Paul’s writings, particularly 1 Cor 15:45–54. In this passage, Beale

finds a description of Jesus as “… the one who regains the original image of Adam and

transforms his people into that image.”54 Beale also finds in the passage an antithetical

comparison between the first Adam and Jesus as last Adam, including death vs. life,

perishable vs. imperishable bodies, and dishonor vs. glory.55 The passage culminates for

Beale in the idea of verses 45–49 that those transformed by Christ are transformed into

his image, which is not ontological but functional in nature, and are thus able to continue

the eschatological fulfillment of God’s creation plan.56

Beale also finds in Matthew’s Gospel the relation between Jesus and Israel in

Jesus’s wilderness temptation period, a period echoing Israel’s forty years in the

wilderness. On this echo, Beale explains, “Jesus, as true Israel, is the micro-Israel who

has replaced the macro-national Israel. Hence, years are reduced figuratively down to

days. Each response by Jesus to Satan is taken from a response by Moses to Israel’s

failure in the wilderness (Deut 8:3 in Matt 4:4; Deut 6:16 in Matt 4:7; Deut 6:13 in Matt

4:10). Jesus succeeds in facing the same temptations to which Israel succumbed.”57

53
Ibid.
54
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 439.
55
Ibid.
56
Ibid., 440–441.
57
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 172; Beale is not alone in this proposal, see also
N. T. Wright, Matthew For Everyone: Part 1 Chapters 1–15 (London: SPCK, 2002), 25–26; Martin C.
Spadaro, Reading Matthew as the Climactic Fulfillment of the Hebrew Story (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock,
2015), 53–56.

242
Further, Jesus’ victory over Satan in this test was both in fulfillment of Adam’s priestly

role and in preparation for the ultimate defeat of Satan, portrayed as the deceiver of

Adam in the Garden.58 Beale also finds eschatological emphasis in Jesus’ miracle

healings. He comments that Jesus’ healings represented the restoration of creation from

the fall, and thus signal that Jesus “… is re-establishing the new creation and kingdom,

which Adam should have established.”59 These healings both marked the inauguration of

the end-time kingdom and signaled the beginning of new creation in the life of Jesus.60

When placed next to Beale’s account of Adam’s commission in Genesis 1–2, these

miracles mark the beginning of ontological change within creation that could have been

accomplished through Adam’s obedience. Thus, as noted in chapter three, ontological

change did not result from Adam’s sin but could result from Adam’s obedience and will

result from consummation of God’s eschatological goal for creation. Finally, Beale finds

in Jesus’ resurrection a “full-blown new creation notion” that points to God’s recreation

plan, where Jesus’ resurrected body foreshadows end-times creaturely resurrection, and

thus further corresponds with God’s eschatological plan for creation.61 Thus, there is

formidable evidence that Jesus began the fulfillment of God’s eschatological plan for

creation that was introduced in Genesis 1, particularly through the commissioning of

Adam as the image bearer of God in creation. Where both Adam and Israel failed to carry

58
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 173; see also Spadaro, Reading Matthew, 56.
59
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 174.
60
Ibid. Rudolf Bultmann also finds within the miracles the dawning of God’s reign, the beginning
fulfillment of God’s rule upon earth, although he does not believe in the literal occurrence of miracles; see
Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 7.
61
Ibid., 175.

243
through the commission through their disobedience, Jesus succeeded in the commission

through his obedience.62

Jesus as New-Creation Temple

Not only does Jesus fulfill the function of Adam in Beale’s interpretation, he also fulfills

the role of the temple by himself becoming the temple of the new creation. In Beale’s

words, “In reality, [Jesus] himself was the temple because he was the beginning of the

new creation, especially in his resurrection. To call Christ the ‘temple’ is merely another

way of referring to him as the new creation, since the temple was symbolic of creation.”63

Thus, all of the eschatological purposes of the temple find beginning fulfillment in the

incarnation, life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Beale finds several

compelling places across the Gospel accounts where Jesus functions in his ministry as the

new temple. These can be distinguished as verses/passages that point to 1) Jesus as the

revelatory presence of God (John 1:14; Matt 12:6, 39–41); 2) Jesus as forgiver of sins

(Luke 5:18–26, 7:49–50; Matt 9:2–6); 3) Jesus as source of Edenic living water (John

4:10–14, 7:37–39); 4) Jesus as healer (Mark 2:1–12; Matt 21:14); and 5) Jesus as

resurrected new temple (John 2:14–22).64 Aside from these references to Jesus as new-

62
N. T. Wright’s account of John 20 is in line with Beale’s assessment. Wright finds in the
resurrection narrative of John 20 clear allusion to Gen 1:1 and themes of light and darkness. In Wright’s
words, “John declares from the start, with the obvious allusion to Genesis 1.1, that his book is about the
new creation in Jesus. In chapter 20 he makes the same point by stressing that Easter was ‘the first day of
the week’ (20.1, 19; when John underlines things like this he clearly wants us to ponder the point). On the
sixth day of the creation narrative, humankind was created in the divine image; on the sixth day of the last
week of Jesus’ life, John has Pilate declare, ‘Behold the man!’ The seventh day is the day of rest for the
creator; in John, it is the day when Jesus rests in the tomb. Easter is the start of new creation.” N. T.
Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 663.
63
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 176.
64
Ibid., 176–200.

244
creation temple, Beale finds prominent temple symbolism in two other important

passages, the tearing of the temple veil in Matthew 27 and the Great Commission in

Matthew 28.

In Matt 27:50–52, several important events occur upon Jesus’ death. Matthew

reports that the temple veil was torn from top to bottom, there was an earthquake, rocks

were split, and tombs were opened as the bodies of saints were raised. Although each of

these features is important in its own right, Beale focuses specifically on the theological

significance of the tearing of the temple veil. From what Beale calls the more traditional

interpretation, the tearing of the veil signifies the new cultic reality of the availability of

immediate access to God’s presence through Jesus.65 However, Beale also notes that

there is cosmic significance in this passage related to the symbolism of the veil. Of this

significance, Beale writes, “When, however, it is remembered from the Old Testament

and early Judaism that on the veil was embroidery of the starry heavens, its tearing would

be an apt symbol of the beginning destruction, not only of the temple (which itself even

as a whole symbolized the cosmos) but of the very cosmos itself.”66 Thus, along with the

earthquake, splitting rocks, and open tombs, the passage portrays the tearing of the very

fabric of creation through the death of Jesus. When read in relation to the resurrection as

beginning of new creation, this passage can be understood as reflection upon the

beginning eschatological change in cosmic order from old creation to new creation.

A second passage with important significance for Jesus as new creation temple is

what is known as the Great Commission passage of Matt 28:18–20. In these verses, Jesus

65
Ibid., 190.
66
Ibid., 189.
245
gives his disciples a command to make disciples of all nations through baptizing and

teaching obedience. Beale finds in this text an implicit reference to the commission of

Adam as imago dei in Gen 1:26–28, where he is commanded to act as God’s co-regent

over creation.67 Thus, in Beale’s reading, the implicit priestly role of Adam in that

passage is given by Jesus to his disciples.68 However, Beale also finds an allusion in the

Great Commission to another important temple-building verse in the Old Testament, 2

Chr 36:23. In that passage, Cyrus, the king of Persia, gives the former exiles of Israel

permission to go back to Jerusalem and rebuild the destroyed temple. Beale finds three

significant parallels and three important observations concerning the two passages, of

which he writes,

(1) both Cyrus and Jesus assert authority over all the earth; (2) the commission to
‘go’; and (3) the assurance of divine presence to fulfil the commission. Jesus’
commission, however, escalates that of Cyrus’s in that Jesus’ also has authority
over ‘heaven’ as well as ‘earth’, and he speaks of his own presence going with the
people being addressed. In addition, Jesus’ commission is not aimed at old
Jerusalem but ‘nations’ throughout the whole earth. … Three further observations
point to an allusion to 2 Chronicles in Matthew 28. First, 2 Chronicles in the
Hebrew canon of Scripture was the last book of the Old Testament. Accordingly,
2 Chronicles 36:23 becomes the last verse of the entire Old Testament, which now
ends with the commission to rebuild the temple, so that it serves as a nice
canonical transition to an even more escalated commission to build the temple in
Matthew’s Gospel. Second, Matthew’s Gospel portrays Jesus’ genealogy partly
on the basis of that in 1 Chronicles 1-3. Third, Isaiah refers to Cyrus as a
‘messiah’ (Is. 44:28-45:1) because he had the task of enabling Israel to rebuild her
temple. With these facts in mind and recalling that Jesus’ reference to ‘all the
nations’ in Matthew 28:19 harks back to Matthew 1:1, it is attractive to suggest
that, like 1 and 2 Chronicles, Matthew constructs his Gospel partly to reflect the
beginning and ending of Chronicles but applies the goal of the genealogy to
Jesus.69

67
See chapters two and three for analysis of this idea.
68
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 176–177.
69
Ibid., 177.

246
Thus, in Beale’s view, there are good reasons to believe that Matthew had the 2

Chronicles 36 temple-building passage in mind with the Great Commission calling of

Matthew 28. Beale is not alone in his observation of these parallel passages. In his book

Restoring Presence, Blaine Charette also notes the parallels between the passages and,

similarly to Beale, deems Matt 28:16–20 a temple building passage as a result.70 Charette

also adds that the mountain setting of Matthew 28 appears significant “[g]iven Matthew’s

interest in locating events of key theological importance in mountain settings.”71 This

mountain setting further suggests a temple-building backdrop to Matthew’s words, since

the Garden of Eden and Solomon’s temple were both closely associated with mountains,

as Beale has elsewhere demonstrated.72

As demonstrated by Beale and others, there is ample evidence for relation

between Jesus and temple in the Gospel accounts, and moreover, there is evidence for

Jesus as both fulfillment and replacement of the temple in eschatological purpose,

hearkening back to the eschatological cosmic-purpose of the Garden of Eden as

primordial holy place in Genesis 2. Importantly, the idea of Jesus as temple fulfillment

demonstrates that the tabernacle and temple were both temporary realities pointing

toward deeper cosmic realities and eschatological purposes. Further, the idea of Jesus as

70
Blaine Charette, Restoring Presence: The Spirit in Matthew’s Gospel, Journal of Pentecostal
Theology Supplement Series 18 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 108–113. Charette lists the
following scholars as those who also hold to a parallel understanding between 2 Chr 36:23 and Matt 28:16–
20: B. J. Malina, “The Literary Structure and Form of Matt. XXVIIII.16–20,” New Testament Studies 17
(1970–1971): 87–103; J. Lange, Das Erscheinen des Auferstandenen im Evangelium nach Matthäus
(Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1973), 351–354; H. Frankemö, Jahwebund und Kirche Christi (Münster:
Aschendorff, 1974), 50–61. Patrick Schreiner also finds “unmistakable” correlation between the themes
and structures of the two passages; see Schreiner, The Body of Jesus: A Spatial Analysis of the Kingdom in
Matthew, Library of New Testament Studies 555 (London: T&T Clark, 2016), 27 fn. 24.
71
Ibid., 115.
72
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 73.

247
temple replacement carries with it the idea that through Jesus and his followers, God is

bringing about this eschatological reality of new creation. This idea ties in closely with

the third relation between Jesus and temple, which is the understanding of Jesus as

cornerstone of the new temple.

Jesus as Cornerstone of New Temple

Beale develops the language of Jesus as cornerstone of the new temple in Matt 21:42 and

Mark 12:10, which both contain allusions to the temple reference of Psalm 118.73 He

finds this concept in various places in the book of Acts, where the church is pictured as

the temple being built upon Christ the cornerstone. This cornerstone language is

explicitly used in Acts 4:10 as part of Peter’s sermon on the meaning of Christ’s

resurrection. Beale notes that just prior to this verse in Acts 3:25–26, Luke quotes from

Gen 22:18 to indicate that Jesus is the beginning fulfillment of God’s promise to

Abraham to bless all the families of the earth.74 Further, in Acts 6, Stephen pronounces

Christ as the true heavenly temple with allusion to the heavenly temple passage of Isa

66:1–24. Beale finds in this speech a specifically eschatological emphasis of Jesus as

temple, writing, “Stephen’s comments relate to Jesus’ building of the eschatological

temple that began with his earthly ministry and especially his resurrection.”75 Further, in

Paul’s Athens speech of Acts 17, Beale finds allusions to the Gen 1:28 priestly

commission to Adam and to the Jerusalem temple. Within the speech, Paul argues that

God does not dwell in human-made temples, which are inadequate to house God, but

73
Ibid., 216.
74
Ibid.
75
Ibid., 219.

248
rather God causes humanity to spread out in order that they will seek him, an idea that

Beale notes as the fulfillment of the Gen 1:28 commission.76 However, within Paul’s

speech, seeking and finding God are now intimately related to “repenting and trusting in

the resurrected Christ.”77 Thus, once again, the image of Christ as the cornerstone of the

eschatological temple of God’s people appears evident from the passage.

One of Beale’s most fascinating treatments of church as the eschatological temple

built upon Christ comes from Acts 2, where he spends significant time demonstrating that

the two major events of the passage, the Spirit descending and tongues of fire, are both

related to the eschatological temple. Although there is insufficient space to highlight all

of Beale’s cumulative evidence for this understanding, a few noteworthy pieces of

evidence can be introduced.78 Beale argues that Luke’s account of the Spirit descending

upon the believers in Acts 2 carries allusions to the Sinai theophany of Exodus.79 First,

Beale notes the relevance of the Pentecost as, in part, a celebration of God giving the law

to Moses at Mt. Sinai.80 Also, just as God’s revelatory presence descended on Mt. Sinai

in Exodus 24, so the Spirit descended upon the believers at Pentecost. Further, the

Exodus Sinai account also portrays images of speech on fire (Exod 19:16–20; 20:18), a

parallel to the flaming tongues of Acts 2. Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, Peter

quotes from Joel 2:28–29 in his explanation of the tongues in Acts 2:1–12. However,

Beale notes that Peter makes an intentional alteration to part of the quote,
76
Ibid., 230–231.
77
Ibid., 231.
78
For Beale’s full treatment of this idea, see ibid., 201–26; G. K. Beale, “The Descent of the
Eschatological Temple in the Form of the Spirit at Pentecost: Part I: The Clearest Evidence,” Tyndale
Bulletin 56 (2005): 73–102; G. K. Beale, “The Descent of the Eschatological Temple in the Form of the
Spirit at Pentecost: Part II: Corroborating Evidence,” Tyndale Bulletin 56 (2005): 63–90.
79
Beale, “The Descent: Part I,” 76–83.
80
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 204.
249
 Peter explains the theophanic episode of tongues in Acts 2:1–12 to be an initial
fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy that God would ‘pour out’ his ‘Spirit upon all
flesh,’ and all classes of people in the covenant community would ‘prophesy’
(Joel 2:28–29). At the beginning of the Joel 2:28 quotation, Peter substitutes the
phrase ‘in the latter days’ (ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις) in place of Joel’s ‘after these
things’ (μετὰ ταῦτα). The substitution comes from Isaiah 2:2 (the only place in the
LXX where this precise phrase occurs): ‘In the last days, / The mountain of the
house of the Lord / Will be established as the chief of the mountains / And will be
raised above the hills; / And all the nations will stream to it.’ Thus, Peter appears
to interpret the Spirit’s coming in fulfillment of Joel to be also the beginning
fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of the end-time temple, under the influence of
which the nations would come.81

Here Beale notes that Peter inserts a quotation from Isaiah’s eschatological temple

prophecy into the prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit of God in Joel 2, thus

associating those two ideas together. This inserted quote from Isa 2:2, “in the latter days,”

is important for understanding the eschatological concept of cosmic temple-building.

