What do you think?
Rate this book
Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary
Much controversy surrounds the opening chapters of Genesis. They are front-loaded with all manner of vital topics-such as God's work of creating the world and mankind; what it means to be human; why our present experience is so different from what we find in Genesis 2; how we come to know God and to be sure of his love.
Collins employs a literary-theological method informed by contemporary discourse analysis in order to read passages as coherent wholes. He shows how later biblical and inter-testamental writers have used Genesis 1-4 and reflects on how these chapters shape a Christian worldview today.
Collins employs a literary-theological method informed by contemporary discourse analysis in order to read passages as coherent wholes. He shows how later biblical and inter-testamental writers have used Genesis 1-4 and reflects on how these chapters shape a Christian worldview today.
336 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2005
46 people are currently reading
171 people want to read
About the author
C. John Collins
34 books34 followersC. JOHN COLLINS (PhD, University of Liverpool) is professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St Louis. With degrees from MIT and Faith Evangelical Lutheran Seminary, he pursues such research interests as Hebrew and Greek grammar, science and faith, and biblical theology. He is the author of The God of Miracles.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
January 17, 2024
This work is packed with humble, thoughtful exposition, including an interesting linguistic defense of Mosaic authorship over the Documentary Hypothesis. He is a Complementarian, though, a view I struggle with quite a bit, and in no way is this aspect of the first few chapters of Genesis treated fully here.
This work was published in 2006, and I’m happy to notice that his exhortation to a literary reading of the word (over a literal) is starting to seep into churches. Are literal readings not a direct result of Enlightenment expectations and values for scientific history? If so, this is something the Bible does not claim for itself. Collin’s work is a good challenge to such readings, very much worth a study.
This work was published in 2006, and I’m happy to notice that his exhortation to a literary reading of the word (over a literal) is starting to seep into churches. Are literal readings not a direct result of Enlightenment expectations and values for scientific history? If so, this is something the Bible does not claim for itself. Collin’s work is a good challenge to such readings, very much worth a study.
February 29, 2008
Dr. 'Jack' Collins, a professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, MO., has made accessible to laity and laymen alike, a very sound explanation and commentary on perhaps the most important chapters of the Bible. Writing from a conservative, Reformed viewpoint and with an eye of assisting pastors, other scholars and the layman who wishes to educate himself with a sound interpretation of the text, Collins is careful to avoid extremes and his writing is balanced. As he indicates in the introduction, he could have made a very long volume with his notes, but his text is tightly written, with an outstanding bibliography for those who want to dig deeper on the subject.
Collins writes about the Biblical text from what is called a discourse-literary approach, which he judges to be his most important contribution to this first section of the Bible. He wants to show how the ancient languages and literature apply to not only us today, but especially to their first audience, how it fits within the whole of the Bible's canon and what its theological point is. In a sense, he writes and explains the Genesis 1-4 as a story, told to a particular people, with certain language markers that would have mattered greatly to them. This book would fall under the category of Biblical rather than Systematic theology, regarding the text.
It is absolutely essential for the reader to grasp the first section of the book, where Collins explains why and how understanding the literary nature of the text matters. Collins does spend about 200 pages specifically interpreting the text of the four chapters, which makes up the middle section of the book. He concludes the book with a discussion on the authorship (which he asserts was Moses about the time of the Exodus), what the point of Genesis 1-4 was, and finally of special interest to our particular age, a discussion on Genesis 1-4 through history and science.
Collins was a MIT educated engineer before pursuing a ministerial and academic career in theology. His principle comments about modern creation science, that Genesis 1 - 4 neither agrees or disagrees with attempts to force to highly literalistic approach beyond what is in the Bible is consistent with his exegesis of the Bible. Collins, certainly an advocate for special, supernatural creation, is careful to not make the Bible say what others have made it say.
This is an excellent commentary, for pastors and interested laymen alike. The reader will gain fresh perspectives on the text by attempting to understand it first as literature with a theological point, about how the God of the Bible wants to interact with his people, through space and time. The reader probably will not be able to find a more contemporary and accessible book of this kind available today.
If interested in Dr. Collins thoughts specifically on the role of science, faith and origins, the readers might be interested in Science and Faith: Friend or Foes.
Collins writes about the Biblical text from what is called a discourse-literary approach, which he judges to be his most important contribution to this first section of the Bible. He wants to show how the ancient languages and literature apply to not only us today, but especially to their first audience, how it fits within the whole of the Bible's canon and what its theological point is. In a sense, he writes and explains the Genesis 1-4 as a story, told to a particular people, with certain language markers that would have mattered greatly to them. This book would fall under the category of Biblical rather than Systematic theology, regarding the text.
It is absolutely essential for the reader to grasp the first section of the book, where Collins explains why and how understanding the literary nature of the text matters. Collins does spend about 200 pages specifically interpreting the text of the four chapters, which makes up the middle section of the book. He concludes the book with a discussion on the authorship (which he asserts was Moses about the time of the Exodus), what the point of Genesis 1-4 was, and finally of special interest to our particular age, a discussion on Genesis 1-4 through history and science.
Collins was a MIT educated engineer before pursuing a ministerial and academic career in theology. His principle comments about modern creation science, that Genesis 1 - 4 neither agrees or disagrees with attempts to force to highly literalistic approach beyond what is in the Bible is consistent with his exegesis of the Bible. Collins, certainly an advocate for special, supernatural creation, is careful to not make the Bible say what others have made it say.
This is an excellent commentary, for pastors and interested laymen alike. The reader will gain fresh perspectives on the text by attempting to understand it first as literature with a theological point, about how the God of the Bible wants to interact with his people, through space and time. The reader probably will not be able to find a more contemporary and accessible book of this kind available today.
If interested in Dr. Collins thoughts specifically on the role of science, faith and origins, the readers might be interested in Science and Faith: Friend or Foes.
May 25, 2017
Dr. Collins commentary on Genesis 1-4 is about much more than his view on the days of Genesis 1. But for me that was the most interesting part, and so I will limit my remarks to this subject. In his book he defends the Analogical Days View, which sees the “days” of Genesis 1 as God’s work-days, which are analogous, but not necessarily identical, to our work-days. They are structured for the purpose of giving us a pattern for our own rhythm of rest and work. I’m going to follow his reasoning as he goes through the first two chapters of Genesis.
Genesis 1:1 describes the initial creation of all things, some unspecified time before the first day begins in 1:3. We know this because, according to Collins, there is a verb form, a standard past tense, that functions as the backbone or storyline tense in Hebrew narrative, and this first occurs in Genesis 1:3 where it says “And God said” which is followed by that narrative tense in the various acts of creation.
In the first two verses you don’t have that form; you have different verb forms which are not dynamic but descriptive. These are therefore not part of the narrative, but are describing the conditions before the first day gets under way in verse 3. (And this is not the discredited “Gap Theory” of 100 years ago because this is strictly exegeted from the text and says nothing of an angelic fall.)
