David Sterchi

I was ˜rst pulled into the vortex of controversy about Genesis during my senior year in public high school. A course called The Bible as Literature debated the Noahic ˘ood and its scope. Other debates erupted in college when the School of Science at Purdue University held a panel discussion on evolution in response to recent campus visits by James Whitcomb, Henry Mor-ris and A. E. Wilder-Smith. 1 This was my ˜rst encounter with creationists and evolutionists in con˘ict. Since my odyssey began over ˜fteen years ago, I have made one important observation. Two kinds of errors can be and have been made by some Christians: (1) to see something in the Biblical text that is not there; (2) to miss something in the Biblical text that is there. (A perfect analogy exists with some scientists and their data as well.) One objective of evangelicals (and scientists) is to minimize such errors. Submitting our ideas to others for critical evaluation is one way of trying to avoid these errors. Therefore I submit this article for your consideration. The seven days of creation in Gen 1:3-2:3 are the present focus of my attention. These days appear to have some kind of organizing relationship rooted in the literary structure of the passage. This idea is now being popularized , for example, in the study notes of The NIV Study Bible. 2 But the idea has been carried even further than just organization. Mark Throntveit suggests that this structural relationship with some textual hints points to the fact that the sequence of days is not chronologically ordered at all. 3 This is a quantum leap. It is one thing to suggest that a factual or historical account has a literary structure. It is something else to say that such an account is not chronologically ordered even though it is saturated with chronological terminology. It is essential, then, that the text be scrutinized for any and all clues about chronology or its absence. I. THE SEQUENCE OF DAYS IN GEN 1:3-2:3 The pertinent phrases in the MT read y ô m åe h a d (Gen 1:5), y ô m se n î (1:8), y ô m s‰ l îsî (1:13), y ô m r ‰ b î ç î (1:19), y ô m h A m îsî (1:23), y ô m ha ss i ssî (1:31), 1Ù The panel consisted not only of representatives of the various departments in the School of Science but also a Roman Catholic priest, apparently to sanction Christian acceptance of evolution.

The coherence of Rom 1-11 and 12-16 has long presented a challenge to NT scholarship because of the major differences in content and style. This study analyzes Romans on the basis of both text and structure for evidence of a coherent compositional strategy that unifies these two major blocks. The central concept of this compositional strategy is Paul's concept of discernment. The heuristic nature of the compositional strategy points out several lines of inquiry which are identified.

Four decades ago Linda Mercadante began the discussion about homosexuality in JETS with a book review. Her review closed with the hope that the ensuing discussion would be characterized by more compassion, more study and re-examination rather than the hardening of long-held beliefs. This study surveys the published record of discussion in JETS about homosexuality and evaluates it first quantitatively and then qualitatively against the criteria set forth by Mercadante. Evidence is presented to substantiate that the discussion has indeed included more compassion, more study and re-examination. The most abundant form of evidence is more study and re-examination, with occasional corrective reflection but virtually no articles are sequenced in a point-counterpoint format which is an important element of many other discussions in JETS. This study strives to redress this deficiency in the discussion by responding to several recent articles published in JETS, with an irenic spirit that encourages constructive dialogue and corrective reflection in the historic tradition of the ETS.

This journey from the traditional and historic Christian view of homosexuality to the affirmation of same-sex marriage is recounted logically step by step. Part I explains how Scripture can lead us to abandon the following traditional ideas: (1) the Levitical proscription of same-sex intercourse is absolute (2) the biblical vocabulary that describes same-sex intercourse, the penalties that attach and the creation texts reinforce the absolute nature of this proscription (3) the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus 18-20 are moral standards. Part II explains how this journey finds a path to moral clarity vis-à-vis Paul's model for discerning the moral will of God in his Epistle to the Romans. His model for discernment is applied to the creation texts and then human sexuality to discern moral sexual expression from immoral sexual expression. It is Paul's model for discernment that leads us to the conclusion that same-sex marriage is as morally pure as opposite-sex marriage.

There is a traditional, evangelical consensus that opposes the acceptance and affirmation of same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage, and claims the Bible speaks with both clarity and force against such relationships. This thesis (1) evaluates consensus claims against their own standards for validity; (2) uses traditional, evangelical hermeneutics to construct a Pauline model for Christian discernment from his epistle to Christians at Rome; (3) applies this Pauline model to the creation texts and same-sex relationships, demonstrating that traditional, evangelical hermeneutics can lead us to accept and affirm LGBTQ Christians, their relationships, and their same-sex marriages.