Beale notes other uses of the phrase in the Old Testament that convey specifically

eschatological features, such as Gen 49:1, where it is used to describe a future period

where Judah will rule over all other nations.82 As Beale notes, this is not simply a

reference to local battles with Canaan “but rather decisive and ultimate victory over all

possible enemies of Israel.”83 Beale argues that Isa 2:2 itself appears to be a development

of Gen 49:1 in its description of an eschatological time period of complete obedience to

the King of Israel.84 Thus, in Beale’s view, based upon these passages and others, the

phrase “in the latter days” conveys not simply an indefinite future period, but a

culmination of all history.85

81
Beale, “The Descent: Part I,” 93–94.
82
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 92–99.
83
Ibid., 93.
84
Ibid., 103–104.
85
Ibid., 114. For other Old Testament uses noted by Beale, see ibid., 92–116.

250
 In each of these three areas of relation between Jesus and temple, there are a

number of pieces of evidence pointing to the idea that Jesus both began fulfillment of the

purpose of the temple and replaced the temple with his own being. As cornerstone of the

temple, Jesus established himself as the foundation upon which the church is built. The

church thus carries on the work of Gen 1:28, spreading the presence of God to all

creation in view of the eschatological time when God’s presence will fill all creation as

cosmic temple. The next place for understanding Beale’s development of eschatological

temple comes from Revelation 21, a passage that Beale argues fulfills the eschatological

temple vision of Ezekiel 40–48 in accordance with the work of Christ.

The Eschatological Temple in Rev 21:1–22:5

Revelation 21 plays a prominent role in Beale’s cosmic-temple motif in that it grounds

his quest to understand the role that the temple plays in the storyline of Scripture. Beale’s

monograph on the temple, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, begins with the

question over the prima facie discrepancy between John’s introduction of a new creation

in Rev 21:1 and his description of the new creation as a garden-like city in the shape of a

temple in the remainder of the passage. For Beale, “[T]he Old Testament tabernacle and

temples were symbolically designed to point to the cosmic eschatological reality that

God’s tabernacling presence, formerly limited to the holy of holies, was to be extended

throughout the whole earth.”86 Thus, it is no understatement to say that Beale’s cosmic-

temple motif is, in a sense, controlled by his reading of new creation as temple in

Revelation 21. This is particularly important for Beale’s eschatology-driven biblical

86
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 25.
251
storyline, as the entire storyline culminates in an eschatological picture of new creation

indwelt with the presence of God.

Beale divides Rev 21:9–22:5 into five sub-units based on the theme of new

creation introduced in Rev 21:1–8.87 Each of these sub-units clarifies some aspect of this

new creation, so that 21:9–14 presents an initial view and appearance of the city; 21:15–

17 presents the measurements of the city; 21:18–21 presents the material of the city;

21:22–27 presents the internal features of the city; and 22:1–5 presents symbols of the

presence of God in the city.88 Each of these thematic sub-units offers a recapitulation of

the new creation described in Rev 21:1–8. Beale argues that Rev 21:1–8 presents a new

creation that carries ontological distinctions from the present order of creation. In his

words, it will contain “the transformation of the fundamental physical structure of the

creation.”89 However, rather than being a new ontological entity, it will carry both

continuities and discontinuities with present creation. On the subject of continuities,

Beale presents an analogy between the resurrection body exemplified by Jesus and the

being of the new creation. Whereas Jesus still had continuous identity in his resurrected

body, so new creation will also have continuous identity with old creation.90 Beale labels

the resurrected body and new creation as “renewals” of old creation, wherein creation is

transformed from old creation rather than made ex nihilo.91 As Brian Blount comments

on Beale’s continuous identity relation between old/new bodies and old/new creation,

87
G. K. Beale and David H. Campbell, Revelation: A Shorter Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2015), 463.
88
G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999), 1061.
89
Ibid., 464.
90
Ibid., 1040.
91
Ibid.
252
 To be sure, the resurrected body is a totally new and completely unique entity, yet
it cannot be comprehended apart from a knowledge of what ‘body-ness’ is. That
comprehension finds its locus in none other than the physical body must die so
that the spiritual body might be resurrected. So, too, from the remains of the old
heaven and old earth, a new heaven and a new earth, new bodily entities, are
resurrected.92

This idea also picks up Beale’s notion from Genesis 1–3 that Adam’s imago dei

commission contained the implicit possibility of ontological change to creation (including

Adam’s being) as a result of eschatological completion of the mission.93

However, as previously noted, there will also be discontinuities between creation

and new creation in Beale’s paradigm. As Beale states, there will be a “qualitative

distinction between the two world orders,” which will bring about “transformation of the

fundamental cosmic structure (including physical elements).”94 Beale develops this idea

against the background texts of Isa 65:17 and 66:22, which he argues stand behind the

wording of Rev 21:1.95 Of these verses, he writes,

Isa. 65:16–18 makes a qualitative contrast between the “former” earth, where the
“first affliction” of captivity occurred, and “a new heaven and a new earth,”
where there will be only enduring “joy and exultation.” Isa. 66:22 affirms that one
of the qualitative differences is that “the new heaven and new earth” will
“remain” forever, in contrast to the old, which passed away. At the consummate
time of Israel’s restoration, there will be a new creation. The return from Babylon
was only an adumbration of a yet future restoration for Israel, since there was then
no appearance of a Messiah, no new creation, and no temple greater than
Solomon’s, and Israel remained in subjugation to its enemies for generations
afterward.96

92
Brian K. Blount, Revelation: A Commentary, The New Testament Library (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2009), 376.
93
See ch. 3 for analysis of this idea related to Adam as imago dei.
94
Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1040.
95
Ibid., 1041; see also G. K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation, Journal for the
Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 166 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 116.
96
Ibid.

253
One of the major distinctions that Beale finds between first and new creation is that the

first creation was intended to be in an impermanent state, whereas new creation will be a

permanent state. Further, some features of present creation are, at least in a figurative

sense, not part of new creation. As Beale notes, “The passing away of the old world is

also described in the statement that ‘the sea will be no longer.’”97 Beale finds various

connotations of the sea within Revelation, such as origin of cosmic evil, symbol of

unbelieving nations, and the place of the dead.98 However, based upon the theological

trajectory of the book, Beale finds the major meaning of sea to be the threat of tribulation

to God’s people.99 Thus, within new creation there will be no further threats of

persecution or death for the people of God. However, based upon Beale’s biblical

theology, two other assessments of the sea can be added to what he has given. The

removal of the sea can first be understood through Beale’s claim that the Garden of Eden

would be extended to all creation in the eschatological state. This idea is most explicit in

Beale’s writings in his relation between Adam and Israel as corporate Adam, with the

related concepts of Garden of Eden with Promised Land. As Beale writes, “God’s intent

all along was to make the entire creation his holy of holies and his dwelling place. This is

much related to Israel’s universalized land promises.… As the holy of holies, patterned

also after Eden, was to expand to cover the entire city of Jerusalem, then the temple-city

would widen to cover the land, and, finally, the temple-land would be amplified to

97
Ibid.
98
Ibid., 1042. Dan Lioy, Axis of Glory: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of the Temple Motif in
Scripture, Studies in Biblical Literature 138 (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), 130, similarly calls the sea in
Revelation “the source of the satanic beast and a burial site for the dead.”
99
Ibid.

254
surround the earth.”100 Consequently, the absence of sea in creation could be understood,

in part, as the extension of the Promised Land to all creation. Further, the removal of the

sea is the removal of chaotic potential within creation. One of Beale’s signature

components within his biblical storyline is the pattern of chaos followed by new creation,

with chaos often associated with the sea.101 The first chaos in Genesis 1 is the watery

creation state of Gen 1:2, with watery chaos also associated with Noah’s flood and the

Egyptian exodus. The removal of the sea in new creation removes the potential of watery

chaos to destroy creation, and thus signifies the permanence of the new creation state.

As seen above, the removal of the sea presents the possibility for the Promised

Land to be extended to all creation, which leads to a related feature of Beale’s account of

Rev 21:1–22:5 as garden-like city-temple, the world-encompassing nature of the city-

temple. While Beale notes that it is technically possible that Rev 21:2 describes a city as

a feature of new creation rather than encompassing new creation, he gives several

exegetical reasons why this interpretation is not to be preferred.102 First, Beale argues that

the picture in Rev 21:27 of no unclean thing being allowed in the city signifies that

uncleanness is banished from new creation to the lake of fire outside the bounds of new

creation. Second, Beale notes the pattern of seeing-hearing in Revelation, where John

sees something that is then interpreted by what he hears (or vice versa).103 In this

instance, what John sees in Rev 21:1 as new creation is then described to him as the city-

100
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 759.
101
Ibid., 59; see also chapters two and three of this work.
102
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 365–371. Like Beale, Eva Maria Räpple also
sees the city as an extension of new creation to all reality, although she focuses particularly on John’s use
of city in the book of Revelation; see Räpple, The Metaphor of the City in the Apocalypse of John, Studies
in Biblical Literature 67 (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), 104.
103
Ibid., 366.
255
temple, thus making the two things one and the same. Third, Beale notes that Rev 21:3 is

an allusion to Lev 26:11–12 and Ezek 37:27, two texts which he argues “… view their

temple prophecies as developments of the Genesis 1:28 commission ‘to be fruitful and

multiply, and fill the earth.’”104 Fourth, Beale follows Jon Levenson’s observation that

Jerusalem and the temple are sometimes referred to as ‘heaven and earth’ in the Old

Testament, such as in Isa 65:17–18, a key background text for Rev 21:1–2.105 Finally,

Beale argues that the purpose of the temple in Scripture, as he lays it out in his storyline-

driven cosmic-temple motif, points toward the purpose of the temple as demonstrating

God’s purpose to dwell with his creation.106 In the words of Robert Mounce, in

Revelation 21, “symbol has given way to reality.”107

What becomes clear in Beale’s interpretation of the temple in the book of

Revelation is that the temple language is not merely symbolism pointing toward ultimate

reality or transrational portrayal of new creation, but rather it contains propositional truth.

Although Beale does not devote much space to the issue of analogical and univocal

language in Scripture, his short section on it in The Book of Revelation provides a key for

understanding his thought. In debating Eugene Boring’s position that Revelation gives

“nonobjectifying pictorial language,” Beale argues that the pictorial language is meant to

convey, but not exhaust, propositional truth.108 Further, Beale argues that Revelation does

contain univocal language at certain points in conjunction with divine knowledge, but

104
Ibid., 368.
105
Ibid., 368; see also Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama
of Divine Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 89–90.
106
Ibid., 369; see also Robert A. Briggs, Jewish Temple Imagery in the Book of Revelation,
Studies in Biblical Literature 10 (New York: Peter Lang, 1999), 103–105.
107
Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 383.
108
Beale, Revelation, 65–67.
256
that this does not exhaust divine knowledge.109 Unfortunately, Beale does not present the

temple of Revelation 21 as an example in this brief section, but one remark he does make

can most likely be applied to his interpretation of the passage. He writes, “[T]he purpose

of comparing figurative subjects with literal subjects is to explain something

propositionally about the nonfigurative subject.”110 In terms of Revelation 21, the use of

temple is meant to convey propositional content about new creation while at the same

time including symbolism. So, for example, the description of the city-temple as pure

gold in Rev 21:18 is a symbolic phrase that conveys the idea that God’s special presence,

formerly limited to the holy of holies (which was covered in gold), will extend to all

creation.111 Thus, there is symbolic language used to convey propositional truth. In this

interpretation, new creation is not merely like temple, it is temple in the sense that there

will truly be physical creation completely made up of sacred space for God and

humanity. In conclusion, while the passage uses symbolic language, the image of the

temple conveys propositional truth content related to creation and new creation.

Summary of G. K. Beale’s Interpretation

A brief summary can now be offered of G. K. Beale’s interpretation of the eschatological

temple of Ezekiel 40–48, Jesus’ relation to the temple in the Gospels, and the temple of

Rev 21:1–22:5 After the exile of Israel, the ultimate temple envisioned in Ezekiel 40–48

is an eschatological temple, expanding beyond the bounds of the previous tabernacle and

temple and including creation within its design. This temple pointed forward for Israel to

109
Ibid., 66.
110
Ibid., 67.
111
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 370.

257
a time when God’s reign would be over all the earth. In the New Testament, the true

purposes of the temple as sacred space of God’s presence find beginning fulfillment

within the being and actions of Jesus. Jesus acts in fulfillment of Adam’s priestly role in

creation and the temple’s sacred-presence role in creation, and places himself as

cornerstone of a new temple composed of the church and driven toward eschatological

fulfillment of God’s purposes for creation. Revelation 21:1–22:5 then shows the

apocalyptic in-breaking of a new creation that functions as earthly temple in fulfillment

of God’s design for the world. By way of summary of the temple theme in Scripture,

Beale writes,

Everything of which Old Testament temples were typologically symbolic, a

recapitulated and escalated Garden of Eden and whole cosmos, will have finally
been materialized. The holy of holies stood for the invisible heavenly dimension
of the cosmos where God dwelt; the holy place represented the visible heavens;
the outer court symbolized the visible earth (land, sea, the place of human
habitation). God’s special presence that was formerly confined to the holy of
holies, which was the essence of temple reality, will at last encompass the whole
new earth and heaven because of the work of Christ. At the very end of time, the
true temple will come down from heaven and fill the whole creation, as
Revelation 21:1–3, 10 and 22 affirm.112

Thus, the entire purpose of creation is the fulfillment of this eschatological reality as

displayed in Rev 21:1–22:5. The temple acts as a prominent feature pointing toward this

reality, from Genesis 1 through the New Testament reality of Christ as cornerstone and

church as new temple. Consequently, the cosmic-temple motif shows the eschatological

orientation of Scripture and creation, including both pre- and postlapsarian creation

within the same eschatological paradigm.

112
Ibid., 369–370.

258
 Theological Application of Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Motif to Eschatology

Moving from biblical theology to systematic theology, G. K. Beale’s eschatologically-

driven storyline approach to Scripture has significant parallels with the eschatological

formulations of both Wolfhart Pannenberg and Jürgen Moltmann, two theologians

summarized above as holding to future-oriented eschatologies. However, the implications

of Beale’s eschatology are also distinct in important places, particularly in the

prominence that he gives to the temple within creation and new creation. Thus, his model

has important implications for developing a doctrine of eschatology in relation to a

theology of creation. In order to understand Beale’s own unique contributions, the

eschatologies of Pannenberg and Moltmann will first be analyzed to emphasize their

developments of eschatology in relation to the similarities and distinctions of creation and

new creation. Although these two theologians make important contributions to

eschatology, the major argument here is that they each contain weaknesses in their focus

on future-oriented promise and fulfillment at the expense of present fulfillment, and thus

sever important implications of Jesus’ beginning fulfillment of God’s creation goals for

the world.