What this means is that the creation week is not necessarily the same as the first week of the universe; it is preceded by an unspecified period of time that could be as short as the blink of an eye, or it could be much, much longer.
The next part of Collins’ discussion is his identification of the genre of Genesis 1. Our attention is called to various features of the text that are unusual. To begin with, there is the observation that the sun and moon are called by unusual names, the “greater light” and the “lesser light,” names not otherwise used in the Old Testament. Furthermore, we read of the “expanse” in verse 6, which he considers to be a “rhetorically high name for the heavens or sky.”
And the pericope is highly patterned: you have six workdays, each of which begins with “And God said” and ends with the refrain “and there was evening, and there was morning, the nth day.”
He argues that Genesis 1 thus has a different feel to it than the subsequent chapters or really even anything else in the Bible. Therefore, while he doesn’t disagree that the genre is prose narrative, because it certainly isn’t poetry or myth, nevertheless he would call it “exalted prose narrative,” meaning that while it is indeed narrative, it is of a nature that “we must not impose a literalistic hermeneutic on the text.” And by calling it exalted “points us away from ordinary narration and leads us to suppose that its proper function extends beyond its information to the attitude that it fosters.”
Since the seventh day does not have the refrain of “evening and morning”, and the New Testament seems to indicate that the seventh day extends into the present, Collins concludes that the seventh day is not an ordinary day. What about the other days? At this point we don’t know one way or the other if they are ordinary days or not.
And so moving on to the second creation pericope in Genesis 2:5-25, Collins notes that the Hebrew narrative tense, like that which marks the beginning of the action in chapter 1 verse 3, only appears in chapter 2 verse 7, where God creates man. This means that verses 5-6, like verses 1 and 2 in chapter 1, are setting the table, as it were; they describe the features of day 6 and not the initial creation of plants on day 3.
He argues that the Hebrew word which three times in 2:5-6 is often translated “earth” is better translated, as the ESV does, as “land.” These verses can then be seen as describing the conditions in some place called “the land” at the end of the dry season where the ground, because there is no man to provide irrigation, is dry and barren. This would be the end of the dry season because “a mist was going up…” and here Collins allows for “rain cloud” in place of “mist.”
And so we’re looking at the beginning of the rainy season and the expectation that the plants would spring up again. So the fact that we don’t see any plants is not because they haven’t been created yet, but because of the normal climate cycle in this part of the world, something which the original readers of Genesis would have recognized.
Collins argues that “if the time of year and the absence of man are the reasons for why the plants were “not yet in the land,” then this means that the familiar seasonal cycle was in effect; and for this to be so, the seasonal cycle must have been in operation for some number of years. If we want to continue to harmonize the two pericopes [Genesis 1 and 2], we will not be able to maintain ordinary days in Genesis 1.”
All of this comes together to show that the best reading of the “days” is what Herman Bavinck called “God’s workdays.” Recall the refrain after the first six days: it has evening followed by morning. Evening followed by morning marks off the night time, which is the daily time of rest. And so, Collins argues, you can see that each of these days is a workday of God, after each of which he takes his rest.
And you realize that this workweek then becomes an analogy for the human workweek. It sets a pattern that we are to follow. Now an analogy is not the same thing as identity, and so just as “work” and “rest” for God are not the same as they are for us, so God’s workdays are not the same as ours, at least not necessarily.
What this means is that the passage doesn’t address our questions of how old the earth might be, especially when we realize that these six days are not necessarily the first six days of the universe or even of the earth itself. If they are God’s workdays, which are analogous to human workdays, then exactly how long they were is not important.
The Sabbath Commandment of Exodus 20 is also saying nothing about the length of the days, and to argue otherwise is to read that back into the text. Rather, it is telling us to follow God’s pattern: just as God labored for his six workdays and then rested, so, by analogy, we are to work for our six workdays and then rest. Following the pattern doesn’t mean that we’re doing exactly what God did in the same amount of time.
Nevertheless, the objection is going to be that 24-hour-day view should still be preferred because it is the “literal” and thus the “clear” or “plain sense” meaning of Scripture. Regarding the word “literal,” in an interview Collins said, “Literal” is one of those words where each one does what is right in his own eyes, I suppose. In the film “The Princess Bride,” Inigo Montoya says, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” And we can end up with the same difficulty with the word “literal.” In traditional discussions of how you read the Bible or anything else, “literal” just means “in relation to what the author intended,” as opposed to “allegorical” or some other use.”
He continues: “In recent times, “literal” tends to mean “just taking the words in their simplest sense,” and it might often come to be “literalistic,” that is to say, I’m not really asking what the author meant when he used those words; I’m more asking what would I mean if I used those words. And that, of course, is a difficulty.”
This rule, that the focus should be on what the author intended to communicate, and not on what jumps off the page to me as a 21st century Western reader, also applies to how we should talk of the “plain sense” of a biblical passage. According to Collins, “The right response is, “plain” to whom? We are keeping our focus on the act of communication between the author and his first audience and aiming to reconstruct their literary competence; that alone is our criterion for finding the sense of Scripture.” Or, to put it differently, we must always remember that though the Bible was written for us, it was not written to us.
So if the analogical days view is consistent with what the author of Genesis intended to communicate to his audience, then this is the “literal” interpretation if we go back to the Reformation meaning of the word.
The analogical days view is not a Johnny-come-lately interpretation that allows one to do fancy footwork and conveniently sneak in agreement with science. According to Collins, “the position found advocates in the American Presbyterian William Shedd and the Dutch Reformed Herman Bavinck, although both can point to precursors in the history of exposition. Such a pedigree matters, because these theologians display marked conservation and theological astuteness, and they exhibit different stances toward the geology of their day – Shedd accepted it, while Bavinck was skeptical.”
If one is willing to reconsider inherited traditions regarding what constitutes a genuinely literal reading of the text, and ask in what sense may we claim that the Scripture is clear, then prejudices and roadblocks to giving a serious look at the analogical days view of Genesis 1 might possibly be removed.
Genesis 1:1 describes the initial creation of all things, some unspecified time before the first day begins in 1:3. We know this because, according to Collins, there is a verb form, a standard past tense, that functions as the backbone or storyline tense in Hebrew narrative, and this first occurs in Genesis 1:3 where it says “And God said” which is followed by that narrative tense in the various acts of creation.
In the first two verses you don’t have that form; you have different verb forms which are not dynamic but descriptive. These are therefore not part of the narrative, but are describing the conditions before the first day gets under way in verse 3. (And this is not the discredited “Gap Theory” of 100 years ago because this is strictly exegeted from the text and says nothing of an angelic fall.)
What this means is that the creation week is not necessarily the same as the first week of the universe; it is preceded by an unspecified period of time that could be as short as the blink of an eye, or it could be much, much longer.
