What do you think?
Rate this book
The Liturgy of Creation: Understanding Calendars in Old Testament Context
In this book, Michael LeFebvre considers the calendars of the Pentateuch with their basis in the heavenly lights and the land's agricultural cadences. He argues that dates were added to Old Testament narratives not as journalistic details but to teach sacred rhythms of labor and worship. LeFebvre then applies this insight to the creation week, finding that the days of creation also serve a liturgical purpose and not a scientific one. The Liturgy of Creation restores emphasis on the religious function of the creation week as a guide for Sabbath worship. Scholars, students, and church members alike will appreciate LeFebvre's careful scholarship and pastoral sensibilities.
240 pages, Paperback
Published August 6, 2019
30 people are currently reading
242 people want to read
About the author
Michael Lefebvre
16Ìýbooks11ÌýfollowersMichael LeFebvre is pastor of Christ Church Reformed Presbyterian Church in the western suburbs of Indianapolis. He previously studied Old Testament Law at PhD Level at Aberdeen University. He is married to Heather and they have four children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
October 13, 2019
Summary: An argument that Genesis 1:1-2:3 should be understood in light of the calendars in the Pentateuch, particularly as instruction for our work and sabbath, rather than for science.
This book examines an area I've never studied before: the significance of the calendars of the Pentateuch, and the importance of reading Genesis 1:1-2:3 within this context. Michael LeFebvre is a scholar-pastor who noticed how calendar references run through the Pentateuch, studied these, and became convinced that they offer an important clue to understanding the beginning of Genesis.
The first part of the book looks at Israel's calendars, and how they are shaped by day, month (lunar) and year. He notes the significance of cycles of seven. Days in the week are fairly obvious. Less obvious but striking for me is that all Israel's major festivals fall in the first seven months. There are also cycles of seven years, and the seven times seven of Jubilee.
He then studies the different festivals and one of the most significant discussions here is between dates ofÌýoccurrence and dates ofÌýobservanceÌý(we have this in our own calendar with the observance of Washington's birthday on President's Day, which never falls on the day of his actual birthday, February 22. Often, difficulties of chronology arise because of failure to observe this distinction. It also means that because a date of observance may differ from a date of occurrence, this does not mean the occurrence did not happen.
Finally, he argues that the creation week is aÌýcalendar narrative.ÌýThe struggles, for example, to explain evening and morning before the creation of the sun and moon on the fourth day is not a problem if we understand this narrative as a calendar narrative having a liturgical purpose rather than describing an actual chronology.Ìý LeFebvre admits that this may be frustrating for those who have worked out apologetic systems to reconcile the narrative with known science, but his contention is that science was not the point but rather the worship of the God who works six days and rests, establishing a model for his creatures to follow in their work and rest as the fourth commandment indicates. He contends this makes good sense in reading Genesis as part of the Pentateuch, where sabbath is a weekly feast observance, a break of rest and celebration in the people's rhythm of work. It is consonant with the rest of Pentateuch, and evident to any reader of the text without extensive theological and ancient cultural background, or apologetic expertise. As a corollary to this, he contends for the removal of this text for use in controversy in science and that it be used as Paul commends in 2 Timothy 3:16 for training in righteousness--in this case the proper rhythm of work and rest modeled after the first great worker--God.
No doubt, those who have made an intellectual, or even a remunerative occupation of defending a particular position with regard to Genesis 1 and scientific accounts of origins, LeFebvre's account is inadequate. LeFebvre does distinguish between idolatrous naturalism, and the carefully delimited practice of science, which may be done by both believers and non-believers apart from philosophical or theological commitments. He remains somewhat agnostic about scientific accounts of origins, while affirming the important of scientific engagements in the study of evolution and cosmology so long as the conclusions affirmed are physical and not metaphysical. He just doesn't believe Genesis is intended to give an account of origins reconcilable with science. That is not what it's for. Thus, he does not incline here toward any of the apologetic models of origins on offer. None, he thinks, read the text literally enough.