Jürgen Moltmann’s Eschatology in Relation to Creation and New Creation

Within the latter half of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century, Jürgen

Moltmann’s eschatology has loomed large in theological discussion. Beginning with his

early monograph Theology and Hope, Moltmann has sought to tie all Christian doctrine

with eschatological meaning. As he writes in the introduction to that work, “From first to

last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking

259
and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionizing and transforming the present.”113

Moltmann’s position here is similar to Karl Barth’s announcement that “… [i]f

Christianity be not altogether and unreservedly eschatology, there remains in it no

relationship whatever to Christ.”114 However, unlike Barth, Bultmann, and other 20th

century theological voices, Moltmann emphasizes the novum ultimum within his

eschatology, a new creation that brings the love and justice of God to earth in

consummated form.115

For Moltmann, the Scriptures point toward an eschatological future largely

through the promise-and-fulfillment motif. Thus, this concept will provide entry into

Moltmann’s eschatology. The concept of promise is one of the major distinctions

between what Moltmann calls the nomadic religion of Israel and the peasant religion of

Canaan.116 Unlike their neighbors, Israel understood God not in terms of local territory,

but rather in terms of history and future. God was not simply over the land of Israel, but

was guiding them toward a future hope, which is interrelated with the concept of promise.

Moltmann defines promise as the announcement of “the coming of a not yet existing

reality from the future of the truth.”117 Hence, the revelation of God in Scripture is

oriented toward the future, and is therefore eschatological in nature. Moltmann further

writes, “[P]romise does not in the first instance have the purpose of illuminating the

existing reality of the world or of human nature, interpreting it, bringing out its truth and

113
Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 16.
114
Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. E. C. Hoskyns, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1933), 314; quoted in Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 39.
115
For example, see ibid., 33.
116
Ibid., 96.
117
Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 85.

260
using a proper understanding of it to secure man’s agreement with it. Rather, it

contradicts existing reality and discloses its own process concerning the future of Christ

for man and the world.”118 In Moltmann’s thought, the Old Testament revelation is a

“history of promise” that leads to the cross and resurrection of Christ, itself conceived as

promise of “the eschatological future for the world.”119 Within the Old Testament,

Moltmann finds that every fulfillment to promise is actually the expansion of the

promise, so that God’s promise of new life is never fulfilled in completion.120 In one

example, Moltmann points to God’s promise to Israel of a promised land, which does not

reach its ultimate fulfillment in Israel’s settlement because there are still live issues

involving internal and external conflict.121 In his poignant words, “Man’s hopes and

longings and desires, once awakened by specific promises, stretch further than any

fulfilment that can be conceived or experienced.”122 Therefore, the Old Testament can be

understood as God’s promissory revelation to Israel.

Christ’s resurrection then functions for Moltmann, in the words of Richard

Bauckham, as “the ground and the criterion for eschatological expectation.”123 It becomes

the ultimate eschatological promise of renewal, containing the Old Testament

eschatological promises within itself. Related to the specifics of the promise that

Moltmann finds in the resurrection, he writes of Christ’s resurrection as the promise of

118
Ibid., 86.
119
Ibid., 87.
120
Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 104–105.
121
Ibid., 105.
122
Ibid.
123
Richard Bauckham, “Eschatology in the Coming of God,” in God Will Be All In All: The
Eschatology of Jürgen Moltmann, ed. Richard Bauckham (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 5.

261
non-transience for all creation that is currently subject to transience.124 The promise is

revealed in Christ’s resurrection body, which previews eschatological reality by

presenting new creation with both discontinuities and continuities with present creation.

Christ’s body is discontinuous with present creation in that it is novum ultimum, a new

creation of God.125 Based upon Christ’s body as firstfruits of new creation, Moltmann

argues that the future of the world is not simply in accordance with its current reality, but

rather will be the result of God’s fulfillment of the eschatological promise, contained in

various forms in Scripture. In Moltmann’s words, “‘[T]he possible’, and therewith ‘the

future’, arises entirely from God’s word of promise and therefore goes beyond what is

possible and impossible in the realistic sense. It does not illuminate a future which is

always somehow already inherent in reality…. Rather, it contradicts existing reality and

discloses its own process concerning the future of Christ for man and the world.”126

However, Christ’s body is also continuous with present creation in that it is an

affirmation of physical life that does not transcend a bodily state. In Bauckham’s

summary,

In this is seen the solidarity of the crucified and risen Christ, in the bodiliness of
his mortal and risen forms, with all living things and with the earth, just as human
beings in their bodiliness are integrally related to the rest of the material creation
and cannot be understood to rise bodily to new life without the resurrection and
new creation of the rest of creation also. Thus the bodily resurrection of the
crucified Christ forms the foundation for one aspect of the all-embracing and
integral character of the new creation as Moltmann portrays it. Eschatology is
emphatically not about the transcendence of immaterial and eternal aspects of
124
Jürgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions, trans.
Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 48; see also Bauckham, “Eschatology in the Coming of
God,” 5.
125
Jürgen Moltmann, The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology, trans. Margaret Kohl
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 28.
126
Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 85.

262
 creation over the bodily and mortal aspects. It is the new creation of the whole of
this transient and bodily creation.127

From Bauckham’s summary, the importance of bodily, physical creation can be seen in

Moltmann’s portrayal of eschatological reality in that it provides the basis for continuity

between present creation and new creation.

Within Moltmann’s reading of Scripture as promise, there is a continual bent

toward a future fulfillment state of new creation. However, one critique of Moltmann’s

future-oriented concept of cross and resurrection is that its emphasis upon Christ as

promise minimizes his role as fulfillment of Israel’s missional call, and hence minimizes

the specific eschatological commission of Israel. As noted above, Moltmann defines Old

Testament revelation in terms of promise, and thus demonstrates that it is eschatological

in nature. However, by not also including the commission aspect of Old Testament

revelation, Moltmann is in danger of emptying the concept of meaning. Thus, there is

something to be said for Hendrik Berkhof’s critique that “[f]or Moltmann the future

which beckons us has hardly any substance.”128 In terms of inaugurated eschatology,

Moltmann is in danger of emphasizing the Not Yet at the expense of the Already. While

Moltmann does have much to say about present Christian living as incorporating the

tension between reality and eschatological hope, it is often in the form of speculation

127
Bauckham, “Eschatology in The Coming of God,” 7.
128
Hendrickus Berkhof, Well-Founded Hope (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1969), 15.

263
favoring liberation theology that is removed from the meaning of Scripture.129 This

critique of the insufficiency of Moltmann’s concept of promise is picked up by

Pannenberg in his own eschatological interpretation of the cross and resurrection.

Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Eschatology in Relation to Creation and New Creation

Like Beale, Wolfhart Pannenberg argues for the importance of understanding eschatology

in relation to creation. Within his own systematic theology, he emphasizes the placement

of eschatology and creation together as mutually benefiting doctrinal formulations.130 His

most complete treatment of eschatology is in the third volume of his Systematic

Theology, and so this work will provide the starting point for understanding his

eschatological emphases. Within this work, Pannenberg presents an eschatology

grounded in the distinction between the tension of Already and Not Yet related to the

fulfillment and consummation of the Kingdom of God in creation. As he writes in this

work, “[God’s] acts in the reconciliation and eschatological consummation of the world

are oriented to nothing other than the fulfilling of his purpose in creation.”131 Thus there

is an important link between creation and new creation within Pannenberg’s thought.

Pannenberg distinguishes his eschatology from others who ground it in the

concept of promise, such as Moltmann, by grounding promise itself in his doctrine of

129
Tim Chester, Mission and the Coming of God: Eschatology, the Trinity and Mission in the
Theology of Jürgen Moltmann and Contemporary Evangelicalicsm, Paternoster Theological Monographs
(Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2006), 25–28, offers summaries of several significant theological critiques
of Moltmann’s exegesis, including from evangelical advocate Richard Bauckham, who Chester summarizes
as holding that Moltmann has “a tendency to uncritically favour revolutionary change since this more
fittingly corresponds to the radicalness of the future.” See ibid., 26.
130
Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology: Vol. 2, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 145.
131
Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology: Vol. 3, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 642.

264
God. As Pannenberg notes, “Treatment of eschatology in systematic theology must

always rest in the soil of the knowledge of God, for God is the theme of theology.”132

However, within the Bible, Pannenberg also emphasizes that the revelation of God “is

indissolubly linked to the future of his kingdom in the world.”133 This would appear to

present a vicious circle within Pannenberg’s thought, with eschatological knowledge

dependent upon the knowledge of God, which itself is dependent upon the eschatological

kingdom coming to fruition. However, Pannenberg finds alleviation to this tension by

understanding Christ’s life and ministry as fulfillment of eschatological promise. He

traces the history of God’s promise of eschatological consummation in the Old Testament

from Abraham, through David, through postexilic prophecy, and culminating in

apocalyptic statements of end-time salvation.134 He then finds the fullest example of this

promise of future life in Jesus. However, Pannenberg finds in Jesus more than simply the

promise of a future kingdom, which he notes would simply make Jesus a prophet as

others before him.135 Rather, Jesus manifests this future promise in present life. The result

is “… thus the distinctive tension between Already and Not Yet that is typical of the

situation of the Christian community.”136 Therefore, Jesus Christ himself is the basis of

this promise and the eschatological hope of the Christian community.

Pannenberg also incorporates the work of the Spirit into his eschatological

understanding of God’s promise. As Jesus began fulfillment of God’s promise, so the

132
Ibid., 540.
133
Ibid.
134
Ibid., 544–545.
135
Ibid., 545.
136
Ibid.

265
Holy Spirit brings it to consummation through his twofold function of bringing fullness

to individual life and incorporating individuals into eschatological fellowship.137 In this

way, Pannenberg envisions the Holy Spirit linking the eschatological future to the

present. On this relation he writes,

Pneumatology and eschatology belong together because the eschatological

consummation itself is ascribed to the Spirit, who as an end-time gift already
governs the historical present of believers. Conversely, then, eschatology does not
merely have to do with the future of consummation that is still ahead; it is also at
work in our present by the Spirit…. Thus we are to view the presence of the
eschatological future by the Spirit as an inner element of the eschatological
consummation itself, namely, as a proleptic manifestation of the Spirit who in the
eschatological future will transform believers, and with them all creation, for
participation in the glory of God.138

Thus, for Pannenberg, the Holy Spirit links the future eschatological order of all creation

to the present through his transforming work in the lives of believers as individuals and

members of a new community. In another place, Pannenberg remarks on the importance

of connecting individual and social eschatology, with the individual eschatology serving

as the basis for ideas of eschatological society. On this connection, he writes, “This basic

affirmation of individual eschatology serves as a key to the plausibility structure of

eschatology in general, because the prospect of a final future of human society assumed

the otherworldly colors of eschatology in definitive connection with the development of

an individual eschatology.”139 In essence, individual eschatology grounds the prospect of

future human society, and thus of a social order to new creation.

This two-fold work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers forms the basis for

137
Ibid., 552.
138
Ibid., 553.
139
Pannenberg, “Constructive and Critical Functions,” 127.

266
Pannenberg’s understanding of the eschaton. He writes, “In Christian eschatological

expectation this reconciliation of individuals and society is the basis of the concept of the

kingdom of God and finds particular expression in the linking of the end-time

consummation of God’s reign to the resurrection of the dead.”140 The emphasis here is

upon the relation between individual eschatology and collective eschatology in

conjunction with the two-fold work of the Spirit in the present lives of believers. Thus,

the question becomes, how does Pannenberg understand the similarities and distinctions

between creation and new creation? For Pannenberg, the eschaton is largely presented in

terms of God revealing what is currently hidden, thus signifying the eschaton in terms of

noetic fulfillment. In other words, what is already presently in effect in hidden form

through Christ’s reign will become revealed in the eschaton.141 One example concerns

individual believers, as the inner working of the Holy Spirit in their lives will become

manifestly clear in the future resurrection. Another example concerns the cosmos itself.

As Pannenberg states, Christ is presently Lord over all reality, but annihilation of all

competing lordships will only occur at this end-time.142 Similarly, the hidden nature of

reality itself will become clear in the eschaton. Pannenberg writes, “Only within a general

ontology of the present reality of being as this is constituted by the eschatological future

of its nature do the statements of theology about the eschatological present of salvation

achieve full plausibility.”143 Thus, what Christians know about reality through present

faith will be known in fullness in the coming reign of God. Although Pannenberg does

140
Ibid., 585.
141
Ibid., 605.
142
Ibid.
143
Ibid.

267
not provide examples of this idea in these pages, such doctrinal ideas as the goodness of

created order and the debilitating effects of sin upon creation could be included in what

Christians currently know of creation through faith. This could rightfully be called an

eschatological knowledge that Christians have of creation in view of future fulfillment of

creation.

However, Pannenberg’s eschatological picture of new creation can be critiqued

similarly to Moltmann’s in that it emphasizes the Not Yet of creation at the expense of

the Already. In an insightful critique of Pannenberg’s eschatology, James K. A. Smith

notes that Pannenberg understands even the imago dei of humanity in prelapsarian

creation in terms of eschatological fulfillment, rather than being, functionality, or other

similar concepts.144 In this reading, humanity is placed in need of redemption solely on

the basis of being humanity.145 In Smith’s summary of Pannenberg, “Humanity and

creation, as created, from the beginning required redemption, a redemption from

finitude.”146 Thus, the commissional charge to Adam is emptied of its eschatological

meaning, and the value of Christ as fulfillment of Adam’s role is implicitly undermined

in Pannenberg’s work. This critique can also surface in Stanley Grenz’s summary of

144
James K. A. Smith, The Fall of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations for a Creational
Hermeneutic, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 76. Smith here quotes Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic
Theology: Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 217.
145
Ibid., 76. Smith notes that Pannenberg calls creation itself the first act of redemption; see also
Pannenberg, Systematic Theology: Vol. 2, 173.
146
Smith, The Fall of Interpretation, 76. Italics original. One of Smith’s major critiques is that, in
Pannenberg’s understanding of creation, finitude and creaturely being are themselves signs of fallenness to
be overcome in new creation. Benjamin Myers, “The Difference Totality Makes: Reconsidering
Pannenberg’s Eschatological Ontology,” Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und
Religionsphilosophie 49 (2007): 141–155, has recently challenged this particular critique. While this debate
is beyond the scope of this dissertation, it does not affect Smith’s other critique that is emphasized in this
section, that Pannenberg’s particular understanding of eschatology implicitly devalues present creation and
removes the eschatological importance of the imago dei.