The next part of Collins’ discussion is his identification of the genre of Genesis 1. Our attention is called to various features of the text that are unusual. To begin with, there is the observation that the sun and moon are called by unusual names, the “greater light” and the “lesser light,” names not otherwise used in the Old Testament. Furthermore, we read of the “expanse” in verse 6, which he considers to be a “rhetorically high name for the heavens or sky.”
And the pericope is highly patterned: you have six workdays, each of which begins with “And God said” and ends with the refrain “and there was evening, and there was morning, the nth day.”
He argues that Genesis 1 thus has a different feel to it than the subsequent chapters or really even anything else in the Bible. Therefore, while he doesn’t disagree that the genre is prose narrative, because it certainly isn’t poetry or myth, nevertheless he would call it “exalted prose narrative,” meaning that while it is indeed narrative, it is of a nature that “we must not impose a literalistic hermeneutic on the text.” And by calling it exalted “points us away from ordinary narration and leads us to suppose that its proper function extends beyond its information to the attitude that it fosters.”
Since the seventh day does not have the refrain of “evening and morning”, and the New Testament seems to indicate that the seventh day extends into the present, Collins concludes that the seventh day is not an ordinary day. What about the other days? At this point we don’t know one way or the other if they are ordinary days or not.
And so moving on to the second creation pericope in Genesis 2:5-25, Collins notes that the Hebrew narrative tense, like that which marks the beginning of the action in chapter 1 verse 3, only appears in chapter 2 verse 7, where God creates man. This means that verses 5-6, like verses 1 and 2 in chapter 1, are setting the table, as it were; they describe the features of day 6 and not the initial creation of plants on day 3.
He argues that the Hebrew word which three times in 2:5-6 is often translated “earth” is better translated, as the ESV does, as “land.” These verses can then be seen as describing the conditions in some place called “the land” at the end of the dry season where the ground, because there is no man to provide irrigation, is dry and barren. This would be the end of the dry season because “a mist was going up…” and here Collins allows for “rain cloud” in place of “mist.”
And so we’re looking at the beginning of the rainy season and the expectation that the plants would spring up again. So the fact that we don’t see any plants is not because they haven’t been created yet, but because of the normal climate cycle in this part of the world, something which the original readers of Genesis would have recognized.
Collins argues that “if the time of year and the absence of man are the reasons for why the plants were “not yet in the land,” then this means that the familiar seasonal cycle was in effect; and for this to be so, the seasonal cycle must have been in operation for some number of years. If we want to continue to harmonize the two pericopes [Genesis 1 and 2], we will not be able to maintain ordinary days in Genesis 1.”
All of this comes together to show that the best reading of the “days” is what Herman Bavinck called “God’s workdays.” Recall the refrain after the first six days: it has evening followed by morning. Evening followed by morning marks off the night time, which is the daily time of rest. And so, Collins argues, you can see that each of these days is a workday of God, after each of which he takes his rest.
And you realize that this workweek then becomes an analogy for the human workweek. It sets a pattern that we are to follow. Now an analogy is not the same thing as identity, and so just as “work” and “rest” for God are not the same as they are for us, so God’s workdays are not the same as ours, at least not necessarily.
What this means is that the passage doesn’t address our questions of how old the earth might be, especially when we realize that these six days are not necessarily the first six days of the universe or even of the earth itself. If they are God’s workdays, which are analogous to human workdays, then exactly how long they were is not important.
The Sabbath Commandment of Exodus 20 is also saying nothing about the length of the days, and to argue otherwise is to read that back into the text. Rather, it is telling us to follow God’s pattern: just as God labored for his six workdays and then rested, so, by analogy, we are to work for our six workdays and then rest. Following the pattern doesn’t mean that we’re doing exactly what God did in the same amount of time.
Nevertheless, the objection is going to be that 24-hour-day view should still be preferred because it is the “literal” and thus the “clear” or “plain sense” meaning of Scripture. Regarding the word “literal,” in an interview Collins said, “Literal” is one of those words where each one does what is right in his own eyes, I suppose. In the film “The Princess Bride,” Inigo Montoya says, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” And we can end up with the same difficulty with the word “literal.” In traditional discussions of how you read the Bible or anything else, “literal” just means “in relation to what the author intended,” as opposed to “allegorical” or some other use.”
He continues: “In recent times, “literal” tends to mean “just taking the words in their simplest sense,” and it might often come to be “literalistic,” that is to say, I’m not really asking what the author meant when he used those words; I’m more asking what would I mean if I used those words. And that, of course, is a difficulty.”
This rule, that the focus should be on what the author intended to communicate, and not on what jumps off the page to me as a 21st century Western reader, also applies to how we should talk of the “plain sense” of a biblical passage. According to Collins, “The right response is, “plain” to whom? We are keeping our focus on the act of communication between the author and his first audience and aiming to reconstruct their literary competence; that alone is our criterion for finding the sense of Scripture.” Or, to put it differently, we must always remember that though the Bible was written for us, it was not written to us.
So if the analogical days view is consistent with what the author of Genesis intended to communicate to his audience, then this is the “literal” interpretation if we go back to the Reformation meaning of the word.
The analogical days view is not a Johnny-come-lately interpretation that allows one to do fancy footwork and conveniently sneak in agreement with science. According to Collins, “the position found advocates in the American Presbyterian William Shedd and the Dutch Reformed Herman Bavinck, although both can point to precursors in the history of exposition. Such a pedigree matters, because these theologians display marked conservation and theological astuteness, and they exhibit different stances toward the geology of their day – Shedd accepted it, while Bavinck was skeptical.”
If one is willing to reconsider inherited traditions regarding what constitutes a genuinely literal reading of the text, and ask in what sense may we claim that the Scripture is clear, then prejudices and roadblocks to giving a serious look at the analogical days view of Genesis 1 might possibly be removed.
October 17, 2023
Early parts of Genesis is probably my favorite part of the Bible, so this I was more than ready to do the digging with this book. This book clarifies the details of the Bible that clarifies some of the primary questions people have about life and creation. It gets a little technical, but wasn't so detailed that I lost interest or couldn't follow along. I have developed the habit of writing in books notes on things I find significant, or in the least underline sentences or sections that made a new point to me that I hadn't thought of before. Well, this book is scribbled in all over, and it is the reason that the first dozen pages of my Bible is also scribbled in with helpful and clarifying notes that I don't want to forget each time I read Genesis.
December 31, 2015
I started my VT 2016 Reading Challenge (http://www.challies.com/resources/the...) a bit early, but I was very excited to read this commentary on Genesis 1-4. I realized that I didn't know what I really believed about reconciling Genesis and science (if any reconciliation was truly needed), and that I had actually come to question or doubt anything regarding modern science. I have always been taught a young-earth view, often from perspectives that mock modern science ("millions of years?"). I was uncomfortable with the unfounded bias I had against modern science, and so I wanted to study this out for myself. I had seen this commentary recommended by some I knew to be theologically conservative, and so I felt this would be a good choice.