LeFebvre's book is important for understanding the calendar of Israel, the significance of festival observance dates, and so forth. His charts of all this are very helpful. Most of all, to pay close attention to the sanctity of work, a creation made to be fruitful and to foster the flourishing of God's creatures, and the vital practice of sabbath and rhythms of work and rest--all of this offers much for Christians in their worship, practice, and rhythms of daily life. With so much of worth, why press these texts to answer and teach things they were not intended to teach?
________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
This book examines an area I've never studied before: the significance of the calendars of the Pentateuch, and the importance of reading Genesis 1:1-2:3 within this context. Michael LeFebvre is a scholar-pastor who noticed how calendar references run through the Pentateuch, studied these, and became convinced that they offer an important clue to understanding the beginning of Genesis.
The first part of the book looks at Israel's calendars, and how they are shaped by day, month (lunar) and year. He notes the significance of cycles of seven. Days in the week are fairly obvious. Less obvious but striking for me is that all Israel's major festivals fall in the first seven months. There are also cycles of seven years, and the seven times seven of Jubilee.
He then studies the different festivals and one of the most significant discussions here is between dates ofÌýoccurrence and dates ofÌýobservanceÌý(we have this in our own calendar with the observance of Washington's birthday on President's Day, which never falls on the day of his actual birthday, February 22. Often, difficulties of chronology arise because of failure to observe this distinction. It also means that because a date of observance may differ from a date of occurrence, this does not mean the occurrence did not happen.
Finally, he argues that the creation week is aÌýcalendar narrative.ÌýThe struggles, for example, to explain evening and morning before the creation of the sun and moon on the fourth day is not a problem if we understand this narrative as a calendar narrative having a liturgical purpose rather than describing an actual chronology.Ìý LeFebvre admits that this may be frustrating for those who have worked out apologetic systems to reconcile the narrative with known science, but his contention is that science was not the point but rather the worship of the God who works six days and rests, establishing a model for his creatures to follow in their work and rest as the fourth commandment indicates. He contends this makes good sense in reading Genesis as part of the Pentateuch, where sabbath is a weekly feast observance, a break of rest and celebration in the people's rhythm of work. It is consonant with the rest of Pentateuch, and evident to any reader of the text without extensive theological and ancient cultural background, or apologetic expertise. As a corollary to this, he contends for the removal of this text for use in controversy in science and that it be used as Paul commends in 2 Timothy 3:16 for training in righteousness--in this case the proper rhythm of work and rest modeled after the first great worker--God.
No doubt, those who have made an intellectual, or even a remunerative occupation of defending a particular position with regard to Genesis 1 and scientific accounts of origins, LeFebvre's account is inadequate. LeFebvre does distinguish between idolatrous naturalism, and the carefully delimited practice of science, which may be done by both believers and non-believers apart from philosophical or theological commitments. He remains somewhat agnostic about scientific accounts of origins, while affirming the important of scientific engagements in the study of evolution and cosmology so long as the conclusions affirmed are physical and not metaphysical. He just doesn't believe Genesis is intended to give an account of origins reconcilable with science. That is not what it's for. Thus, he does not incline here toward any of the apologetic models of origins on offer. None, he thinks, read the text literally enough.
LeFebvre's book is important for understanding the calendar of Israel, the significance of festival observance dates, and so forth. His charts of all this are very helpful. Most of all, to pay close attention to the sanctity of work, a creation made to be fruitful and to foster the flourishing of God's creatures, and the vital practice of sabbath and rhythms of work and rest--all of this offers much for Christians in their worship, practice, and rhythms of daily life. With so much of worth, why press these texts to answer and teach things they were not intended to teach?
________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
April 21, 2019
Carefully researched, clearly articulated, a game-changer for the stalemate in the creation debates.