268
Pannenberg’s eschatology, although he does not offer it as critique himself. In relating

Pannenberg’s eschatology to his anthropology, Grenz writes, “[In Pannenberg’s thought]

Anthropology moves beyond any merely empirical description of humanness and speaks

of the image of God as human destiny. This theme not only links anthropology to

Christology—Jesus is the new human—but also to eschatology, for human destiny is

present in Jesus only as the anticipation of the universal human consummation.”147 This

idea of imago dei as human destiny portrays humanity (and all of creation with it) in

terms of anticipation at the expense of eschatological fulfillment within creation. In

noting the essential role that anticipation plays between the Already and Not Yet in

Pannenberg’s theology, Christiaan Mostert writes, “The concept of anticipation has its

meaning in the framework of the Christian experience of the already and not yet. Present

Christian experience is that salvation is already truly experienced, but not yet in its

fullness.”148 Thus, similarly to the role of promise in Moltmann’s eschatology,

anticipation is the connection to the Not Yet in the Christian life in Pannenberg’s

eschatology. As Smith notes in his critique, this picture of creation (and particularly

prelapsarian creation) in terms of anticipation necessitates evil in the form of the fall and

necessitates redemption from the being of creation itself.149 Thus, to adjust slightly the

147
Stanley Grenz, Reason For Hope: The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1990), 189.
148
Christiaan Mostert, God and the Future: Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Eschatological Doctrine of
God (London: T&T Clark, 2002), 113.
149
Smith, The Fall of Interpretation, 66–67.

269
wording of Colin Gunton’s critique of Karl Barth’s eschatology, in Pannenberg’s

eschatology it appears that everything significant will happen in the eschaton.150

For both Moltmann and Pannenberg, there is an implicit emphasis on the

eschatological Not Yet at the expense of the Already of creation. In other words, the

major thrust of their theologies is the construal of Christ in terms of promise and

anticipation at the expense of Christ as fulfillment. Part of the weakness in their

theological formulations is the lack of recognition of how Christ fulfilled the interrelated

roles of Adam, Israel, and the temple in creation, and thus has truly begun the process of

eschatological fulfillment. In contrast, G. K. Beale’s cosmic-temple motif interpretation

of Christ, temple, and eschatological temple provides a balance between the Already and

Not Yet of creation and eschatology. Particularly, the Already and Not Yet of his

inaugurated eschatology provides understanding of both continuities and discontinuities

between creation and new creation. Part of the importance of Beale’s eschatology is that

it affirms the goodness of present creation in ways that it cannot be affirmed in the

theologies of Moltmann and Pannenberg. Therefore, Beale’s work provides an important

conversation partner for eschatological conceptions of creation.

G. K. Beale’s Eschatology in Relation to Creation and New Creation

G. K. Beale’s eschatological understanding of Scripture begins at the beginning, by

finding eschatological emphasis in the creation narratives of Genesis 1–3. Within these

chapters, Beale finds the “essentially eschatological” basic themes of the Old Testament

150
Colin Gunton’s critique of Barth’s supralapsarian eschatology is that “everything significant
has happened already;” see Gunton, “The Development of Christian Doctrine: Karl Barth’s Understanding

270
that are then developed through fulfillment themes in the New Testament.151 As shown in

chapters two and three of this work, there are numerous literary allusions to Genesis 1–3

within the rest of Scripture that demonstrate the continual recapitulation of these themes

before their fulfillment in the life of Jesus. As analyzed above in this chapter, there is also

a close relation in the New Testament between Jesus, the temple, and the eschatological

temple. Specifically, Jesus fulfills the functions of Adam as high priest and the temple

within creation and becomes the cornerstone for the church as new temple that provides a

continuum between creation and new creation. These ideas within Beale’s work mark

important distinctions from the eschatologies of Moltmann and Pannenberg. In order to

highlight these differences, there are two ideas in particular worth analyzing within

Beale’s concept of eschatology. First, Beale develops his eschatology in light of the oft-

repeated Old Testament phrase, “the latter days.” As will be shown below, this is an

eschatological term in that Old Testament writers used it in description of a future time of

everlasting stability and peace for Israel. Second, Beale defines eschatology as “new-

creational reign” in light of the incarnation and the birth of the church. Both of these

terms, the former concentrated largely in Old Testament theology and the latter

concentrated largely in New Testament theology, incorporate apocalyptic ideas with a

cosmic-temple understanding of new creation that are useful for theological engagement.

First, the Old Testament concept of “the latter days” plays an important role in

Beale’s development of eschatology. Beale argues that within the Old Testament, the

of the Theological Task,” in Colin E. Gunton, Theology Through the Theologians: Selected Essays 1972–
1995 (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 42.
151
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 29–30.

271
expression “the latter days” referred to a discrete period of time in the future that was

envisioned as the culmination of all history, and thus is eschatological in nature.152 Beale

notes a number of occurrences of this term throughout the Old Testament, including Gen

49:1; Num 24:14; Deut 4:30; 31:29; Hosea 3:5; Isa 2:2; Micah 4:1–4; Jer 23:20; Ezek

38:14–16; Dan 2:28–29, 45; 10:14; 11–12.153 While Beale acknowledges that some of

these references could be considered vaguer in nature than others, they together represent

eschatological discontinuity between present creation and new creation.154 He lists ten

eschatological conditions of new creation that can be compiled from the Old Testament

usages of the term:

1. After a final, unsurpassed, and incomparable period of tribulation for God’s

people instigated by an end-time opponent who deceives and persecutes, in the
face of which they will need wisdom not to compromise, they are
2. delivered and
3. resurrected, and their kingdom is reestablished.
4. At this future time, God will rule on earth
5. through a coming Davidic king, who will defeat all opposition and reign in
peace in a new creation over both
6. the nations and
7. restored Israel,
8. with whom God will make a new covenant, and
9. upon whom God will bestow the Spirit, and
10. among whom the temple will be rebuilt.155

Beale also notes that these ideas of kingdom, king, and rule over nations are at times in

the Old Testament developed in relation to the fulfillment of the promises of blessing

152
G. K. Beale, “The End Starts at the Beginning,” in Benjamin Gladd and Matthew S. Harmon,
eds., Making All Things New: Inaugurated Eschatology for the Life of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2016), 4.
153
Ibid., 6–7. For interpretation of each of these passages in eschatological context, see Beale, A
New Testament Biblical Theology, 92–112.
154
Ibid., 7.
155
Ibid.

272
given to Adam and the patriarchs.156 Thus, from Beale’s perspective, within the Old

Testament there was a continual acknowledgement of a future period where a Davidic

king would rule over the nations as the result of an apocalyptic break with present

creation. As point ten above shows, the temple played an important role in this vision of

the future eschatological age. As these points also show, this future period is envisioned

as a heightened state of present creation, in that it pictures the rule of God extending

outward to all the earth as the basis for life in the new creation.

The second important term, “new-creational reign,” is central to Beale’s definition

of eschatology. He defines eschatology “… not merely as the end of redemptive or

cosmic history, or the goal of Israel’s hopes, or the goal of the individual saint’s hopes,

but rather as an ‘already-not yet new-creational reign in Christ,’ and all other things

associated with eschatology are to be understood in inextricable relationship with this

notion.”157 This definition makes clear that Beale’s eschatology is understood in

inaugurated terms, with Christ’s incarnation marking the beginning point of fulfillment

and leading ultimately to a consummated eschatological state for creation. Thus, as Beale

emphasizes, the use of the phrase “the latter days” in the New Testament “often does not

refer exclusively to the very end of history,” but rather to the period of history beginning

with the incarnation.158 Thus, this phrase itself points to an inaugurated eschatology with

beginning fulfillment in the life of Jesus and ultimate consummation in the new creation.

156
Ibid.
157
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 177.
158
Ibid., 130. For Beale’s treatment of New Testament usage of “the latter days;” see ibid., 130–
156.

273
 Beale’s use of inaugurated eschatology is further defined by his concept of “new-

creational reign.” For Beale, new-creation kingship is a biblical concept that began with

the call for Adam to fulfill God’s commission in Gen 1:26–28 to rule over creation in

accordance with God’s purposes for the world. Beale argues that there were “escalated

end-time blessings” associated with Adam fulfilling this commission.159 After the failure

of Adam and other Old Testament figures to fulfill this commission, these end-time

blessing are then associated with Jesus in the incarnation as a last Adam figure.

Therefore, Jesus is the inauguration of the new-creational reign. As Beale writes in an

important paragraph,

The beginning of the new-creational reign is understood as Christ’s life,

especially his death, resurrection, and ongoing ascended resurrection existence
and rule, so that he is a formative microcosmic model that determines the nature
and destiny of people, and the rest of creation, on a macrocosmic scale. What
happened to Christ in his life, death, and resurrection contains patterns of things
that not only recapitulate earlier OT historical patterns but also embody patterns
of things that will happen to his people—for example, with respect to his
sufferings, resurrection as first fruits, his identity as Son of God (Christians are
adopted sons/daughters) and Son of Man (i.e., Adam: Christians become true
humanity in Christ), being a light to the nations, reception of the Holy Spirit,
keeping of the law, restoration or reconciliation to God’s presence from death,
and his vindication becoming the Christian’s justification.160

Beale here uses the terms microcosmic and macrocosmic to speak of the life of Christ in

relation to creation. These are important terms in that they are the same terms that Beale

uses to speak of temple and creation in the Old Testament. As the Old Testament temple

was a microcosmic model of creation, so Christ is now as temple (described above) the

microcosmic model. While there are certainly distinctions in temple and Christ,

159
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 179.
160
Ibid., 179–180.

274
particularly in how the temple acted as microcosmic model in part through the display of

creation imagery, the most important functions of priest and temple in relation to creation

are now transferred to Christ. As one example, Christ acts as microcosmic model of new-

creation rule. Specifically, Christ acts as judge, determining the nature and destiny of all

creation. In this understanding, Christ fulfills one role of Adam in Beale’s model that

caused Adam’s Garden failure. As primordial priest-king within the Garden, Adam was

supposed to execute wise judgment over creation. As byproduct of this position, Adam

was called to judge the serpent at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thus

executing God’s wise order over creation.161 If Adam would have judged the serpent

according to his commission, he would have fulfilled a priestly duty within the cosmic

temple, and thus been in position to continue fulfilling God’s eschatological goals for

humanity and creation. In fulfilling Adam’s priestly role, Jesus provides a beginning

point for the fulfillment of eschatology.

The related concepts “the latter days” and “new-creation reign” work together in

Beale’s model to display an eschatological thrust to all of Scripture, pointing toward a

new creation containing both ontological distinctions and similarities with present

creation. This new creation has its beginning mark not in future apocalyptic event but in

the life of Jesus. He is the beginning fulfillment of the new creation that is then carried on

in the church as temple with Christ as its cornerstone. This does not mean that Beale

denies a future apocalyptic event, as demonstrated in his interpretation of Rev 21:1–22:5,

which describes a new creation as temple. In his interpretation, the apocalyptic event is

161
For Beale’s development of this idea, see ibid., 34–35.

275
the culmination of Jesus’ fulfillment of the roles of Adam, Israel, and the temple through

the church that ushers in a heightened state of creation. As he writes, “Eschatology is

protology, which means that the goal of all redemptive history is to return to the primal

condition of creation from which humankind fell and then go beyond it to a more

heightened state, which the first creation was designed to reach but did not.”162 This idea

of new creation as a heightened state of creation carries implications that distinguish

Beale’s theology from the works of Moltmann and Pannenberg.

Unlike in Pannenberg’s portrayal of prelapsarian creation as standing in need of

redemption, Beale finds in prelapsarian creation the potential for humanity to bring in

eschatological creation through obedience to God. In Beale’s construal, the result of

Adam’s fulfillment of the divine mandate would have likely been an eschatologically

heightened state of creation marked by freedom from chaotic elements of creation, the

revelatory presence of God filling creation, everlasting life for humanity, and permanent

eschatological rest (including external and internal security from evil) in creation.163

While these elements are not meant to summarize the extent of eschatological creation,

they do enable portrayal of this creation. Thus, while creation was eschatologically

incomplete, it was not (contra Pannenberg) eschatologically deficient in its prelapsarian

state, meaning that there was apart from redemption the possibility of eschatological

completion. In Beale’s work, creation can truly be thought of project, in that God’s

design included the use of humanity to complete his creation plan. Also, contrary to

Pannenberg, the imago dei in Gen 1:27–28 carries important eschatological connotations.

162
Ibid., 177–178.
163
Ibid., 33–43.
276
As noted above, Pannenberg defines the imago dei in terms of anticipation of redeemed

humanity. From Beale’s interpretation, the imago dei carries more eschatological weight

in God’s call for fulfillment of the divine mandate by Adam and his progeny, and in his

call for fulfillment of the Great Commission mandate by the church.164

This understanding of eschatologically-heightened creation also provides clarity

for understanding the qualities of new creation. Within Beale’s temple motif, there is the

affirmation of the goodness of creation in both pre- and postlapsarian states. The

eschatological goal of creation is a heightened state of this good creation, rather than a

completely new creation. As Beale notes, this involves elements of both recapitulation

and escalation. On this idea, he writes, “[T]he eschatological goal of the temple of the

Garden of Eden dominating the entire creation will be finally fulfilled [in the depiction of

Rev 21:1–22:5]. Hence, eschatology not only recapitulates the protology of Eden but

escalates it.”165 Because Beale’s portrayal of the eschatology of Scripture involves one

continuous plan rather than multiple plans, the fulfillment by Christ will produce within

creation the heightened state of this good creation in accordance with God’s original

goals. This includes both ontological continuities and discontinuities that can be

distinguished by Moltmann’s configuration of these themes presented above. As shown

above, Moltmann labels the resurrection body of Jesus as an ontologically new body, and

thus discontinuous with his former body. He finds the continuity between the two bodies

in the fact that they are both physical bodies. Unlike Moltmann, Beale does not find

complete ontological discontinuity between Jesus’ former body and his resurrection

164
This idea is analyzed in ch. 3 of this work.
165
Ibid., 368.
277
body. Rather, the resurrection body is a renewed physical body that includes the quality

of being imperishable.166 As Christ’s body is the firstfruits of new creation, then the

future bodies of believers can also be understood as renewed physical bodies with

heightened qualities, including the possession of immortality.167 Similarly, new creation

can be understood as creation in a heightened state. Beale finds in the miracles of Christ

the in-breaking of this new-creation state, whereby disease, sickness, death, and other

forms of corruption are removed from the earth.168 The miracles of Christ also

demonstrate the submission of creation to Christ’s rule, and thus the future creation can

be understood as creation in complete submission to Christ and free from chaotic

elements.

Thus, because of Beale’s emphasis upon new creation as heightened state of

creation, there are important distinctions between his work and the works of Moltmann

and Pannenberg. One of the most important implications for a theology of creation is that,

within Beale’s model, the goodness of creation is continually affirmed. While

Pannenberg and Moltmann both also affirm the goodness of creation as creatio ex nihilo,

Beale’s model further demonstrates its goodness by incorporating present creation and

present humanity within God’s eschatological plan for creation.169 Further, because new

creation is a renewal of present creation, then there is an implicit affirmation of the

goodness of present creation in its current, incomplete state.