Collins doesn't claim to be a scientist, and I know nothing of Hebrew, but I would say that from his expertise in ancient Hebrew, Collins has the academic authority to come to fairly accurate conclusions regarding the treatment of the text. This was my first commentary, and I was expecting to be overwhelmed by explanations of Hebrew grammar and syntax. Collins, however, explains the language in a way that I can for the most part grasp. His main goal was a linguistic and literary exposition that explores how an educated reader in the intended audience would read the text.
Collins arrives at some conclusions that are far different than what I have been taught, so the book gave me much to think about and opened up further avenues of research that I will try to follow up on. I highly recommend the book, not because I believe it to be the one and only authority on the treatment of the text, but because it is thoroughly researched, thought-provoking, and humble in tone.
Collins doesn't claim to be a scientist, and I know nothing of Hebrew, but I would say that from his expertise in ancient Hebrew, Collins has the academic authority to come to fairly accurate conclusions regarding the treatment of the text. This was my first commentary, and I was expecting to be overwhelmed by explanations of Hebrew grammar and syntax. Collins, however, explains the language in a way that I can for the most part grasp. His main goal was a linguistic and literary exposition that explores how an educated reader in the intended audience would read the text.
Collins arrives at some conclusions that are far different than what I have been taught, so the book gave me much to think about and opened up further avenues of research that I will try to follow up on. I highly recommend the book, not because I believe it to be the one and only authority on the treatment of the text, but because it is thoroughly researched, thought-provoking, and humble in tone.
November 3, 2012
C. John Collins (Professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary) has written an excellent study of Genesis 1-4. After introductory material and a description of his methodology, the heart of the book is a chapter each on The Creation Week, The Garden of Eden, The Fall, and After Eden. Each of these four chapters includes sections on translations & notes, literary-theological exposition, extra notes, and reverberations (ways in which the material from Genesis has been taken up in the Psalms and the New Testament). Extra Notes include topics like creation from nothing, "evening and morning," the meaning of kind, the image of God, use of the words create and make, the goodness of creation, what were the two trees, how long was the creation week (he favors the analogical days interpretation), was Adam made mortal, the curse and nature, are Adam and Eve the parents of all mankind,where did Cain's wife come from, etc.
These are followed by chapters on Sources, Unity & Authorship (in which he discusses the arguments for the Documentary Hypothesis, then gives his reasons for concluding that Moses is the primary author), The Communicative Purpose, questions of history & science, and appropriating Genesis 1-4 today.
He even explains why he chose to include Genesis 4 in this book about "The Beginning." I found Genesis 1-4 to be a well-documented, well-reasoned study that is eminently suitable for a layman like myself.
Comment | Permalink
These are followed by chapters on Sources, Unity & Authorship (in which he discusses the arguments for the Documentary Hypothesis, then gives his reasons for concluding that Moses is the primary author), The Communicative Purpose, questions of history & science, and appropriating Genesis 1-4 today.
He even explains why he chose to include Genesis 4 in this book about "The Beginning." I found Genesis 1-4 to be a well-documented, well-reasoned study that is eminently suitable for a layman like myself.
Comment | Permalink
September 27, 2013
I read this book because
a) Jack is my professor,
b) I'm writing a paper on Genesis 5-6, and
c) I'm curious what Jack has done to draw so much flack.
I like Dr. Collins' frank admission that he approaches the text seeking harmonization with science, not for ways to have the bible disprove science. This does not mean he does not take the bible at face value or as completely true, he just doesn't expect the two to be irreconcilable. I am not so favorably inclined, though I love a lot of things about science.
This book very much succeeds on the level of how to layout and execute an annotated translation of a text. This is the manual of style that I've already had inculcated in me in my Hebrew classes here at seminary, but it is nice to see the pristine example of how it's done.
Frankly, I cannot see how people can have such vitriolic disagreements with Prof. Collins. He thoughtfully engages with the text and ALL relevant material, knows Hebrew and Greek better than anyone, and seeks to explicate the implications of the text on every level. I recommend this book for all pastors and seminarians.
a) Jack is my professor,
b) I'm writing a paper on Genesis 5-6, and
c) I'm curious what Jack has done to draw so much flack.
I like Dr. Collins' frank admission that he approaches the text seeking harmonization with science, not for ways to have the bible disprove science. This does not mean he does not take the bible at face value or as completely true, he just doesn't expect the two to be irreconcilable. I am not so favorably inclined, though I love a lot of things about science.
This book very much succeeds on the level of how to layout and execute an annotated translation of a text. This is the manual of style that I've already had inculcated in me in my Hebrew classes here at seminary, but it is nice to see the pristine example of how it's done.
Frankly, I cannot see how people can have such vitriolic disagreements with Prof. Collins. He thoughtfully engages with the text and ALL relevant material, knows Hebrew and Greek better than anyone, and seeks to explicate the implications of the text on every level. I recommend this book for all pastors and seminarians.
April 26, 2011
Helpful, and I'm sure I'll go back to it as I preach through the early chapters of Genesis. But it's not at all an easy read, especially in the portions where Collins labors to explain how the text should be divided up into pericopes.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect to the book is his view of creation days. Collins takes the "analogical days" perspective, which I was familiar with from the PCA's position paper (this is considered an orthodox view, according to our denomination's General Assembly). But up until reading Collins, I always thought this was the weakest of the 4 orthodox views. He does a good job defending it, however, and while I was not convinced, I am much more open to that reading of Genesis 1-2, and seeing the structure of the creation account as God's Work Week (i.e. communicating the truth of God's creative activity within the analogy of the human work week).
Read this if you're studying Genesis (esp for pastors preaching on the early chapters). I don't think it's a book you'll want to read cover to cover.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect to the book is his view of creation days. Collins takes the "analogical days" perspective, which I was familiar with from the PCA's position paper (this is considered an orthodox view, according to our denomination's General Assembly). But up until reading Collins, I always thought this was the weakest of the 4 orthodox views. He does a good job defending it, however, and while I was not convinced, I am much more open to that reading of Genesis 1-2, and seeing the structure of the creation account as God's Work Week (i.e. communicating the truth of God's creative activity within the analogy of the human work week).
Read this if you're studying Genesis (esp for pastors preaching on the early chapters). I don't think it's a book you'll want to read cover to cover.
December 6, 2012
I thoroughly enjoyed this book, and think it is probably the best book I have read on the early chapters of Genesis (and if you include Commentaries, I have read dozens).
Admittedly, I have virtually no understanding of Hebrew, and would recommend those with similar afflictions :-) just bear with the Hebrew Word Usage and Grammar.
Collins handles the material well - very much like F. F. Bruce and his works on the New Testament - in that he doesn't ignore alternative viewpoints but informs the reader of them, as he respectfully disagrees with well-argued though brief (given the size of the book) explanations.
I found the Footnotes to be a gold mine of extra information.
Learnt a lot from this book and am keen to read more from this Author!