March 19, 2020
Honestly, it’s hard to think of a theological topic that gets evangelical Christians more fired up than the doctrine of creation. Now I know the doctrine of creation is wide ranging—we could talk about providence, God’s end in creation, the contingency of creation, the orderliness of creation, etc—but the aspect of creation that really makes people’s blood boil tends to revolve around the creation story, specifically the length of creation and God’s means of creation. Michael LeFebvre, a pastor-theologian, has given us yet another book on the topic� but this book is actually quite different. It presents a novel take on what is actually going on in Genesis 1 and 2. I’ll admit � I would have never seen what LeFebvre points out if I hadn’t read this book. I’ll also admit � I find myself pretty convinced by his argument about what is going on in the creation narrative.
So what is this novel account of the creation story?
Basically it’s this: Genesis 1:1 � 2:3 is actually a “calendar narrative.� What is a “calendar narrative?� It is “a historical narrative in which historical events are given the dates of a festival observance, without regard for the timing of the original occurrence.� (6)
Through a careful reading of OT Calendars and festivals LeFebvre establishes the difference between occurrence dates and observance dates. Think for example of MLK Day. MLK day is supposed to celebrate his birthday. There is a day in which MLK was born but we observe his birth on a Monday regardless of his actual birthdate. The same goes for Presidents Day. There is a difference between the occurrence and the observation of the event. But the key thing to remember is that we know when the occurrence date is. Think about Christmas though. Christmas occurred on a specific day � i.e. the day that Christ was actually born. Yet we observe his birth on December 25th. There is a difference between occurrence date and observance date. There’s a key difference between Christmas and holidays like President’s day and MLK Day � we don’t actually know the occurrence date for Christ’s birth. Typically we keep track of both the original occurrence date and the ongoing observance date. So what does this have to do with ancient Israel? LeFebvre argues that, “all that was deemed important to preserve was the historical even and its observance date. So the Pentateuch simply retells the events having happened on the appointed observance date.� (95)
So that’s the first plank of his argument � a distinction between occurrence and observance dates of festivals.
The second plank of his argument is the demonstration of how the Pentateuch uses narratives for liturgical guidance. These narratives are intended to give guidenace for the practice of various festivals.
The third plank of his argument is a demonstration that the creation week narrative is “a structured retelling of the creation around the pattern of a Model Farmer tending his fields and livestock each day of the week until sabbath.� (7) The creation narrative has a “festival� in view � and that festival is the sabbath.
Here’s his big claim:
The Torah adapts historical narratives to the dates of festival calendars for the sake of observance, not chronology. The creation week is another narrative ascribed with observance dates that do not preserve the original occurrence timeline. (138)
Note what he is not saying. He’s not saying that God didn’t create the world. He’s not saying that the events of creation didn’t happen in precisely the way the creation narrative is written. In fact quite the opposite. The festivals � including the sabbath � are all rooted in historical events. So there is a historical event of creation. What he is saying is that Genesis 1 and 2 doesn’t shouldn’t be read as an attempt to give us a narration about the occurrence date � it’s meant to undergird the liturgy of the observance of a festival � the sabbath.
What’s the upshot? The upshot is that Genesis 1 & 2 can’t be used to present a theory for how God created the world, because scripture simply isn’t interested in giving us that information. We will have to turn to other sources of information, e.g. other parts of scripture, science, etc.
Now I’ll admit that I’m not an OT scholar � so this isn’t my area of expertise, but LeFebvre’s presentation of the evidence is pretty compelling. I happened to be sitting on a bus with Tremper Longman while I was reading this book (don’t ask why). I leaned over to him (this was before social distancing) to say: “Hey have you read this? He makes some really important points…� He chuckled a little and said,
“Yeah I’ve read it, take a look at the back.�
Oops � I didn’t even realize that he wrote an endorsement for it. He says that it is,
“Essential reading for all serious students of the Old Testament.�
Tremper is a smart guy, a lot smarter than me, so if both an OT Scholar and a Systematician came to the same conclusion about this book, then I think it’s safe to say � you should probably read the Liturgy of Creation and judge it for yourself.