166
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 262–263.
167
Ibid.
168
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 174.
169
For Pannenberg’s doctrine of creation out of nothing following Irenaeus’s conception of Son
and Spirt as the two hands of God, see Pannenberg, Systematic Theology: Vol. 1, 170; for Moltmann’s
concept of creation out of nothing see Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation
and the Spirit of God, trans. Margaret Kohl (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 72–73.
278
 Summary

This chapter has demonstrated the applicability of G. K. Beale’s cosmic-temple motif in

the area of eschatology, particularly in relation to creation and new creation. Within

Beale’s development of creation as temple beginning in Genesis 1–3, there is a continual

emphasis on God’s eschatological plan for creation to function as sacred space between

God and creation. Within this eschatological goal, there is an important commission

given to humanity, first to Adam and his progeny and later to Jesus and his followers, to

function as temple building in spreading God’s presence outward. As this chapter has

shown from Ezekiel 40–48 and Rev 21:1–22:5, this eschatological state of new creation

is the consummation of God’s prelapsarian plan for humanity and the world. As this

chapter has shown from the relation between Jesus and temple in the New Testament,

Jesus fulfills the role of Adam and this begins this consummation of God’s plan through

his present new-creational reign. Beale’s development of this picture of eschatology is

important in that it balances the Scripture twin emphasis on the Already and Not Yet of

eschatology. In distinction from Moltmann and Pannenberg, Beale’s theology is able to

accentuate present fulfillment through understanding the specifics of Jesus’

eschatological mission in relation to God’s commission for humanity. Thus, while there

is both promise and anticipation within the Scripture understanding of creation and new

creation, there is also beginning fulfillment in the life of Jesus. This picture of

eschatology thus provides emphasis for the church in pursuing the missionary

commission given by Jesus in anticipation of the final consummation of new creation,

when God will be with his people in all the earth.

279
 Conclusion

As with the previous two chapters, G. K. Beale’s cosmic-temple motif carries important

implications for understanding creation and new creation within the systematic category

of eschatology. Thus, in accordance with the thesis of this dissertation, Beale’s model

should be brought into conversation within theologies of creation in order to both affirm

and challenge elements of this area of theology. This chapter has shown both affirmation

and challenge to the theologies of Jürgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Like

Moltmann and Pannenberg, Beale finds a future-oriented eschatology in Scripture that

includes Already and Not Yet elements. However, Beale’s interpretation places greater

importance on the Already portion of this eschatological package than either Moltmann

or Pannenberg by finding in Jesus specific function of the eschatological commissions of

Adam and Israel and the eschatological function of the temple. Jesus’ fulfillment of

Adam’s role begins his new-creational reign over the world, and the church plays the role

of temple that prepares the way for God’s special-revelatory presence to preside over

creation in the new heavens and the new earth. Thus, the purpose of the temple as sacred

space in Genesis 1–3 is brought to culmination in this new creation.

280
 CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This dissertation has aimed to demonstrate the usefulness of G. K. Beale’s cosmic-temple

motif for a theology of creation. In particular, the thesis of this dissertation is that the

cosmic-temple motif is a valuable resource within an evangelical theology of creation. It

has explored this thesis through three test cases within ontology, natural theology, and

eschatology. The cosmic-temple motif itself is the literary/symbolic use of the temple in

different parts of Scripture in order to conceptualize theological and thematic connections

and ideas related to creation. A number of scholars have noted the cosmic-temple motif

in Scripture, but Beale has gone further in demonstrating its usefulness within biblical

theology.1 While Beale’s work focuses mainly on the cosmic-temple motif as an

important element in the storyline of Scripture, his findings produce important ideas for

themes of systematic theology. As Beale himself writes, the storyline of Scripture

presents an “organizing structure of thought” for generating important ideas and details of

Scripture.2 Within a theology of creation, Beale’s interpretation of creation as temple and

Garden of Eden as holy place in Genesis 1–3 opens up a number of possibilities for

understanding the world.3 Further, his development of this concept within the Old and

1
See chapter one for summary and analysis of scholarship related to recognition of the cosmic-
temple motif.
2
G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the
New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 163.
3
For full analysis of this idea, see chapters two and three of this dissertation.

281
New Testaments shows the importance of this idea for understanding both Scripture and

the world. Within this dissertation, three areas of a theology of creation have been chosen

in order to demonstrate the usefulness of Beale’s motif: ontology, natural theology, and

eschatology. The cosmic-temple motif provides important conceptual resources in each

of these areas for thinking through major ideas. A summary of these findings will now be

presented.

The Cosmic-Temple Motif and Ontology

The third chapter of this dissertation focuses on the area of ontology in relation to the

cosmic-temple motif. The chapter first analyzes Beale’s motif in his interpretation of

Genesis 1–3 and then applies these implications to the question of pre- and postlapsarian

ontology. Beale’s most important concept within his cosmic-temple interpretation of

Genesis 1–3 is his priestly understanding of the imago dei commission as a call to

continue God’s work of creation in order to extend his glory to all creation.4 This

commission is found in Gen 1:26–28, but Beale argues that it is expanded in God’s

commission to Adam in Gen 2:15–17 to guard and rule the Garden as a priest guards and

rules the temple.5 Thus, the failure of Adam in Genesis 3 is specifically a failure to guard

the garden from outside corruption, and thus a failure to fulfill the imago dei

commission.6 Related to systematic theology, the major question of this chapter is

whether Scripture presents ontological changes to creation as a result of the fall. Through

Beale’s motif, the idea of ontological change is rejected in favor of the idea of relational
4
G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place
of God, NSBT 17 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 84.
5
Ibid., 85.
6
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 34.

282
change between humanity, God, and creation. Within prelapsarian creation, Beale’s

creatio ex nihilo interpretation of Gen 1:1–3 includes the idea of chaos as a prelapsarian

element of creation to be contained, rather than a postlapsarian introduction as the result

of sin. Thus, the fall did not ontologically altar creation by introducing chaotic elements

to a formerly pristine world. Even within humanity, Genesis 3 presents relational change

rather than ontological change. For example, death is not a result of changes to human

DNA structure, but a result of exile from the Garden and relational separation between

humanity and God. Thus, there are important implications from Beale’s cosmic-temple

motif to the topic of ontology within a theology of creation.

The Cosmic-Temple Motif and Natural Theology

The fourth chapter focuses on the cosmic-temple motif in relation to natural theology,

and particularly to a revelatory account of natural theology. This chapter analyzes Beale’s

interpretation of the major iterations of the temple within the Old Testament with an eye

toward implications for natural theology. Within Beale’s interpretation, the relation

between creation and temple continues past Genesis 1–3 to the Old Testament in the

designs of the tabernacle and temple to incorporate creation symbolism. In Beale’s

development of the motif, there is an implication that revelation is not inherent

within nature, but rather it is given by God in proximity to his presence, and thus the

further removed from the presence of God, the more that revelation will be marred.7 This

idea carries important implications for natural theology. This chapter places Beale in

conversation with theologians Karl Barth, Colin Gunton, and Alister McGrath. While

7
Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 29–31.
283
Barth denies natural theology as product of an analogia entis, both Gunton and McGrath

emphasize the potential of natural theology within a theology of revelation.8 This chapter

argues that Beale adds to their accounts through his recognition of the importance of the

temple within the Old Testament as a revelatory symbol of creation. Thus, this chapter

presents a positive assessment of natural theology within a theology of revelation that

incorporates the cosmic-temple motif.

The Cosmic-Temple Motif and Eschatology

The last major test case is presented in chapter five, where the cosmic-temple motif is

placed in conversation with eschatology, particularly concerning the relation between

creation and new creation. This chapter focuses on Beale’s interpretation of three

portions of Scripture: the eschatological temple of Ezekiel 40–48, the Gospel accounts of

Jesus’ relation to the temple, and the eschatological temple of Rev 21:1–22:5. The

eschatological temple of Ezekiel pointed toward a future time when God’s reign would

cover the earth. In the Gospels, Jesus acts in fulfillment of both Adam’s priestly role in

creation and the temple’s sacred-presence role in creation, and places himself as

cornerstone of a new temple composed of the church and driven toward eschatological

fulfillment of God’s purposes for creation. Revelation 21:1–22:5 then presents the

apocalyptic in-breaking of a new creation that functions as earthly temple in fulfillment

of God’s prelapsarian design and plan for the world. Beale’s interpretation is placed in

conversation with Jürgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg, two recent theologians

8
For a summary of this rejection, see Kevin Diller, Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma: How
Karl Barth and Alvin Plantinga Provide a Unified Response, Strategic Initiatives in Evangelical Theology
(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 246.

284
known for their emphasis on eschatology as a fundamental category of theological

exploration. This chapter argues that both Moltmann and Pannenberg display weaknesses

in their construals of Christ in terms of promise and anticipation at the expense of Christ

as fulfillment. In contrast, Beale’s cosmic-temple motif emphasizes both the Already and

the Not Yet of inaugurated eschatology in that Christ fulfilled the interrelated roles of

Adam, Israel, and the temple in creation, and thus has begun the process of eschatological

fulfillment of God’s creation plan. Within Beale’s model, new creation can be understood

as creation in a heightened state, rather than completely ontologically distinct creation.

Areas for Further Research for Beale’s Cosmic-Temple Motif in Relation to a

Theology of Creation

While this dissertation has provided three areas within a theology of creation where

Beale’s cosmic-temple motif provides important conceptual resources, this has by no

means exhausted the potential for this motif. There are several other areas of theology

where future scholarship can bring the cosmic-temple motif into conversation as an

important resource. Three such areas can here be summarized in the hopes that

scholarship will take up the challenge and find the great value of this motif.

The first area with valuable potential is theological anthropology. Although the

third chapter of this dissertation has included some anthropological implications through

Beale’s priestly interpretation of the imago dei in Gen 1:26–28, these have mostly been

implicit and therefore have by no means exhausted the potential for anthropological

consideration. Recent theological anthropologies tend to look at what Scripture has to say

in correspondence with science and philosophy in order to develop an understanding of

285
the human person.9 Following Karl Barth, some recent theological anthropologies have

specifically focused on the person and work of Jesus as the foundational resource for

understanding anthropology.10 In Barth’s words, “The nature of the man Jesus alone is

the key to the problem of human nature.”11 Beale’s revelation of Adam, temple, and Jesus

can be placed into conversation with this important aspect of theological anthropology in

order to understand the human person in God’s design, postlapsarian state, and future

consummation.

The second area with valuable potential is that of ecclesiology. Beale’s research

shows the importance of the church within God’s design and plan for creation. While

Beale acknowledges an ecclesiological aspect to the cosmic-temple motif, there is much

room for further consideration.12 Particularly, future research could focus on how the

mission of the church reveals the mission of God as demonstrated by the cosmic-temple

motif. The church could also be considered in relation to creation in both God’s design of

creation and God’s plan for creation. Thus, the cosmic-temple motif can provide an

important dialogue partner for ecclesiological considerations.

The third area with valuable potential is environmental care. The first chapter

pointed to a limited consideration of the cosmic-temple motif in recent scholarship. The

9
Two prominent recent example is Hans Schwarz, The Human Being: A Theological
Anthropology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013) and Marc Cortez, Theological Anthropology: A Guide for
the Perplexed, Guides for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark, 2010).
10
For Barth’s Christological focus of theological anthropology, see Karl Barth, CD II/2. For
examples, see Marc Cortez’s writing and sources in Marc Cortez, “The Madness In Our Method:
Christology as the Necessary Starting Point for Theological Anthropology,” in The Ashgate Research
Companion to Theological Anthropology, eds. Joshua R. Farris and Charles Taliaferro (Surrey: Ashgate,
2015), 15–26.
11
Karl Barth, CD III/2, 43.
12
See Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 187.

286
recent book Embracing Creation shows the possibility of consideration in this area, but

much more work can be done.13 A major question for future research should be how

stewardship of creation can be construed in light of creation as pictured in the cosmic-

temple motif. Stewardship is currently a popular discussion topic and thus the cosmic-

temple motif should be incorporated into evangelical Christian thoughts in this area as

Christians seek how to best love and care for the world that God has given. As shown in

chapters three and five, current creation is valuable to God even in its postlapsarian

relation to humanity. Thus, Christians are called to care for creation in our treatment of it.

A particularly interesting area of research could be on how Beale’s priestly conception of

the imago dei can inform Christian understanding of stewardship.

Conclusion

G. K. Beale’s cosmic-temple motif provides a valuable resource for theological dialogue

in a theology of creation. For those who seek to base all of their theological

considerations in Scripture, this motif enables fresh understanding of creation in its

prelapsarian, postlapsarian, and renewed states. As demonstrated by this dissertation, it

can be an important conversation partner for areas of systematic theology that are often

debated by Christians of different traditions. The first two chapters of this dissertation

demonstrate the validity of the cosmic-temple from the works of G. K. Beale and other

scholars, and the final three chapters show its practical value within these areas of

consideration. This chapter demonstrates that it has potential even beyond these areas of

consideration.

13
John Mark Hicks, Bobby Valentine, and Mark Wilson, Embracing Creation: God’s Forgotten
287
 In conclusion, it is my hope that this work will provide impetus for fresh

engagement with both Scripture and creation for Christians who seek to take the Bible

seriously and also desire to understand and love the world that God has given us. Even

for those who hold different understandings of the nature of Scripture than the one

accepted by Beale and this dissertation, it is my hope that this analysis of the cosmic-

temple motif provides opportunity for a fresh look at the storyline of Scripture, and

particularly to the unified development of this motif across the pages of Scripture. This

motif has been emphasized by scholars of various Christian traditions, and thus it is not

limited to one particular tradition, but rather can be used in theological discussion

between Christians of various traditions concerning a theology of creation.

Mission (Abilene, TX: Leafwood, 2016).

288
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, T. Desmond. From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical

Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

———. From Paradise to Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch. 3rd ed.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.

Anderson, Bernhard W. Creation Versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical

Symbolism in the Bible. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005.

———. “From Analysis to Synthesis: The Interpretation of Genesis 1–11.” Journal of

Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 23–39.

Anderson, Gary A. Christian Doctrine and the Old Testament: Theology in the Service
of Biblical Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017.

———. “The Cosmic Mountain: Eden and Its Early Interpreters in Syriac Christianity.”
Pages 367–388 in Cult and Cosmos: Tilting Toward a Temple-Centered
Theology. Edited by L. Michael Morales. Vol. 18 of Biblical Tools and Studies.
Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Repr. from 1988.

Atkinson, David. The Message of Genesis 1–11: The Dawn of Creation. Bible Speaks
Today. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.

Averbeck, Richard E. “The Cylinders of Gudea.” Pages 415–433 in The Context of

Scripture, Volume II: Monumental Inscriptions From the Biblical World. Edited
by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Barker, Margaret. Creation: A Biblical Vision For the Environment. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 2010.

———. On Earth as It Is in Heaven: Temple Symbolism in the New Testament. London:

T&T Clark, 1995.

Barr, James. Biblical Faith and Natural Theology: The Gifford Lectures For 1991
Delivered in the University of Edinburgh. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

289
———. The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1999.

———. The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality: The Read-Tuckwell Lectures
for 1990. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

Barstad, Hans M. History and the Hebrew Bible. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 61.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

Barth, Karl. The Doctrine of God. Vol. II of Church Dogmatics. Edited by G. W.

Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance. Translated by T. H. L. Parker, W. B.
Johnston, Harold Knight, and J. L. M. Haire. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010.

———. The Doctrine of Creation. Vol. III of Church Dogmatics. Edited by G. W.

Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance. Translated by T. H. L. Parker, W. B.
Johnston, Harold Knight, and J. L. M. Haire. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010.