Admittedly, I have virtually no understanding of Hebrew, and would recommend those with similar afflictions :-) just bear with the Hebrew Word Usage and Grammar.
Collins handles the material well - very much like F. F. Bruce and his works on the New Testament - in that he doesn't ignore alternative viewpoints but informs the reader of them, as he respectfully disagrees with well-argued though brief (given the size of the book) explanations.
I found the Footnotes to be a gold mine of extra information.
Learnt a lot from this book and am keen to read more from this Author!
February 6, 2009
This is an accessible commentary on the first four chapters of Genesis. Dr. Collins examines these chapters in terms of language and literary style, and how they were interpreted theologically by other ancient Jewish and Christian sources (Josephus, the Hebrew apocrypha, the New Testament). It brings the focus back to the Who and What and Why of Genesis.
July 31, 2017
Within the Christian family, there are corners where spats and squabbles quickly erupt around several hot issues, one of which is about origins and the opening chapters of Genesis. C. John “Jack” Collins, professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary, accomplished author, Old Testament chair on the translation committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible and Old Testament Editor for the ESV Study Bible, has several times waded into these roiling waters. In 2006 he masterfully tackled the opening chapters of the Pentateuch in his 336 page paperback “Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary” where he did the necessary grunt work of hammering out a discourse analysis approach of these four seminal chapters. The material is academic, exegetical, theological, apologetic and devotional. Though penned for fellow scholars and serious students of Scripture, the uninitiated in Biblical languages can still gain much from the volume and follow most of the thinking Collins develops. Because there are already numerous reviews that cover the technicalities of the book I will simply refer to a few items that stick out to me.
Since I personally take the more literal side of the discussion I disagree with Collins’ conclusion that Genesis 1.1-2.3 do not recount seven twenty-four hour days. In the author’s words, “the days are God’s workdays, their length is neither specified nor important, and not everything in the account needs to be taken as historically sequential” (124). Nevertheless the author’s careful analysis of the first four chapters of Genesis is overwhelmingly solid and sturdy. Collins affirms the historical Adam and Eve explaining why they matter and stands against macroevolution of humankind. He points out several times the “priority of the man” at the beginning and how Adam was made the representative head of the human race, without getting side tracked. Collins also unpacks and emphasizes the way in which God sets the paradigm for wedlock, work and worship in first two chapters of Genesis. Additionally, he highlights the goodness of creation and how redemption is not only intended to restore humankind to the creational pattern, but will also heal creation. Likewise, the author builds a robust case for Mosaic authorship of Genesis 1-4, as well as the reminder of Genesis and the Pentateuch. And he resoundingly shows the legitimacy and literary connectedness of these first four chapters. Though written over ten years ago, many of the conclusions the author draws from the initial chapters of Genesis are germane to several of the social flash-points detonating in the 21st Century, plus specific discussions underway in my own denomination. Collins’ evaluation and presentation is extensively solid and sturdy.
In “Genesis 1-4” one of the areas where the author’s perception comes forth beautifully is the place of God’s moral law and its relation to creation. According to Collins, “if we examine the Ten Commandments we see the aspect of restoring creation at work”, after which he gives short samples of how this is the case. Then he explains some noteworthy consequences that come from the connection between the Moral Law and creation. “First, the fact that the commandments are rooted in creation makes it hard to understand how they could ever be done away with…For God to abolish any moral principle whose object was to equip people to live out their creational pattern would be cruelty, not love…Second, this shows why one of the chief attitudes that the Old Testament cultivates toward the law is astonished gratitude at the awesome dignity it bestows…Third, to speak of covenantal ethics as restorative reminds us how moral demands such as the Ten Commandments properly function among the people of God: not as a list of requirements to which they must measure up…but rather as the shape into which they – as individuals and as a body – are to be molded as they cooperate with the love of their Covenant Lord. Fourth, this guides the people of God in their relationships with those outside the covenant” (131-2). Later in the book he puts it this way, “God redeems his people in order to restore them to their proper functioning, and he gives them the guidance of his moral law as a gift to shape them, not as a standard to which they must live up or die. Moral law is a gift of the Creator’s love. This means we do not love people if we do not care to point them to the Creator’s own moral code” (276).
All told, “Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary” is clearly a solid and sturdy work. Collins addresses important arguments against taking these biblical chapters seriously and gives the readers a renewed sense of their authenticity and authority. This volume should be read by Old Testament professors, pastors, Bible teachers, and all interested origins and the opening chapters of Genesis. Even with the few disagreements I have with the book, I enthusiastically commend it.
Since I personally take the more literal side of the discussion I disagree with Collins’ conclusion that Genesis 1.1-2.3 do not recount seven twenty-four hour days. In the author’s words, “the days are God’s workdays, their length is neither specified nor important, and not everything in the account needs to be taken as historically sequential” (124). Nevertheless the author’s careful analysis of the first four chapters of Genesis is overwhelmingly solid and sturdy. Collins affirms the historical Adam and Eve explaining why they matter and stands against macroevolution of humankind. He points out several times the “priority of the man” at the beginning and how Adam was made the representative head of the human race, without getting side tracked. Collins also unpacks and emphasizes the way in which God sets the paradigm for wedlock, work and worship in first two chapters of Genesis. Additionally, he highlights the goodness of creation and how redemption is not only intended to restore humankind to the creational pattern, but will also heal creation. Likewise, the author builds a robust case for Mosaic authorship of Genesis 1-4, as well as the reminder of Genesis and the Pentateuch. And he resoundingly shows the legitimacy and literary connectedness of these first four chapters. Though written over ten years ago, many of the conclusions the author draws from the initial chapters of Genesis are germane to several of the social flash-points detonating in the 21st Century, plus specific discussions underway in my own denomination. Collins’ evaluation and presentation is extensively solid and sturdy.
In “Genesis 1-4” one of the areas where the author’s perception comes forth beautifully is the place of God’s moral law and its relation to creation. According to Collins, “if we examine the Ten Commandments we see the aspect of restoring creation at work”, after which he gives short samples of how this is the case. Then he explains some noteworthy consequences that come from the connection between the Moral Law and creation. “First, the fact that the commandments are rooted in creation makes it hard to understand how they could ever be done away with…For God to abolish any moral principle whose object was to equip people to live out their creational pattern would be cruelty, not love…Second, this shows why one of the chief attitudes that the Old Testament cultivates toward the law is astonished gratitude at the awesome dignity it bestows…Third, to speak of covenantal ethics as restorative reminds us how moral demands such as the Ten Commandments properly function among the people of God: not as a list of requirements to which they must measure up…but rather as the shape into which they – as individuals and as a body – are to be molded as they cooperate with the love of their Covenant Lord. Fourth, this guides the people of God in their relationships with those outside the covenant” (131-2). Later in the book he puts it this way, “God redeems his people in order to restore them to their proper functioning, and he gives them the guidance of his moral law as a gift to shape them, not as a standard to which they must live up or die. Moral law is a gift of the Creator’s love. This means we do not love people if we do not care to point them to the Creator’s own moral code” (276).