(Note: I received this book from IVP free of charge, for the purpose of an impartial review.)
So what is this novel account of the creation story?
Basically it’s this: Genesis 1:1 � 2:3 is actually a “calendar narrative.� What is a “calendar narrative?� It is “a historical narrative in which historical events are given the dates of a festival observance, without regard for the timing of the original occurrence.� (6)
Through a careful reading of OT Calendars and festivals LeFebvre establishes the difference between occurrence dates and observance dates. Think for example of MLK Day. MLK day is supposed to celebrate his birthday. There is a day in which MLK was born but we observe his birth on a Monday regardless of his actual birthdate. The same goes for Presidents Day. There is a difference between the occurrence and the observation of the event. But the key thing to remember is that we know when the occurrence date is. Think about Christmas though. Christmas occurred on a specific day � i.e. the day that Christ was actually born. Yet we observe his birth on December 25th. There is a difference between occurrence date and observance date. There’s a key difference between Christmas and holidays like President’s day and MLK Day � we don’t actually know the occurrence date for Christ’s birth. Typically we keep track of both the original occurrence date and the ongoing observance date. So what does this have to do with ancient Israel? LeFebvre argues that, “all that was deemed important to preserve was the historical even and its observance date. So the Pentateuch simply retells the events having happened on the appointed observance date.� (95)
So that’s the first plank of his argument � a distinction between occurrence and observance dates of festivals.
The second plank of his argument is the demonstration of how the Pentateuch uses narratives for liturgical guidance. These narratives are intended to give guidenace for the practice of various festivals.
The third plank of his argument is a demonstration that the creation week narrative is “a structured retelling of the creation around the pattern of a Model Farmer tending his fields and livestock each day of the week until sabbath.� (7) The creation narrative has a “festival� in view � and that festival is the sabbath.
Here’s his big claim:
The Torah adapts historical narratives to the dates of festival calendars for the sake of observance, not chronology. The creation week is another narrative ascribed with observance dates that do not preserve the original occurrence timeline. (138)
Note what he is not saying. He’s not saying that God didn’t create the world. He’s not saying that the events of creation didn’t happen in precisely the way the creation narrative is written. In fact quite the opposite. The festivals � including the sabbath � are all rooted in historical events. So there is a historical event of creation. What he is saying is that Genesis 1 and 2 doesn’t shouldn’t be read as an attempt to give us a narration about the occurrence date � it’s meant to undergird the liturgy of the observance of a festival � the sabbath.
What’s the upshot? The upshot is that Genesis 1 & 2 can’t be used to present a theory for how God created the world, because scripture simply isn’t interested in giving us that information. We will have to turn to other sources of information, e.g. other parts of scripture, science, etc.
Now I’ll admit that I’m not an OT scholar � so this isn’t my area of expertise, but LeFebvre’s presentation of the evidence is pretty compelling. I happened to be sitting on a bus with Tremper Longman while I was reading this book (don’t ask why). I leaned over to him (this was before social distancing) to say: “Hey have you read this? He makes some really important points…� He chuckled a little and said,
“Yeah I’ve read it, take a look at the back.�
Oops � I didn’t even realize that he wrote an endorsement for it. He says that it is,
“Essential reading for all serious students of the Old Testament.�
Tremper is a smart guy, a lot smarter than me, so if both an OT Scholar and a Systematician came to the same conclusion about this book, then I think it’s safe to say � you should probably read the Liturgy of Creation and judge it for yourself.
(Note: I received this book from IVP free of charge, for the purpose of an impartial review.)