———. Der Romerbrief, 1922. Zurich: TVZ, 1940

———. “No! Answer to Emil Brunner.” Pages 67–128 in Natural Theology: Comprising
“Nature and Grace” by Professor Dr. Emil Brunner and the reply “No!” by Dr.
Karl Barth. Translated by Peter Fraenkel. London: Centenary Press, 1946.

Batto, Bernard F. In the Beginning: Essays on Creation Motifs in the Ancient Near East
and the Bible. Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 9.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013.

———. Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville:

Westminster John Knox Press, 1992.

Bauckham, Richard. “Eschatology in The Coming of God.” Pages 1–34 in God Will Be
All In All: The Eschatology of Jürgen Moltmann. Edited by Richard Bauckham.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.

———. “First Steps To a Theology of Nature.” Evangelical Quarterly 58 (1986): 229–

244.

Bavinck, Herman. Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. Vol. 4 of Reformed
Dogmatics. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2008.

Beale, Gregory K. The Book of Revelation. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and Donald A.
Hagner. New International Greek Testament Commentary 21. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999.

290
———. “The Cognitive Peripheral Vision of Biblical Authors.” Westminster Theological
Journal 76 (2014): 263–293.

———. “The Descent of the Eschatological Temple in the Form of the Spirit at
Pentecost: Part 1: The Clearest Evidence.” Tyndale Bulletin 56 (2005): 73–102.

———. “The Descent of the Eschatological Temple in the Form of the Spirit at
Pentecost: Part 2: Corroborating Evidence.” Tyndale Bulletin 56 (2005): 63–90.

———. “Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine From the Wrong Texts?
An Examination of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Exegetical Method.” Themelios 14
(1989): 89–95.

———. “Eden, the Temple, and the Church’s Mission in New Creation.” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 48 (2005): 5–31.

———. “The End Starts at the Beginning.” Pages 3–14 in Making All Things New:
Inaugurated Eschatology For the Life of the Church: With an Introductory
Chapter by G. K. Beale. Edited by Benjamin L. Gladd and Matthew S. Harmon.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016.

———. The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to

Biblical Authority. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.

———. “The Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology.” Pages 11–52 in

Eschatology in Bible and Theology: Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New
Millennium. Edited by K. E. Bower and M. W. Elliott. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1997.

———. “The Final Vision of the Apocalypse and Its Implications for a Biblical
Theology of the Temple.” Pages 191–209 in Heaven On Earth: The Temple in
Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Simon Gathercole.
Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2004.

———. “The Garden Temple.” Kerux: The Journal of Northwest Theological Seminary
18 (2003): 3–50.

———. God Dwells Among Us: Expanding Eden to the Ends of the Earth. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014.

——— and Benjamin L. Gladd. Hidden But Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of
Mystery. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014.

291
———. “The Inaugurated End-Time Tribulation and Its Bearing on the Church Office of
Elder and on Christian Living in General.” Midwestern Journal of Theology 10
(2011): 32–57.

———. John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. Journal For the Study of the New
Testament Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998.

———. “Myth, History, and Inspiration: A Review Article of Inspiration and

Incarnation by Peter Enns.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49
(2006): 287–312.

———. A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the
New. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.

———. “The Purpose of Symbolism in the Book of Revelation.” Calvin Theological

Journal 41 (2006): 53–66.

——— and McDonough S. M. “Revelation.” Pages 1081–1161 in Commentary on the

New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by D. A. Carson and Gregory K.
Beale. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.

——— and David H. Campbell. Revelation: A Shorter Commentary. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2014.

———. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling
Place of God. Edited by D. A. Carson. New Studies in Biblical Theology 17.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004.

Beckwith, R. T. “The Temple Restored.” Pages 71–79 in Heaven on Earth: The Temple
in Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Simon Gathercole.
Exeter: Paternoster, 2004.

Berkhof, Hendrickus. Well-Founded Hope. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1969.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Combined Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation: A Discursive Commentary on

Genesis 1–11. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2011.

———. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New York:
Doubleday, 1992.

292
Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth. “Solomon’s Temple: The Politics of Ritual Space.” Pages 83–94
in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Edited by
Barry Gittlen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25-48. New International Commentary on
the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

———. “Eden: A Temple? A Reassessment of the Biblical Evidence.” Pages 3–20 in

From Creation to New Creation: Biblical Theology and Exegesis: Essays in
Honor of G. K. Beale. Edited by Benjamin Gladd and Daniel Gurtner. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 2013.

Bouteneff, Peter C., ed. Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation
Narratives. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Breasted, James Henry. Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents From the
Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest, Collected, Edited and Translated with
Commentary. 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923.

Brett, Mark G. Biblical Criticism in Crisis?: The Impact of the Canonical Approach On
Old Testament Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Briggs, Robert S. Jewish Temple Imagery in the Book of Revelation. Studies in Biblical
Literature 10. New York: Peter Lang, 1999.

Brown, David and Ann Loades. Creation: Problems in Theology: A Selection of Key
Readings. Edited by Jeff Astley. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2003.

Brown, William P. The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

———. “Manifest Diversity: The Presence of God in Genesis.” Pages 3–25 in Genesis
and Christian Theology. Edited by Nathan MacDonald, Mark W. Elliott, and
Grant Macaskill. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.

———. The Seven Pillars of Creation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Interpretation: A Biblical Commentary For Teaching and

Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.

———. The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2002.

293
———. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2005.

Brunner, Emil. “Nature and Grace.” Pages 15–64 in Natural Theology: Comprising
“Nature and Grace” by Professor Dr. Emil Brunner and the reply “No!” by Dr.
Karl Barth. Translated by Peter Fraenkel. London: Centenary Press, 1946.

Buber, Martin and Franz Rosenzweig. Scripture and Translation. Translated by

Lawrence Rosenwald and Everett Fox. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press,
1994.

Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. Vol.
1. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951.

Burnet, Gilbert, ed. The Boyle Lectures (1692–1732): A Defense of Natural and Revealed
Religion, Being an Abridgement of the Sermons Preached at the Lectures
Founded by Robert Boyle. 4 vols. Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 2000.

Burrows, Eric. “Some Cosmological Patterns in Babylonian Religion.” Pages 27–48 in

Cult and Cosmos: Tilting Toward a Temple-Centered Theology. Edited by L.
Michael Morales. Biblical Tools and Studies 18. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Repr.
From 1935.

Calvin, Jean. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. 1. Edited by John T. McNeill.
Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. The Library of Christian Classics 21.
Louisville: Westminster, 2006.

Campbell, Anthony F. and Mark A. O’Brien. Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts,

Introductions, Annotations. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Capetz, Paul E. “The Old Testament as a Witness to Jesus Christ: Historical Criticism
and Theological Exegesis of the Bible According to Karl Barth.” Journal of
Religion 90 (2010): 475–506.

Carlson, Richard F. and Tremper Longman III. Science, Creation, and the Bible:
Reconciling Rival Theories of Origins. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010.

Carson, D. A. “Current Issues in Biblical Theology: A New Testament Perspective.”

Bulletin For Biblical Research 5 (1995): 17–41.

Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I: From Adam to Noah:
Genesis I-VI. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1978.

294
Charette, Blaine. Restoring Presence: The Spirit in Matthew’s Gospel. Journal of
Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 18. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2000.

Chester, Andrew. “Eschatology.” Pages 243–257 in The Blackwell Companion to

Modern Theology. Edited by Gareth Jones. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing,
2004.

Chester, Tim. Mission and the Coming of God: Eschatology, the Trinity and Mission in
the Theology of Jürgen Moltmann and Contemporary Evangelicalicism.
Paternoster Theological Monographs. Exeter: Paternoster, 2006.

Childs, Brevard. Biblical Theology in Crisis. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970.

———. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1993.

———. Myth and Reality in the Old Testament. Vol. 27 of Studies in Biblical Theology.
Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009.

Chilton, Bruce. “Temple.” Pages 781–782 in Dictionary For Theological Interpretation

of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J.
Treier, and N. T. Wright. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Clark, David K. To Know and Love God: Method for Theology. Edited by John S.
Feinberg. Foundations of Evangelical Theology. Wheaton: Crossway, 2003.

Clements, R. E. God and Temple. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965.

Clifford, Richard J. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. Harvard
Semitic Monographs 4. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.

———. Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and In the Bible. Catholic Biblical
Quarterly Monograph Series 26. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association
of America, 1994.

———. “Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of Meeting.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33
(1977): 221–227.

Collins, C. John. Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should
Care Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.

———. Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. Phillipsburg,

NJ: P & R Publishing, 206.

295
———. Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? Wheaton: Crossway, 2003.

Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic

Literature. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Colson, Charles and Nancy Pearcey. How Now Shall We Live? Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale
House, 1999.

Congar, Yves M.–J. The Mystery of the Temple: The Manner of God’s Presence to His
Creatures from Genesis to the Apocalypse. Translated by Reginald F. Trevett.
Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1962.

Congdon, David. Rudolf Bultmann: A Companion to His Theology. Eugene, OR:

Cascade, 2015.

Copan, Paul. “Is Creatio Ex Nihilo a Post-Biblical Invention? An Examination of

Gerhard May’s Proposal.” Trinity Journal 17 (1996): 77–93.

——— and William Lane Craig. Creation Out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and
Scientific Exploration. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.

Cortez, Marc. “The Madness In Our Method: Christology as the Necessary Starting Point
for Theological Anthropology.” Pages 15–26 in The Ashgate Research
Companion to Theological Anthropology. Edited by Joshua R. Farris and Charles
Taliaferro. Surrey: Ashgate, 2015.

———. Theological Anthropology: A Guide for the Perplexed. Guides for the Perplexed.
London: T&T Clark, 2010.

Craig, William Lane and James D. Sinclair. “The Kalam Cosmological Argument.”
Pages 101–201 in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Edited by
William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2009.

Craig, William Lane and J. P. Moreland, eds. The Blackwell Companion to Natural
Theology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Crisp, Oliver D. “Karl Barth on Creation.” Pages 77–95 in Karl Barth and Evangelical
Theology: Convergences and Divergences. Edited by Sung Wook Chung. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2006.

Crites, Stephen. “The Spatial Dimensions of Narrative Truthtelling.” Pages 97–120

in Scriptural Authority and Narrative Interpretation. Edited by Garrett Green.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

296
Crouch, Andy. Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling. Grand Rapids:
InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Cullmann, Oscar. Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and
History. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964.

Currid, John D. Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament.
Wheaton: Crossway, 2013.

Dalley, Stephanie. Myths From Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and
Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Daniélou, Jean Cardinal. “The Sign of the Temple: A Meditation.” Letter & Spirit 4
(2008): 287–319.

Davidson, Richard. “Earth’s First Sanctuary: Genesis 1–3 and Parallel Creation
Accounts.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 53 (2015): 65–89.

Davies, G. N. “Tabernacle, Sanctuary.” Pages 1154–1156 in Dictionary of the Later New

Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Peter Davids and Ralph P. Martin.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

de Cruz, Helen and Johan de Smedt. A Natural History of Natural Theology: The
Cognitive Science of Theology and Philosophy of Religion. Cambridge: MIT
Press, 2015.

de Souza, Elias Brasil. “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible:
Function and Relationship to the Earthly Counterparts.” PhD diss., Andrews
University, 2005.

DeHart, Paul J. “Doctrine of Creation, Creation of Doctrine (Or, Natural Theology In the
Island).” Anglican Theological Review 83 (2001): 297–306.

Delitzsch, Franz. A New Commentary on Genesis. Vol. 1. Translated by Sophia Taylor.

Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888.

Dew, James K. Science and Theology: An Assessment of Alister McGrath’s Critical

Realist Perspective. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010.

Diller, Kevin. Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma: How Karl Barth and Alvin
Plantinga Provide a Unified Response. Strategic Initiatives in Evangelical
Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014.

297
Dubovský, Peter. The Building of the First Temple: A Study in Redactional, Text–Critical
and Historical Perspective. Edited by Konrad Schmid, Mark S. Smith and
Hermann Spieckermann. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 103. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2015.

Dumbrell, William. The Search For Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1994.

Ebeling, Gerhard. Word and Faith. Translated by James W. Leitch. London: SCM Press,
1963.

Edwards, David. “Jesus and the Temple: A Historico-Theological Study of Temple

Motifs in the Ministry of Jesus.” PhD diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary, 1992.

Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Translated by Cosslett Quin. Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1970.

———. Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by J. A. Baker. Vol. 2. Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1967.

Eliade, Mircea. “Sacred Space and Making the World Sacred.” Pages 295–316 in Cult
and Cosmos: Tilting Toward a Temple-Centered Theology. Edited by L. Michael
Morales. Biblical Tools and Studies 18. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Repr. From 1957.

Ellingson, Stephen. To Care for Creation: The Emergence of the Religious

Environmental Movement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016.

Enns, Peter. The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human
Origins. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2012.

———. Exodus. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

———. “Fuller Meaning, Single Goal: A Christotelic Approach to the New Testament
Use of the Old In Its First-Century Interpretive Environment.” Pages 167–217 in
Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by Kenneth
Berding and Jonathan Lunde. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.

———. “Response to G. K. Beale’s Review Article of Inspiration and Incarnation.”

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49 (2006): 313–326.

Erickson, Millard. A Basic Guide to Eschatology: Making Sense of the Millennium.

Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

298
———. Christian Theology. 3rd Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Erman, Adolf. A Handbook of Egyptian Religion. Translated by A. S. Griffith. London:

Archibald Constable & Co., 1907.

Evans, Craig A., Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen. The Book of Genesis: Composition,
Reception, and Interpretation. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Fackre, Gabriel. “Narrative: Evanglical, Postliberal, Ecumenical.” Pages 123–133 in The

Nature of Confession: Evangelicals and Postliberals in Conversation. Edited by
Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1996.

———. Review of A Brief Theology of Revelation. Pro Ecclesia 6 (1997): 119–120.

Falk, Darrel. “Human Origins: The Scientific Story.” Pages 3–22 in Evolution and the
Fall. Edited by William T. Cavanaugh and James K. A. Smith. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2017.

Farro, Ingrid. “The Question of Evil and Animal Death Before the Fall.” Trinity Journal
36 (2015): 193–213.

Fergusson, David A. The Cosmos and the Creator: An Introduction to the Theology of
Creation. Reading: SPCK, 1998.

———. Creation. Guides to Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.

———. “Interpreting the Story of Creation: A Case Study in the Dialogue Between
Theology and Science.” Pages 155–174 in Genesis and Christian Theology.
Edited by Nathan MacDonald, Mark W. Elliott, and Grant Macaskill. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.

Ferré, Frederick Pond. “Mapping the Logic of Models In Science and Theology.”
Christian Scholar 46 (Spring 1963): 9–39.

Fesko, J. V. Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis With the Christ of Eschatology. San
Clemente, Ca.: Mentor, 2007.

Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Select Texts.
Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1998.

Fisher, Loren R. “Creation at Ugarit and in the Old Testament.” Vetus Testamentum 15
(1965): 313–324.

299
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. “God’s Image, His Cosmic Temple, and the High Priest:
Towards an Historical and Theological Account of the Incarnation.” Pages 81–
100 in Heaven On Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology. Edited by T.
Desmond Alexander and Simon Gathercole. Exeter: Paternoster, 2004.