All told, “Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary” is clearly a solid and sturdy work. Collins addresses important arguments against taking these biblical chapters seriously and gives the readers a renewed sense of their authenticity and authority. This volume should be read by Old Testament professors, pastors, Bible teachers, and all interested origins and the opening chapters of Genesis. Even with the few disagreements I have with the book, I enthusiastically commend it.
October 20, 2019
According to the subtitle, this book promises to be "a linguistic, literary, and theological commentary" on the first four chapters of Genesis, and Collins delivers on that promise. Throughout the book, Collins' main goal is to read the text how the original audience would have read it. This requires recognizing how the original author and audience viewed the world, including any shared assumptions and values they might have had. This also requires recognizing the literary nature of the text, meaning that thet narratives were written like stories with characters and plots included to keep the audience engaged.
After establishing this general methodology and outlining the literary context of Genesis 1 through 4, Collins breaks down these chapters into four separate pericopes and analyzes them one by one. The pericopes are identified as follows: Genesis 1:1-2:3, Genesis 2:4-25, Genesis 3:1-24, and Genesis 4:1-26. For each pericope, Collins explains why he selected the boundary, provides traditional commentary notes, expands in key themes, outlines how the literary approach illuminates theological teachings, and assesses how other biblical passages reflect on the pericope.
Following the commentary chapters on the pericopes, Collins comments on various relevant topics, including authorship, communicative purposes of the text, historical concerns and scientific concerns. Finally, Collins closes out the book with a discussion about how Genesis 1-4 can and should influence how we view the present day.
Overall, this is a phenomenal book. Collins is thoughtful and fair to the text. It is clear that he knows what he is talking about. Yet most of the time his writing is accessible to the layperson, with the few exceptions being some deep dives into the Hebrew text. With that said, even the more technical sections are written in a way that the normal reader should be able to work through. In the end, I highly recommend this book to anyone wishing to study the book of Genesis. In fact, if that is you, this is probably a must-read. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.
After establishing this general methodology and outlining the literary context of Genesis 1 through 4, Collins breaks down these chapters into four separate pericopes and analyzes them one by one. The pericopes are identified as follows: Genesis 1:1-2:3, Genesis 2:4-25, Genesis 3:1-24, and Genesis 4:1-26. For each pericope, Collins explains why he selected the boundary, provides traditional commentary notes, expands in key themes, outlines how the literary approach illuminates theological teachings, and assesses how other biblical passages reflect on the pericope.
Following the commentary chapters on the pericopes, Collins comments on various relevant topics, including authorship, communicative purposes of the text, historical concerns and scientific concerns. Finally, Collins closes out the book with a discussion about how Genesis 1-4 can and should influence how we view the present day.
Overall, this is a phenomenal book. Collins is thoughtful and fair to the text. It is clear that he knows what he is talking about. Yet most of the time his writing is accessible to the layperson, with the few exceptions being some deep dives into the Hebrew text. With that said, even the more technical sections are written in a way that the normal reader should be able to work through. In the end, I highly recommend this book to anyone wishing to study the book of Genesis. In fact, if that is you, this is probably a must-read. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.
September 12, 2024
See my full review at Spoiled Milks (June 5, 2023).
This was a very helpful work (and stands in the same vein as Collins’ “How to Read Genesis Well”). C. John Collins was one one of the general editors for the OT of the ESV. I wrote that to show that he is certainly conservative, even though his points don’t always line up with YEC (if that’s you, just keep reading).
At the center of the book are four chapters on Genesis 1-4. Each of these chapters begins with an introduction, a section on the boundaries of the text (where it begins and ends) and it’s genre, and Collins’ own translation and notes. This isn’t a verse by verse commentary, but one which aims to answer some of the bigger questions, both literary and theological. So after his translation, Collins takes the time to answer questions such as “Genesis 1 and Creation from Nothing,” what is “the image of God,” “Genesis 1 and the Trinity,” and “The Unusual Seventh Day.”
Collins doesn’t focus on matters of evolution versus intellectual design, YEC vs OEC because that wasn’t Moses’ point. He’s trying to get a sense of how the original Israelites, having come of of Egypt, would understand these texts. Their questions weren’t “how old is the earth?” but “Who is this God? Who are we? How did we get here?” That doesn’t mean Collins avoids questions of science. He does give his opinion on his long the creation week might have been (or, at least how long it wasn’t).
In agreement with William Shedd and Herman Bavinck, Collins understands the creation week to be analogical to the Israelites work week. I may write more about this in either my fuller review or in a separate post. But mainly God is represented as a work man who works during the day to create space (days 1-3) and to fill those places (days 4-6). Then he rests on the seventh day. The agrarian Israelite would have seen that just as he works six days and rests (and sleeps at night—note how God doesn’t work between the evening and morning on the first six days), God did the same.
Was the creation week really seven days. Collins says it isn’t necessary to read it that way because the length of days isn’t the point here. The analogy has other points to make. As well, the seventh day doesn’t have a refrain (that of “and it was evening and morning, the seventh day”). Collins understands this to mean that the seventh “day” hasn’t stopped. God rested from his creational work, but he still does other work (see Jesus’ comparison of himself with God in John 5). Also, Gen 2:4-25 home in on Day 6, but there are a fair few details there that seem to mean that “day” was longer than a mere day.
How old is the earth? Collins believes Adam and Eve were the first people. They were not Neanderthals, and all people descended from them. However, we do not know how old the earth is. Collins writes something to the extent of Gen 1:1 being a title and 2 making a note about the state of the earth before God began his work on it. He does this through Hebrew grammar, verbs, and discourse features. The first week of the earth could (and likely was) later than the first week of the universe. Meaning, God created everything, and at some point he began creating and filling in this formless, empty void of a rock, giving it life as we know it. This can account for the age of the universe that scientists declare while still making the earth somewhat young. How young though we don’t know. Folks try to add up the genealogies of Gen 5 and 11 and come up with a number between 6,000 and 10,000 years. But Collins shows how those genealogies have gaps in them (Collins compares Gen 5 and 11 with different genealogies and timetables that show how gapping was normal). The point of genealogies isn’t to show every single person in the line, but to show how one person (e.g., Noah) is historically connected to Adam, for example.
There is much more to Collins’ work than these elements. He shows how we can rightly have an evangelical understanding of these chapters according to grammar and linguistics (aka, evangelicals aren’t just making things up). It is correct and legitimate to see Gen 3:15 as a protoevangelium.
Alternatively, Collins notes the gaps in knowledge where necessary. For example, did Eve twist, add, or take away from God’s command in her conversation with the serpent? Did she do it knowingly or was it innocently done? Why did Adam just stand beside her and do nothing? Where did Cain really get his wife? The author (Moses) doesn’t give us enough information to be able to answer these questions. There are gaps in the information, and we simply don’t know (on the last point, Collins agrees that it was most likely one of Cain’s sisters who became his wife simply because Adam and Eve were the first and only pair. Still, the point about Cain lies outside of Moses’ purview).