May 30, 2021
Dr. Michael LeFebvre is a pastor as well as adjunct professor Old Testament at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Pittsburgh. In this work Dr. LeFebvre proposes a unique framework to the Pentateuch that is a “calendar narrative.� Unlike Dr. Meredith Kline’s literary framework hypothesis, LeFebvre’s Genesis creation account is considered to be a “structured retelling of the creation around the pattern of a Model Farmer tending his fields and livestock each day of the week until the Sabbath.� Especially instructive were the details regarding Old Testament Israel’s seven annual festivals beginning in the first month (Spring) and ending in the seventh month (Autumn). The author then endeavors to link major events in the Pentateuch to these annual festivals, which he calls “event sequencing.� Specifically, LeFebvre’s major thesis is that Pentateuch dates were for “liturgical instruction� (remembrance dates), not “journalistic sequencing.� The author then attempts to demonstrate that this liturgical structure also holds true for the creation narrative of the first two chapters of Genesis, specifically, “the creation week narrative contains the history of God’s ordering of the world, mapped to Israel’s observance schedule for stewarding that order with labor and worship.� LeFebvre is adamant that the first two chapters of Genesis are not meant to be a science textbook. LeFebvre quotes John Walton, “Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture.� I thought that one of the weakest parts of his hypothesis to be the two panel-triad structure of Genesis 1. This is reminiscent of Kline’s framework hypothesis, but I found there to be little Biblical support for this hypothesis. I also question the author’s understanding that the underlining purpose of the Genesis creation account to be “human stewardship.� This lacks historic redemptive depth demonstrating Christ as the purpose of creation. Overall this was a thought-provoking work, however I cannot entirely subscribe to all aspects of the author’s creation hypothesis.
September 6, 2019
This is a book about calendars, but it is also a book about Genesis 1 and how we ought to read it. In the first half of the book Lefebvre shows how the OT calendars are not straight forward journalistic accounts of dates and times. Lefebvre surveys every example in the Pentateuch where an event is given a specific calendar date and then from within the text itself is able to demonstrate that these are stylised timestamps that attach real events to liturgical dates. This does not mean Scripture is inaccurate, or that events didn’t really happen, but that the way scripture reports them teaches us a liturgical information. An ordinary example would be the difference between the Queen’s official Birthday and her actual date of birth. They serve different purposes.
So far so good. Lefebvre next moves to apply this principle to the calendar of Genesis chapter one. His argument is that the text itself indicates that the days are not a literal scientific account of how God made the world, but a liturgical template for man to understand his work culminating in sabbath worship and rest. The author is clear that the events of Gen 1 happened, God really did create ex nihilo, but that the recording of it serves a liturgical rather than a journalistic or scientific purpose. It is not that the account is not true or inaccurate, but that it just serves a different purpose to that sought by modern six-day creationists.
December 27, 2021
Persuasively argues that textual dating in the Old Testament is more often observance dates rather than occurrence dates. Good presentation of a faithful non-hyperliteralist reading of Genesis 1.
July 2, 2020
Review coming. Pretty cool book, and a very helpful way of looking at the first week of creation that is practical to all. Not all will agree with aspects of his supporting arguments, but the main idea seems to hold well. Detailed in early chapters, not "riveting," but very helpful to teachers and pastors shepherding their church.
June 16, 2020
I have to start by saying I loved this book. The author examined the various festivals in the Old Testament and how they fit in with the agricultural calendar of planting and harvesting. I totally feel like I have a deeper grasp of the rhythm and cadence of the lives of the ancient Hebrew people. His summary and conclusions are my favorite part.
This book is divided into 3 sections. Chapters 1-3 are in Part I � Israel’s Calendars. Part II � Festivals and Their Stories has chapters 4-6. The final section, Part III � The Creation Week, is chapters 7-12. The book is well referenced and has an extensive bibliography, abbreviations, general index, and Scripture index, lending it to be an excellent reference source as well.
The Introduction sets the stage for this book by starting in the New Testament and the Gospel accounts of the timing of Jesus’s crucifixion. LeFabvre makes the case that the timing of Jesus’s passion events is tied to the Passover in different ways by different authors as part of a culture of attaching the meaning of events to a festival.