Foster, Benjamin R. From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient
Mesopotamia. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1995.

Foster, Paul. “Echoes Without Resonance: Critiquing Certain Aspects of Recent

Scholarly Trends in the Study of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament.”
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38 (2015): 96–111.

Frankemö, H. Jahwebund und Kirche Christi. Münster: Aschendorff, 1974.

Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.

Fretheim, Terence E. “Genesis and Ecology.” Pages 683–706 in The Book of Genesis:
Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Craig A. Evans, Joel N.
Lohr, and David L. Petersen. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Fretheim, Terence E. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of
Creation. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005.

———. “Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?” Word & World 14 (1994): 144–153.

———. “The Reclamation of Creation: Redemption and Law in Exodus.” Interpretation:

A Journal of Bible and Theology 45 (1991): 354–65.

Gabriel, Andrew K. Barth’s Doctrine of Creation: Creation, Nature, Jesus, and the
Trinity. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2014.

Gadler, J. P. “An Oration on the Proper Distinction Between Biblical and Dogmatic
Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each.” Pages 497–506 in Old Testament
Theology: Flowering and Future. Edited by Ben. C. Ollenburger. Sources For
Biblical and Systematic Theology 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004.

Gage, Warren A. The Gospel of Genesis: Studies in Protology and Eschatology. Eugene,
OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001.

Gallusz, László. “The Throne Motif in the Book of Revelation.” PhD diss., Károli Gáspár
University, 2012.

George, Mark K. Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space. Atlanta: Society of Biblical

Literature, 2009.

300
Gladd, Benjamin. “The Last Adam as the ‘Life-Giving Spirit’ Revisited: A Possible Old
Testament Background of One of Paul’s Most Perplexing Phrases.” Westminster
Theological Journal 71 (2009): 297–309.

Green, Bradley. Colin Gunton and the Failure of Augustine: The Theology of Colin
Gunton in Light of Augustine. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2012.

Grenz, Stanley. Reason For Hope: The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Gundry, Stanley N. and Gary T. Meadors, eds. Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible
to Theology. Counterpoints. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

Gunkel, Hermann. Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton. Translated
by K. William Whitney, Jr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Gunton, Colin. The Actuality of the Atonement: A Study of Metaphor, Rationality, and the
Christian Tradition. London: T&T Clark, 1988.

———. A Brief Theology of Revelation: The 1993 Warfield Lectures. London: T&T
Clark, 1995.

———. Christ and Creation: The Didsbury Lectures, 1990. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1992.

———. “Creation.” Pages 114–157 in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine.

Edited by Colin Gunton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

———. The One, the Three and the Many: God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity:
The 1992 Bampton Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

———. Revelation and Reason: Prolegomena to Systematic Theology. Edited by P. H.

Brazier. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2008.

———. Theology Through the Theologians: Selected Essays 1972–1995. London: T&T
Clark, 2003.

———. The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Study. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 1998.

Gushee, David P. The Sacredness of Human Life: Why An Ancient Biblical Vision Is Key
to the World’s Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.

301
Hamilton, James. God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment: A Biblical Theology.
Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.

Hallo, William W. and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., eds. The Context of Scripture, Volume I:
Canonical Compositions From the Biblical World. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical
Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985.

Hardy, Daniel W. “Creation and Eschatology.” Pages 105–133 in Doctrine of Creation:

Essays in Dogmatics, History, and Philosophy. Edited by Colin E. Gunton.
London: T&T Clark, 2004.

Hare, John E. “Goodness.” Pages 66–80 in The Cambridge Companion to Christian

Philosophical Theology. Edited by Charles Taliaferro and Chad Meister.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Harvey, Lincoln. “The Double Homoousion: Forming the Content of Gunton’s

Theology.” Pages 86–99 in The Theology of Colin Gunton. Edited by Lincoln
Harvey. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2010.

Harvie, Timothy J. “Living the Future: The Kingdom of God in the Theologies of Jürgen
Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg.” International Journal of Systematic
Theology 10 (2008): 149–164.

Hays, J. Daniel. The Temple and the Tabernacle: A Study of God’s Dwelling Places
From Genesis to Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016.

Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s

Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

———. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1989.

———. Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness.
Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014.

Heidel, Alexander. The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation. 2nd ed. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1963.

Helm, Paul. The Divine Revelation: The Basic Issues. Foundations for Faith. Westchester,
IL: Crossway, 1982.

302
———. “The Idea of Inerrancy.” Pages 899–916 in The Enduring Authority of the
Christian Scriptures. Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016.

Helmer, Christine. The Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings.

Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.

Hendel, Ronald S. The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Hendry, George. The Theology of Nature. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980.

Henry, Carl F. H. God Who Speaks and Shows: Preliminary Considerations. Vol. 1 of
God, Revelation, and Authority. Waco: Word Books, 1976.

Hepner, Gershon. Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in Biblical Israel.
Studies in Biblical Literature 78. New York: Peter Lang, 2010.

Heslam, Peter S. Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on

Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Hess, Richard S. “Genesis 1–2 and Recent Studies of Ancient Texts.” Science and
Christian Belief 7 (1995): 141–149.

———. Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2007.

Hicks, John Mark, Bobby Valentine, and Mark Wilson. Embracing Creation: God’s
Forgotten Mission. Abilene, TX: Leafwood, 2016.

Hoffmeier, James K. “Genesis 1–11 As History and Theology.” Pages 23–58 in Genesis:
History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters.
Edited by Stanley N. Gundry and Charles Halton. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2015.

Holder, Rodney. “Natural Theology in the 20th Century.” Pages 118–135 in The Oxford
Handbook of Natural Theology. Edited by Russell Re Manning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2013.

Holland, Glenn S. Gods in the Desert: Religions of the Ancient Near East. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield, 2009.

Homan, Michael M. “The Divine Warrior in His Tent: A Military Model for Yahweh’s
Tabernacle.” Bible Review 16 (2000): 22–33, 55.

303
———. To Your Tents, O Israel!: The Terminology, Function, Form, and Symbolism of
Tents in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Culture and History of the
Ancient Near East 12. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Horton, Michael. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

Hundley, Michael D. Gods in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient
Near East. Writings from the Ancient World Supplement Series 3. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.

Hunsinger, George. “Postliberal Theology.” Pages 42–57 in The Cambridge Companion

to Postmodern Theology. Edited by Kevin Vanhoozer. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2003.

Hurd, James P. “Hominids in the Garden?” Pages 208–233 in Perspectives on an

Evolving Creation. Edited by Keith B. Miller. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Hurowitz, Victor. I Have Built You An Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in
Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament Supplement Series 115. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1992.

———. “YHWH’s Exalted House.” Pages 63–110 in Temple and Worship in Biblical
Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day.
Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 422. London: T&T Clark, 2005.

Irenaeus. Scandal of the Incarnation: Irenaeus Against the Heresies. Edited and
Translated by Hans Urs von Balthasar. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990.

Jenson, Philip Peter. Graded Holiness: Key to the Priestly Conception of the World.
JSOT Supplement Series 106. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.

Johnson, Keith L. Karl Barth and the Analogia Entis. T&T Clark Studies in Systematic
Theology. London: T&T Clark, 2010.

Johnstone, William. Exodus 20–40. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA:
Smyth & Helwys, 2014.

Josephus, Flavius. The War of the Jews. Vol. 1 of The Works of Flavius Josephus.
Translated by William Whiston. Nashville: Broadman, 1974.

304
Kaminsky, Joel S. “The Theology of Genesis.” Pages 579–606 in The Book of Genesis:
Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Craig A. Evans, Joel N.
Lohr, and David L. Petersen. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. Creation and Humanity. Vol. 3 of A Constructive Christian

Theology For the Pluralistic World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.

Karlberg, Mark W. “The Original State of Adam: Tensions Within Reformed Theology.”
Evangelical Quarterly 59 (1987): 291–309.

Kearney, Peter J. “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25–40.” Zeitschrift für
die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1977): 375–387.

Keathley, Kenneth D. “Rescuing Adam: Three Approaches to Affirming a Historical

Adam.” Southeastern Theological Review 8 (2017): 55–76.

———, J. B. Stump, and Joe Aguirre, eds. Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation?
Discussing Origins With Reasons to Believe and Biologos. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2017.

Keel, Othmar and Silvia Schroer. Creation: Biblical Theologies in the Context of the
Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015.

Keel, Othmar. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography
and the Book of Psalms. Translated by Timothy J. Hallett. New York: Seabury
Press, 1978.

Keene, Thomas. “Heaven is a Tent: The Tabernacle as an Eschatological Metaphor in the

Epistle to the Hebrews.” PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 2010.

Keller, Catherine. The Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming. London: Routledge,
2003.

———. “‘Nothingsomething’ on My Mind: Creatio Ex Nihilo or Ex Profundis?” Pages

31–40 in Theologies of Creation: Creatio Ex Nihilo and Its New Rivals. Edited by
Thomas Jay Oord. London: Routledge, 2015.

Keller, Timothy. Every Good Endeavor: Connecting Your Work to God’s Work. New
York: Penguin, 2012.

Kelly, Douglas F. Creation and Change: Genesis 1.1–2.4 in the Light of Changing
Scientific Paradigms. Nairobi: Mentor, 1999.

———. Systematic Theology. 2 vols. Nairobi: Mentor, 2014.

305
Kidner, Derek. Genesis. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2008.

Klaiber, Walter. Schöpfung: Urgeschichte und Gegenwart. Biblisch-theologische

Schwerpunkte 27. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005.

Kline, Meredith G. “Canon and Covenant.” Westminster Theological Journal 32 (1970):

45–72.

———. “Canon and Covenant.” Westminster Theological Journal 32 (1970): 179–200.

———. Genesis: A New Commentary. Edited by Jonathan G. Kline. Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson, 2016.

———. God, Heaven, and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos.
Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.

———. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. Eugene,

OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.

Koester, Craig R. The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament,
Intertestamental Jewish Literature and the New Testament. Edited by Robert J.
Karris, et al. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 22. Washington,
DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989.

Köstenberger, Andreas. “The Present and Future of Biblical Theology.” Themelios 37

(2012): 445–464.

Kratz, Reinhard G. The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament.
Translated by John Bowden. London: T&T Clark, 2005.

Kutsko, John L. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of
Ezekiel. Edited by William Henry Propp. Biblical and Judaic Studies 7. Winona
Lake: IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000.

Ladd, George Eldon. The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Lange, J. Das Erscheinen des Auferstandenen im Evangelium nach Matthäus. Würzburg:

Echter Verlag, 1973.

Lee, Yongbom. The Son of Man as the Last Adam: The Early Church Tradition As a
Source of Paul’s Adam Christology. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012.

306
Legarreta-Castillo, Felipe de Jesus. The Figure of Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians
15: The New Creation and Its Ethical and Social Reconfiguration. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2014.

Leithart, Peter J. “That Eminent Pagan: Calvin’s Use of Cicero in Institutes 1.1–5.”
Westminster Theological Journal 52 (1990): 1–12.

Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Genesis: Volume I, Chapters 1–19. Grand Rapids: Baker,

1956.

Levenson, Jon D. “Cosmos and Microcosmos.” Pages 227-248 in Cult and Cosmos:
Tilting Toward a Temple-Centered Theology. Edited by L. Michael Morales.
Biblical Tools and Studies 18. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Repr. From 1994.

———. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence.
San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.

———. “The Temple and the World.” Journal of Religion 64 (1984): 275–298.

Levering, Matthew. Engaging the Doctrine of Creation: Cosmos, Creatures, and the
Wise and Good Creator. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017.

Lindbeck, George. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984.

———. “Scripture, Consensus, and Community.” Pages 74–101 in Biblical

Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church. Edited
by Richard John Neuhaus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Lints, Richard. The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

———. Identity and Idolatry: The Image of God and Its Inversion. Edited by D. A.
Carson. New Studies in Biblical Theology 36. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic,
2015.

Lioy, Dan. Axis of Glory: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of the Temple Motif in
Scripture. Edited by Hemchand Gossai. Studies in Biblical Literature 138. New
York: Peter Lang, 2010.

Lodahl, Michael. “Creatio Ex Amore.” Pages 99–108 in Theologies of Creation: Creatio

Ex Nihilo and Its New Rivals. Edited by Thomas Jay Oord. London: Routledge,
2015.

307
Longman, Tremper. Immanuel In Our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel’s Worship.
Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001.

Lorton, David. “The Theology of Cult Statues in Ancient Egypt.” Pages 123–210 in Born
in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near
East. Edited by Michael B. Dick. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999.

Louth, Andrew. “The Fathers on Genesis.” Pages 561–578 in The Book of Genesis:
Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Craig A. Evans, Joel N.
Lohr, and David L. Petersen. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Lundquist, John D. “What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology.” Pages 205–220 in The

Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall.
Edited by H. B. Huffmon, F. A. Spina, and A. R. W. Green. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1983.

MacArthur, John and Richard Mayhue, eds. Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of
Bible Truth. Wheaton: Crossway, 2017.

Markl, Dominik. “The Wilderness Sanctuary as the Archetype of Continuity Between the
Pre- and the Postexilic Temples of Jerusalem,” Pages 227–251 in The Fall of
Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah. Edited by Peter Dubovský, Dominik Markl,
and Jean-Pierre Sonnet. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 107. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2016.

May, Gerhard. Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early
Christian Thought. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.

Maydole, Robert E. “The Ontological Argument.” Pages 553–592 in The Blackwell

Companion to Natural Theology. Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P.
Moreland. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2009.

Mayhue, Richard. “Is Nature the 67th Book of the Bible?.” Pages 105–130 in Coming to
Grips With Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. Edited by Terry
Mortenson and Thane H. Ury. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008.

McCormack, Bruce. Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis
and Development 1909–1936. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

McFarland, Ian. From Nothing: A Theology of Creation. Louisville: Westminster John

Knox, 2014.

———. In Adam’s Fall: A Mediation on the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin. Malden,
MA: Blackwell, 2010.

308
McGrath, Alister. “A Blast From the Past? The Boyle Lectures and Natural Theology.”
Science and Christian Belief 17 (2005): 25–33.

———. Darwinism and the Divine: Evolutionary Thought and Natural Theology.
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

———. A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.

———. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. 2nd ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

———. The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008.

———. Re-Imagining Nature: The Promise of a Christian Natural Theology. Malden,

MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.

———. A Scientific Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001–2002.

———. The Science of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

———. Science and Religion: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.

McKelvey, R. J. The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1969.

McKeown, James. Genesis. The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Mead, James K. Biblical Theology: Issues, Methods, and Themes. Louisville:

Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.

Menn, Jonathan. Biblical Eschatology. Eugene, OR: Resource Publications, 2013.

Middleton, Richard. The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Grand Rapids:
Brazos Press, 2005.

Molnar, Paul D. Divine Freedom and the Doctrine of the Immanent Trinity. London:
T&T Clark, 2002.

———. “Natural Theology Revisited: A Comparison of T. F. Torrance and Karl Barth.”

Zeitschrift für Dialektische Theologie 21 (2005): 53–83.

309
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1996.

———. “Creation Out of Nothing.” Pages 65–71 in Creation and Humanity: The
Sources of Christian Theology. Edited by Ian McFarland. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 2009.

———. The Future of Creation: Collected Essays. Translated by Margaret Kohl.

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.

———. God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God. Translated
by Margaret Kohl. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.

———. Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian

Eschatology. Translated by James W. Leitch. New York: Harper & Row, 1967.

———. The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God. Translated by Margaret
Kohl. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981.

———. The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions. Translated by

Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Moore, Andrew. “Theological Critiques of Natural Theology.” Pages 227–245 in The

Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology. Edited by Russell Re Manning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2013.

Moreland, J. P. and John Mark Reynolds, eds. Three Views on Creation and Evolution.
Counterpoints. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Morris, Henry. Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches About
Creation and the Flood. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2000.

Morrow, Jeff. “Creation as Temple-Building and Work as Liturgy in Genesis 1–3.”

Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies 2 (2009): 1–13.

Mostert, Christiaan. God and the Future: Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Eschatological

Doctrine of God. London: T&T Clark, 2002.

Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. New International Commentary on the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

Mühling, Markus. T&T Clark Handbook of Christian Eschatology. Translated by

Jennifer Adams Maßmann and David Andrew Gilland. London: T&T Clark,
2015.

310
Müller, Hans-Peter. Ursprünge und Strukturen Alttestamentlicher Eschatologie. Berlin:
Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1969.

Müller, Max. Natural Religion. The Gifford Lectures 1888. London: Longmans, Green,
and Co., 1892.

Myers, Benjamin. “The Difference Totality Makes: Reconsidering Pannenberg’s

Eschatological Ontology.” Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und
Religionsphilosophie 49 (2007): 141–155.

Oliver, Simon. Creation: A Guide For the Perplexed. Guides for the Perplexed. London:
T&T Clark, 2017.

Oord, Thomas Jay. “God Always Creates Out of Creation: Creatio Ex Creatione a Natura
Amoris.” Pages 109–122 in Theologies of Creation: Creatio Ex Nihilo and Its
New Rivals. Edited by Thomas Jay Oord. London: Routledge, 2015.

———. “Introducing Open Theology and Science.” Pages 1–7 in Creation Made Free:
Open Theology Engaging Science. Edited by Thomas Jay Oord. Eugene, OR:
Wipf & Stock, 2009.

———. The Nature of Love: A Theology. Atlanta: Chalice, 2010.

———. “An Open Theology Doctrine of Creation and Solution to the Problem of Evil.”
Pages 28–52 in Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science. Edited
by Thomas Jay Oord. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009.

———. The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015.

Origen. Homilies on Genesis and Exodus. Translated by Ronald E. Heine. Washington,

DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2002.

Otto, Randall E. “The Eschatological Nature of Moltmann’s Theology.” Westminster

Theological Journal 54 (1992): 115–133.

Pagolu, Augustine. The Religion of the Patriarchs. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 277. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. “Constructive and Critical Functions of a Christian Eschatology.”

Harvard Theological Review 77 (1984): 119–139.

———. Metaphysics and the Idea of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

311
———. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991–1997.

———. Theology and the Kingdom of God. Edited by Richard John Neuhaus. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1969.

Petersen, David L. “Creation and Hierarchy in Ezekiel.” Pages 169–178 in Ezekiel’s

Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Stephen L. Cook
and Corrine L. Patton. SBL Symposium Series 31. Atlanta: SBL, 2004.

Plantinga, Alvin. “The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology.” Pages 49–73 in

Philosophical Knowledge. Edited by John B. Brough, Donald O. Dahlstrom, and
Henry B. Veatch. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical
Association 54. Washington, DC: American Catholic Philosophical Association,
1980.

Polanyi, Michael. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Postell, Seth. Adam as Israel: Genesis 1–3 as the Introduction to the Torah and the
Tanakh. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011.

Poythress, Vern. The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses. Brentwood: Wolgemuth &
Hyatt, 1991.

Quinn, Benjamin T. and Walter R. Strickland II. Every Waking Hour: An Introduction to
Work and Vocation for Christians. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016.

Ramm, Bernard. The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1954.

Räpple, Eva Maria. The Metaphor of the City in the Apocalypse of John. Studies in
Biblical Literature 67. New York: Peter Lang, 2004.

Rau, Gerald. Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012

Reno, R. R. “Beginning With the Ending.” Pages 26–42 in Genesis and Christian
Theology. Edited by Nathan MacDonald, Mark W. Elliott, and Grant Macaskill.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.

Rowley, H. H. Worship in Ancient Israel: Its Forms and Meanings. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1967.

312
Sailhamer, John. Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account.
Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1996. Repr., Colorado Springs: Dawson Media, 2011.

———. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Schmid, H. H. “Creation, Righteousness, Salvation: ‘Creation Theology’ as the Broad

Horizon of Biblical Theology.” Pages 102–117 in Creation and the Old
Testament. Edited by Bernard Anderson. London: SPCK, 1979.

Schreiner, Patrick. The Body of Jesus: A Spatial Analysis of the Kingdom in Matthew.
Library of New Testament Studies 555. London: T&T Clark, 2016.

Schreiner, Susan. The Theater of His Glory: Nature and Natural Order in The Thought of
John Calvin. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Schuurman, Douglas J. “Creation, Eschaton, and Ethics: An Analysis of Theology and

Ethics in Jürgen Moltmann.” Calvin Theological Journal 22 (1987): 42–67.

Schwarz, Hans. Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

———. The Human Being: A Theological Anthropology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2013.

Schwöbel, Christoph. “The Shape of Colin Gunton’s Theology: On the Way Towards a
Fully Trinitarian Theology.” Pages 182–208 in The Theology of Colin Gunton.
Edited by Lincoln Harvey. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2010.

Seely, Paul H. “The Firmament and the Water Above, Part I: The Meaning of Raqia’ in
Gen 1:6–8.” Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1992): 227–240.

———. “The Firmament and the Water Above, Part II: The Meaning of ‘The Water
Above the Firmament’ in Gen 1:6–8.” Westminster Theological Journal 54
(1992): 31–46.

Smith, James K. A. The Fall of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations For a

Creational Hermeneutic. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.

Smith, Mark S. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Vol. 1: Introduction With Text, Translation, and
Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

Smith, Steven C. The House of the Lord: A Catholic Biblical Theology of God’s Temple
Presence in the Old and New Testaments. Steubenville, OH: Franciscan
University Press, 2017.

313
Snyder, Barbara Wooten. “Combat Myth in the Apocalypse: The Liturgy of the Day of
the Lord and the Dedication of the Heavenly Temple.” PhD diss., Graduate
Theological Union and University of California Berkeley, 1991.

Sommer, Benjamin D. “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence in the Priestly

Tabernacle.” Biblical Interpretation 9 (2001): 41–63.

Spadaro, Martin C. Reading Matthew as the Climactic Fulfillment of the Hebrew Story.
Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015.

Spencer, Andrew J. “The Inherent Value of Work.” Journal of Biblical and Theological
Studies 2 (2017): 52–65.

Stambaugh, James. “Whence Comes Death?: A Biblical Theology of Physical Death and
Natural Evil.” Pages 373–398 in Coming to Grips With Genesis: Biblical
Authority and the Age of the Earth. Edited by Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury.
Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2009.

Steenberg, M. C. Irenaeus on Creation: The Cosmic Christ and the Saga of Redemption.
Edited by J. den Boeft, et al. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 91. Leiden:
Brill, 2008.

Stevenson, Gregory. Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation.
Edited by Michael Wolter. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 107. New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 2001.

Stevenson, Kalinda Rose. The Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of

Ezekiel 40–48. SBL Dissertation Series 154. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996.

Stordalen, Terje. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in
Biblical Hebrew Literature. Vol. 25 of Contributions to Biblical Exegesis &
Theology. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000.

Strong, James. “Altar.” Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. Edited by James Strong.

Nashville: Broadman, 1979.

Stump, J. B. and Stanley N. Gundry, eds. Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and
Intelligent Design. Counterpoints. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017.

Sudduth, Michael. The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology. Ashgate Philosophy of

Religion Series. Edited by Paul Helm and Linda Zagzebski. New York:
Routledge, 2016.

314
Suh, Myung Soo. The Tabernacle in the Narrative History of Israel from the Exodus to
the Conquest. Studies in Biblical Literature 50. New York: Peter Lang, 2003.

Sweeney, Marvin A. “Genesis in the Context of Jewish Thought.” Pages 657–682 in The
Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Craig A.
Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen. Leiden: Brill: 2012.

Taliaferro, Charles. “The Project of Natural Theology.” Pages 1–23 in The Blackwell
Companion to Natural Theology. Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P.
Moreland. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2009.

Thompson, M. E. W. “Review of Axis of Glory: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of

the Temple Motif in Scripture.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 37
(2013): 171–172.

Topham, Jonathan R. “Natural Theology and the Sciences.” Pages 59–79 in The
Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion. Edited by Peter Harrison.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Torrance, Alan J. Persons in Communion: An Essay on Trinitarian Description and

Human Participation: With Special Reference to Volume One of Karl Barth’s
Church Dogmatics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

Torrance, Thomas F. Divine and Contingent Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1981.

———. “The Problem of Natural Theology in the Thought of Karl Barth.” Religious
Studies 6 (1970): 121–135.

———. The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic
Church. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2016.

Tsumura, David Toshio. “A Biblical Theology of Water: Plenty, Flood and Drought in
the Created Order.” Pages 165–184 in Keeping God’s Earth: The Global
Environment in Biblical Perspective. Edited by Noah J. Toly and Daniel I. Block.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010.

Valentine, James. “Theological Aspects of the Temple Motif in the Old Testament and
Revelation (Holy War, Judgment, Tabernacle, City, Law).” PhD diss., Boston
University, 1985.

Vanhoozer, Kevin. Biblical Authority After Babel: Retrieving the Solas in the Spirit of
Mere Protestant Christianity. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2016.

315
———. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian
Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.

———. First Theology: God, Scripture, and Hermeneutics. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2002.

———. “Is the Theology of the New Testament One or Many?: Between (the Rock of)
Systematic Theology and (the Hard Place of) Historical Occasionalism.” Pages
17–38 in Reconsidering the Relationship between Biblical and Systematic
Theology in the New Testament. Edited by Benjamin E. Reynolds, Brian Lugioyo,
and Kevin Vanhoozer. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
2 369. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.

———. Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Veenhof, Jan. “Nature and Grace in Bavinck.” Translated by A. M. Wolters. Pro-Rege 34

(2006): 11–31.

Vervenne, Marc. “Genesis 1,1–2,4. The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Overture
to the Pentateuch.” Pages 35–70 in Studies in the Book of Genesis. Edited by
André Wénin. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2010.

Vos, Geerhardus. The Eschatology of the Old Testament. Edited by James T. Dennison,
Jr. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001.

———. The Pauline Eschatology. Philadelphia: P&R Publishing, 1979.

Waltke, Bruce K., and Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2001.

Waltke, Brue K. “An Interaction With Peter Enns.” Westminster Theological Journal 71
(2009): 115–128.

Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the
Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

———. “An Expanded View of Biblical Authority: A Response to Van Kuiken.” Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 58 (2015): 693–695.

———. “Creation in Genesis 1:1–2:3 and the Ancient Near East: Order Out of Disorder
After Chaoskampf,” Christian Teachers Journal 43 (2008): 48–63.

———. Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

316
———. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015.

———. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

——— and D. Brent Sandy. The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and
Biblical Authority. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013.

———. Old Testament Theology For Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring
Belief. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017.

Wardle, Timothy Scott. “Continuity and Discontinuity: The Temple and Early Christian
Identity.” PhD diss., Duke University, 2008.

Ware, James. “Paul’s Understanding of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:36–54.”

Journal of Biblical Literature 4 (2014): 809–835.

Weeks, Noel K. “The Ambiguity of ‘Biblical Background.’” Westminster Theological

Journal 72 (2010): 219–236.

———. “The Bible and the ‘Universal’ Ancient World: A Critique of John Walton.”
Westminster Theological Journal 78 (2016): 1–28.

Weinfeld, Moshe. “Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord: The Problem of
the Sitz Im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3.” Pages 501–512 in Mélanges Bibliques et
Orientaux en L’honneur de M. Henrie Cazelles. Edited by A. Caquot and M.
Delcor. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981.

Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. Eugene, OR: Wipf &
Stock, 2003.

Wenham, Gordon J. “Genesis 1–11 as Protohistory.” Pages 73–97 in Genesis: History,

Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters. Edited by
Stanley N. Gundry and Charles Halton. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015.

———. Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by David A. Hubbard, Glenn
W. Barker, and John D. W. Watts. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983. Repr., Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2014–2015.

———. Rethinking Genesis 1–11: Gateway to the Bible: The Didsbury Lectures 2013.
Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2015.

317
———. “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story.” Pages 161–166 in Cult
and Cosmos: Tilting Toward a Temple-Centered Theology. Edited by L. Michael
Morales. Vol. 18 of Biblical Tools and Studies. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Repr.
From 1986.

Westermann, Claus. Schöpfung. Volume 12 of Themen Der Theologie. Edited by Hans

Jürgen Schultz. Berlin: Kreuz–Verlagstuttgart, 1971.

———. Genesis 1–11: A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.

———. Genesis: An Introduction. Translated by John J. Scullion S. J. Minneapolis:

Fortress Press, 1992.

Williams, Patricia A. Doing Without Adam and Eve: Sociobiology and Original Sin.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.

Wilson, Jonathan R. God’s Good World: Reclaiming the Doctrine of Creation. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2013.

Winter, Irene J. “Art in Empire: The Royal Image and the Visual Dimensions of Assyrian
Ideology.” Pages 372–377 in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary
Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7–11,
1995. Edited by S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text
Corpus Project, 1997.

Wirzba, Norman. From Nature to Creation: A Christian Vision For Understanding and
Loving Our World. The Church and Postmodern Culture Series. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2015.

———. The Paradise of God: Renewing Religion in an Ecological Age. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2003.

Wise, Kurt P. Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms
About Creation and the Age of the Universe. Nashville: B&H Publishers, 2002.

Wiseman, Donald. “Abraham Reassessed.” Pages 141–160 in Essays on the Patriarchal

Narratives. Edited by A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman. Eugene, OR: Wipf &
Stock, 1983.

Wright, Christopher J. H. The Message of Ezekiel: A New Heart and a New Spirit. The
Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001.

———. Old Testament Ethics For the People of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2004.

318
Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

———. Matthew For Everyone: Part 1 Chapters 1–15. London: SPCK, 2002.

———. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Vol. 4 of Christian Origins and the Question
of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013.

———. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the
Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

———. Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the
Church. New York: HarperOne, 2008.

Wright, Terry J. “Colin Gunton On Providence: Critical Commentaries.” Pages 146–164

in The Theology of Colin Gunton. Edited by Lincoln Harvey. London: T&T
Clark, 2012.

———. Providence Made Flesh: Divine Presence as a Framework for a Theology of

Providence. Paternoster Theological Monographs. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock,
2009.

Ylikoski, Petri and Jaako Kuorikoski, “Dissecting Explanatory Power.” Philosophical

Studies 148 (2010): 201–219.

Young, Davis A. and Ralph F. Stearley. The Bible, Rocks and Time. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2008.

319