For Israel, the same God who covenanted with them is the same me who created all people, then whole world, all of creation. He made all things good with humans as the pinnacle of his work. Marriage helps fulfill God’s command to be fruitful and multiply. But sin ruined the perfect relationship they have with each other and with God. However, God in his grace, although he did expel them from the garden, gave them offers to repent, and even when they didn’t, still gave them a promise of a future champion (Gen 3:15) who would defeat the dark power behind the serpent. We see the effects of sin when Cain kills Abel, and we see God’s image in mankind as Cain builds a city and his offspring are musicians, farmers, and the like.
I really appreciated this book. It isn’t always an easy read, as Collins tries to be clear and specific where needed, which can make reading feel a bit clunky. This is good to read along with Collins’ newer Reading Genesis Well (which I’ve also reviewed). Aside from the chapters of commentary on Genesis 1–4, much of the rest of the book is similar to what I read in Reading Genesis Well. That doesn’t mean it is repeated or just paraphrased in different words. But having read his more mature RGW helped me understand this book with greater clarity. Buy both, read both. Learn how the Bible speaks truthfully even if it’s not in ways that you are used to hearing.
I received this book free from P&R Publishing. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
This was a very helpful work (and stands in the same vein as Collins’ “How to Read Genesis Well”). C. John Collins was one one of the general editors for the OT of the ESV. I wrote that to show that he is certainly conservative, even though his points don’t always line up with YEC (if that’s you, just keep reading).
At the center of the book are four chapters on Genesis 1-4. Each of these chapters begins with an introduction, a section on the boundaries of the text (where it begins and ends) and it’s genre, and Collins’ own translation and notes. This isn’t a verse by verse commentary, but one which aims to answer some of the bigger questions, both literary and theological. So after his translation, Collins takes the time to answer questions such as “Genesis 1 and Creation from Nothing,” what is “the image of God,” “Genesis 1 and the Trinity,” and “The Unusual Seventh Day.”
Collins doesn’t focus on matters of evolution versus intellectual design, YEC vs OEC because that wasn’t Moses’ point. He’s trying to get a sense of how the original Israelites, having come of of Egypt, would understand these texts. Their questions weren’t “how old is the earth?” but “Who is this God? Who are we? How did we get here?” That doesn’t mean Collins avoids questions of science. He does give his opinion on his long the creation week might have been (or, at least how long it wasn’t).
In agreement with William Shedd and Herman Bavinck, Collins understands the creation week to be analogical to the Israelites work week. I may write more about this in either my fuller review or in a separate post. But mainly God is represented as a work man who works during the day to create space (days 1-3) and to fill those places (days 4-6). Then he rests on the seventh day. The agrarian Israelite would have seen that just as he works six days and rests (and sleeps at night—note how God doesn’t work between the evening and morning on the first six days), God did the same.
Was the creation week really seven days. Collins says it isn’t necessary to read it that way because the length of days isn’t the point here. The analogy has other points to make. As well, the seventh day doesn’t have a refrain (that of “and it was evening and morning, the seventh day”). Collins understands this to mean that the seventh “day” hasn’t stopped. God rested from his creational work, but he still does other work (see Jesus’ comparison of himself with God in John 5). Also, Gen 2:4-25 home in on Day 6, but there are a fair few details there that seem to mean that “day” was longer than a mere day.
How old is the earth? Collins believes Adam and Eve were the first people. They were not Neanderthals, and all people descended from them. However, we do not know how old the earth is. Collins writes something to the extent of Gen 1:1 being a title and 2 making a note about the state of the earth before God began his work on it. He does this through Hebrew grammar, verbs, and discourse features. The first week of the earth could (and likely was) later than the first week of the universe. Meaning, God created everything, and at some point he began creating and filling in this formless, empty void of a rock, giving it life as we know it. This can account for the age of the universe that scientists declare while still making the earth somewhat young. How young though we don’t know. Folks try to add up the genealogies of Gen 5 and 11 and come up with a number between 6,000 and 10,000 years. But Collins shows how those genealogies have gaps in them (Collins compares Gen 5 and 11 with different genealogies and timetables that show how gapping was normal). The point of genealogies isn’t to show every single person in the line, but to show how one person (e.g., Noah) is historically connected to Adam, for example.
There is much more to Collins’ work than these elements. He shows how we can rightly have an evangelical understanding of these chapters according to grammar and linguistics (aka, evangelicals aren’t just making things up). It is correct and legitimate to see Gen 3:15 as a protoevangelium.
Alternatively, Collins notes the gaps in knowledge where necessary. For example, did Eve twist, add, or take away from God’s command in her conversation with the serpent? Did she do it knowingly or was it innocently done? Why did Adam just stand beside her and do nothing? Where did Cain really get his wife? The author (Moses) doesn’t give us enough information to be able to answer these questions. There are gaps in the information, and we simply don’t know (on the last point, Collins agrees that it was most likely one of Cain’s sisters who became his wife simply because Adam and Eve were the first and only pair. Still, the point about Cain lies outside of Moses’ purview).
For Israel, the same God who covenanted with them is the same me who created all people, then whole world, all of creation. He made all things good with humans as the pinnacle of his work. Marriage helps fulfill God’s command to be fruitful and multiply. But sin ruined the perfect relationship they have with each other and with God. However, God in his grace, although he did expel them from the garden, gave them offers to repent, and even when they didn’t, still gave them a promise of a future champion (Gen 3:15) who would defeat the dark power behind the serpent. We see the effects of sin when Cain kills Abel, and we see God’s image in mankind as Cain builds a city and his offspring are musicians, farmers, and the like.
I really appreciated this book. It isn’t always an easy read, as Collins tries to be clear and specific where needed, which can make reading feel a bit clunky. This is good to read along with Collins’ newer Reading Genesis Well (which I’ve also reviewed). Aside from the chapters of commentary on Genesis 1–4, much of the rest of the book is similar to what I read in Reading Genesis Well. That doesn’t mean it is repeated or just paraphrased in different words. But having read his more mature RGW helped me understand this book with greater clarity. Buy both, read both. Learn how the Bible speaks truthfully even if it’s not in ways that you are used to hearing.
I received this book free from P&R Publishing. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
September 16, 2020
Insightful book about our origins, based on the exegetical and literalistic study of Genesis 1-4
Dr. Collins has very useful explanations for understanding the first chapters of the Scriptures, which are the base to understand the whole Bible. I liked the exegetical study Dr. Collins does in his book, although I might not agree with him in every issue he points out. Chapter two interested me a lot since its a chapter you can apply in your personal study of the Scriptures.