The author looks at every dated event in the Pentateuch and why they were attached to each festival. The tables are useful in visualizing the Pentateuch Calendar. The dates when the Israelite stories were celebrated and remembered were not based on the exact timing and chronology of the historical events. In the creation week, LeFebvre shows fruitfulness was established in creation days 1-3, then rulers and residents were placed in their respective realms in days 4-6. “The two halves of the workweek demonstrate that the purpose of this calendar is for guidance in human labor, epitomized by agricultural fruitfulness.� The conclusion in this chapter is excellent. “There is a real history behind the Genesis 1:1-2:3 creation week. But this is a pastoral text, not a scientific record.�
Christians universally agree that the creation story in Genesis 1 teaches a weekly cadence of labor completed with worship. This chapter looks at the historical views on Genesis 1. When it comes to the science of origins, LeFebvre says “We should approach the science of origins the same way we approach the scientific study of cancer, or electricity or chemistry.� He has a good section on distinguishing between evolution and evolutionary naturalism, which is idolatry. I love his discussion on evangelism and evolution; especially his push back on the atheists� premise that evolution disproves God. “When we tell our children that belief in evolution undermines the existence of God, we are the ones teaching them they will have to abandon Christ if they ever find the arguments for evolution too persuasive to deny. …it is the Christian apologetic (not evolutionary science) that is to blame when young people “lose their faith� during college.� The book concludes with an encouragement to bring our own work and life into the rhythm of hope, faith, and worship taught in the creation week calendar. “This is the day that the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it. Psalm 118:24�
This book is divided into 3 sections. Chapters 1-3 are in Part I � Israel’s Calendars. Part II � Festivals and Their Stories has chapters 4-6. The final section, Part III � The Creation Week, is chapters 7-12. The book is well referenced and has an extensive bibliography, abbreviations, general index, and Scripture index, lending it to be an excellent reference source as well.
The Introduction sets the stage for this book by starting in the New Testament and the Gospel accounts of the timing of Jesus’s crucifixion. LeFabvre makes the case that the timing of Jesus’s passion events is tied to the Passover in different ways by different authors as part of a culture of attaching the meaning of events to a festival.
The author looks at every dated event in the Pentateuch and why they were attached to each festival. The tables are useful in visualizing the Pentateuch Calendar. The dates when the Israelite stories were celebrated and remembered were not based on the exact timing and chronology of the historical events. In the creation week, LeFebvre shows fruitfulness was established in creation days 1-3, then rulers and residents were placed in their respective realms in days 4-6. “The two halves of the workweek demonstrate that the purpose of this calendar is for guidance in human labor, epitomized by agricultural fruitfulness.� The conclusion in this chapter is excellent. “There is a real history behind the Genesis 1:1-2:3 creation week. But this is a pastoral text, not a scientific record.�
Christians universally agree that the creation story in Genesis 1 teaches a weekly cadence of labor completed with worship. This chapter looks at the historical views on Genesis 1. When it comes to the science of origins, LeFebvre says “We should approach the science of origins the same way we approach the scientific study of cancer, or electricity or chemistry.� He has a good section on distinguishing between evolution and evolutionary naturalism, which is idolatry. I love his discussion on evangelism and evolution; especially his push back on the atheists� premise that evolution disproves God. “When we tell our children that belief in evolution undermines the existence of God, we are the ones teaching them they will have to abandon Christ if they ever find the arguments for evolution too persuasive to deny. …it is the Christian apologetic (not evolutionary science) that is to blame when young people “lose their faith� during college.� The book concludes with an encouragement to bring our own work and life into the rhythm of hope, faith, and worship taught in the creation week calendar. “This is the day that the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it. Psalm 118:24�
November 18, 2024
This book doesn't really know what it wants to be. The bulk of it is a very interesting analysis of the function of time and calendars within Israel's history. The rest of the book explores why Genesis 1 should be read within a liturgical/calendar framework, rather than being a mechanical, scientific account. Its concluding appeal is to therefore sync our lives with God's order, by adopting Sabbath rest and pursing the blessing of creation. Overall, the book was brimming with insights, his exegesis of Genesis 1 was very helpful and I appreciated his warnings about forcing a modern worldview on the creation account. That said, for all the insight into Israel's liturgical life, it seems to me that Genesis 1 is even more foundational (and ultimately eschatological) than Lefebvre would have us think. God may be giving his people a spiritual farming manual and encouraging us to rest more, but I believe he is also (and more fundamentally) outlining his purposes for the world and for world history, even before Genesis 3:15. Lefebvre touches on this only briefly, but not nearly as much as he could have.
September 16, 2021
His thesis is that the Genesis 1 creation story is a calendar narrative, aligned with Israel’s weekly calendar, to establish rhythms of work and rest in a fruitful world. In original creation, humans were to labor faithfully for six days then rest, worship, and enjoy the fruits of their labor for a day.
I enjoyed his points on the historical context, how the earth was created fruitful, how humans were to participate in cultivating and completing creation, and sabbath was a gift of rest and worship. At times, there felt like a lot to wade through, tangents fitting of an academic paper. But it was all worth it for the last couple pages that emphasized how the sabbath is still the way we can taste and hopefully await the coming of the future eternal sabbath.
I enjoyed his points on the historical context, how the earth was created fruitful, how humans were to participate in cultivating and completing creation, and sabbath was a gift of rest and worship. At times, there felt like a lot to wade through, tangents fitting of an academic paper. But it was all worth it for the last couple pages that emphasized how the sabbath is still the way we can taste and hopefully await the coming of the future eternal sabbath.
September 21, 2019
The first part of the book, which examines the way dates are used in the Pentateuch to illustrate the significance of events rather than for strictly chronological purposes, is quite interesting. Unfortunately, the author does almost a complete flip in the second half where he explains that the Sabbath dates were actually meant to explain already-established patters of work and rest in Israel's society rather than to explain God's activity in and of itself. The author's conclusions in the first part of the book presuppose the actual historicity of the events being described, but it's not clear there is such historicity in the author's exposition of Gen. 1-2.
November 27, 2019
Very helpful book. Very engaging and easy to follow, too. His passing absolutists remarks (by way of analogy) about rigorous vaccine safety and concrete certainty about distant galaxies in the final chapter even gave me a hearty chuckle. It’s incredible to notice what kinds of presuppositional commitments about social realities (in any generation) shape our commitments to biblical interpretation, and vice versa.
Read
August 16, 2020Even someone who considers oneself "chronologically-challenged" can appreciate this book. The exposition is clear, and it gives clarity to many of the troubling issues with timing in the Bible and related literature. As it says in the preface, the first few chapters are must-read, but honestly the shocking reveals slow down greatly after that as Lefebvre wades through the details.
June 8, 2021
Superb. Took a while to get going but then the hard work paid off. A stunningly helpful reading of Genesis in context.
Vital for those interested in science/scripture conversations.
Probably a good book for pastors - preaching the ot, Genesis, and pastoring issues of vocation, rest, science etc.
So good!
Vital for those interested in science/scripture conversations.
Probably a good book for pastors - preaching the ot, Genesis, and pastoring issues of vocation, rest, science etc.
So good!
January 1, 2024
Fascinating study on the nature of Old Testament festival calendars and how that may have influenced the dating of events recorded in the OT itself. The last chapter, however, reveals problematic motivations and assumptions regarding creation in general, especially leaving doors open for theistic evolution.
January 8, 2020
Excellent book. I did skim some of the chapters a bit as I felt some of the argument was redundant - my only reason for four rather than five stars. That said, if you need ample evidence, detailed footnotes, strong references, etc., it's all here. Tremendously well written and thoughtful.
February 18, 2024
Thought provoking- esp as it points out how most of scriptures important days occur on the same days of the liturgical calendar. Moves on to suggest gen 1 as a framework for litergical work not scientific basis for creation which is actually compelling. Great read.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.