Dr. Collins has very useful explanations for understanding the first chapters of the Scriptures, which are the base to understand the whole Bible. I liked the exegetical study Dr. Collins does in his book, although I might not agree with him in every issue he points out. Chapter two interested me a lot since its a chapter you can apply in your personal study of the Scriptures.
February 1, 2023
Great, careful exposition-a bit technical at places.
Read
April 19, 2023Best book I've read on the opening chapters of Genesis. Without a working knowledge of Hebrew this book will be too confusing. Fantastic otherwise.
May 12, 2025
A scholarly, accessible, and interesting deep dive into the first four books of Genesis.
March 19, 2013
I picked up this book upon recommendation in an Amazon review of Robert Godfrey's God's Pattern for Creation: A Covenantal Reading of Genesis 1. Godfrey's book is a good treatment of the framework interpretation of Genesis 1, one of the two major approaches (along with the day-age view) to this text that are common among conservative Christians who believe in an old earth.
Collins' book is not solely, or even primarily, concerned with harmonizing Genesis and old-earth creationism, although Collins does clearly hold to some version of an old-earth theory. His purpose, rather, is to provide a true commentary - instead of asking "What does the text say about the age of the earth?", he is simply concerned with "What does the text say?" He does deal with questions of science and faith, and lays out a brief case for why he thinks an old-earth understanding can be supported from the text, but his project has a wider scope. One of the most helpful aspects of the book is his treatment of hermeneutical issues. He argues that any valid and faithful interpretation has to understand and cooperate with the author's communicative intent. This puts constraints on common liberal approaches to the biblical text, but it also forces conservatives who believe in the reliability of the text to enter the ancient Hebrew world in which Genesis was written and originally read. From that perspective, modern questions about young- or old-earth theories recede to the background somewhat, and we can focus the theological points the author makes and the literary features of how he makes them.
Other noteworthy features of the book are Collins' high-level but solid critique of the documentary hypothesis and its' adherents' approach to the Pentateuch, and his concluding section on how Genesis 1-4 should be appropriated and applied by Christians today.
Anyone wanting to better understand evangelical old-earth interpretations of Genesis would do well to start with this commentary, so as to get a solid grasp on what the text actually says and the major issues with interpreting and applying it. After reading this one, you could move on to Godfrey's book for a treatment of the framework view and A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, by David Snoke, for a version of the day-age approach.
Collins' book is not solely, or even primarily, concerned with harmonizing Genesis and old-earth creationism, although Collins does clearly hold to some version of an old-earth theory. His purpose, rather, is to provide a true commentary - instead of asking "What does the text say about the age of the earth?", he is simply concerned with "What does the text say?" He does deal with questions of science and faith, and lays out a brief case for why he thinks an old-earth understanding can be supported from the text, but his project has a wider scope. One of the most helpful aspects of the book is his treatment of hermeneutical issues. He argues that any valid and faithful interpretation has to understand and cooperate with the author's communicative intent. This puts constraints on common liberal approaches to the biblical text, but it also forces conservatives who believe in the reliability of the text to enter the ancient Hebrew world in which Genesis was written and originally read. From that perspective, modern questions about young- or old-earth theories recede to the background somewhat, and we can focus the theological points the author makes and the literary features of how he makes them.
Other noteworthy features of the book are Collins' high-level but solid critique of the documentary hypothesis and its' adherents' approach to the Pentateuch, and his concluding section on how Genesis 1-4 should be appropriated and applied by Christians today.
Anyone wanting to better understand evangelical old-earth interpretations of Genesis would do well to start with this commentary, so as to get a solid grasp on what the text actually says and the major issues with interpreting and applying it. After reading this one, you could move on to Godfrey's book for a treatment of the framework view and A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, by David Snoke, for a version of the day-age approach.
June 24, 2015
I was inspired to read this book after I read the first part of Genesis in my daily Bible reading and discovered that I had a lot of questions. I think Collins covered every one of my questions (whether I agreed with him or not), which indicates to me that he did a very thorough job with this commentary. Amazingly, he managed to hold my attention from cover to cover.
As a Hebrew student, I thought this was such an interesting example of methodology. I'm not always sure how to practically apply my language skills to interpreting a text, and it was extremely informative to see someone in action. For the most part, Collins didn't go over my head. There was some terminology I didn't understand, but it was easy enough to skim over.
I didn't agree with Collins about all his conclusions; however, I definitely respect the process by which he came to those conclusions. He began with the text, and did his best to interpret it in a way that fit with all the different factors. To that end, I think he is an excellent example, and I feel that I learned a lot from this book.
As a Hebrew student, I thought this was such an interesting example of methodology. I'm not always sure how to practically apply my language skills to interpreting a text, and it was extremely informative to see someone in action. For the most part, Collins didn't go over my head. There was some terminology I didn't understand, but it was easy enough to skim over.
I didn't agree with Collins about all his conclusions; however, I definitely respect the process by which he came to those conclusions. He began with the text, and did his best to interpret it in a way that fit with all the different factors. To that end, I think he is an excellent example, and I feel that I learned a lot from this book.
Read
October 20, 2014This work of C. John Collins is a huge step in trying to harmonize science and the creation account found in Genesis. It is so refreshing to read a book that deals with the linguistic and literary themes found in the text instead of being filled with dogmatic that seems to be rampant in this area of study. Though I don't agree with all of his arguments, this book definitely provides a sufficient case for old earth creationism, has sharpened my knowledge, and challenged me to deal with the text and the advances in science today.
August 13, 2014
Clear, careful, detailed, and level-headed thinking on Genesis 1–4 and their implications. Collins provides a model of reading the text well and pressing through to application, as well as avoiding the temptations of peer pressure and soap boxes. Highly recommended for pastors, students, and curious lay persons. Hebrew and Greek are a plus, but are not necessary for following what Collins labors to get across.
November 22, 2016
A very useful book on three accounts. 1. Thoughtful and instructive commentary on the text of these passages - especially if you want something that deals fully with the Hebrew. 2. Useful insights into reading the Hebrew Bible. 3. Will help the average pastor grow in his ability to use and understand the Hebrew. This one is a keeper. Even if you don't agree with everything he says (and you never will whichever book you pick up), this will stimulate thinking.
August 22, 2014
Collins does an excellent job of indicating the purpose of this text (which is not how long the days are). Using a specific literary, linguistic and discourse oriented approach, Collins makes reasonable and compelling arguments about 4 pericopes in Genesis. An excellent treaty on the first four chapters of Genesis, I would recommend this to anyone.
October 1, 2015
It's a helpful, thoughtful commentary.
January 31, 2015
Really helpful and thorough.
May 4, 2016
This book had an interesting way of looking at Genesis, it definitely helped me to look at it in a different light. However, I did not agree with some of the conclusions put forth by Collins.
February 19, 2015
Loved this book.
February 14, 2013
Outstanding work! Wish it were longer than just the first four chapters.
January 7, 2018
Top-notch scholarship by a top-notch scholar. A great book, in my opinion.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews