I have been appointed a Fellow of Sinai and Synapses

I have been appointed a Fellow of Sinai and Synapses, a Jewish-based organization in New York City, founded to stimulate critical interaction between faith traditions and contemporary science. Sinai and Synapses is a sort of Jewish version of BioLogos, though BioLogos is an explicitly Christian organization, while Sinai and Synapses has an interfaith focus.

I met the founder and director of Sinai and Synapses, Rabbi Geoff Mitelman, at a BioLogos conference in Baltimore in 2019 (the picture below was taken at the National Aquarium, Baltimore).

The Fellowship is a two-year appointment (2021-2023), during which time I will attend meetings with other Fellows, possibly be interviewed for their “Down the Wormhole” podcast, and write blog posts and do public speaking on issues of science and faith.

This is the announcement about this year’s Fellows on the Sinai and Synapses Facebook page:

We are thrilled to announce the fifth cohort of Sinai and Synapses Fellows! We had some of the strongest applications ever in this round, and selected seventeen people from nine states, plus Washington, DC, the United Kingdom and Brazil. These brilliant, thoughtful and dedicated people will be learning together over the next two years, helping raise the discourse on religion and science in their communities and beyond. With the incredible work that our previous Fellows have already created, we can’t wait to see what happens with this group!

You can see the bios of the current group of Fellows here.

I am very much looking forward to interacting with the other Fellows (and alums of the Fellowship from previous years), We come from such different backgrounds and have such a range of diverse expertise and experiences that I am sure to be energized by the conversations.

I am also hoping that what I learn through participation in this Fellowship will be fruitful for a book I’ll be working on in a couple of years, entitled Life and Death in the Garden of Eden: A Theological Reading of Genesis 2-3 (contracted with Cascade Books).

How Should We Interpret Biblical Genealogies? (BioLogos Interview and Blog Posts)

I was recently interviewed for an episode of the Language of God podcast. The topic was the genealogies in Scripture, particularly in Genesis and Matthew, about which I had just written a series of blog posts.

This is the description of the podcast that BioLogos posted:

At first glance, biblical genealogies appear to straightforward family trees, the kinds we see on ancestry.com that map out the precise relationships between parents and offspring, tracing back as far as we can go. But is that how the genealogies in the Bible are supposed to be read? It turns out there’s a lot more going on in the genealogies than just that straightforward accounting. Bible scholar, Richard Middleton, shares with us some of the historical context that helps us to see the genealogies as another part of the story of God’s creation.

You can access the podcast on the BioLogos podcast page.

Or on Apple podcasts. Or Spotify. Or Stitcher. Or Google.

The interview is based on blog posts that that BioLogos asked me to write on biblical genealogies (posted in July and August, 2021). They actually asked for one blog post, but I got so into it that wrote a four-part blog post addressing the genealogies in Genesis 4–11 (parts 1 and 2) and the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1 (parts 3 and 4).

The series was entitled “How Should We Interpret Biblical Genealogies?”

You can access the four-part blog post at these links:

I learned a whole lot writing them (and had a lot of fun too). I hope you enjoy them.

There are interesting follow-up comments following the first three of these blog posts on the BioLogos Forum.

You can access the comments for Part I here.

You can access the comments for Part II here.

You can access the comments for Part III (with some comments on Part IV) here.

Abraham’s Shift from Protest (Genesis 18) to Silence (Genesis 22)—What’s Going on?

This is the fourth in a series of blog posts where I outline the argument of my new book, Abraham’s Silence: The Binding of Isaac, the Suffering of Job, and How to Talk Back to God, which is scheduled to be published by Baker Academic in November 2021.

This is a follow-up to my third post called, The Contrast between Job and Abraham—From Vigorous Protest to Unquestioning Silence.

Over the years I’ve been struck by the vivid contrast, not just between Abraham and Job (discussed in the previous blog post), but also between Abraham vigorously protesting God’s judgment of the people of Sodom (and his interceding on their behalf) in Genesis 18 and yet silently obeying God’s instructions to sacrifice his own son in Genesis 22.

Why does Abraham shift from vigorous protest in Genesis 18 to silent obedience in Genesis 22?

The Striking Contrast between Genesis 18 and 22—Forensic versus Sacrificial?

One important explanation comes from Jon Levenson, who suggests that in Genesis 18 the issue is forensic and so the question of justice is foremost. Thus, Abraham argues the case on behalf of Sodom.

However, Levenson suggests that things are different in Genesis 22, since the issue there is sacrificial. In a sacrificial situation, we owe everything to God. Thus, if God demands that Abraham sacrifice his son, Abraham has no recourse but to obey.

This is a fascinating explanation of the possible contrast between Genesis 18 and 22.

However, I think it is, ultimately, unsatisfactory.

Let us look more closely at Genesis 18 to see what is happening there.

Genesis 18 as a Teaching Moment—About God’s Character

In Genesis 18 God tells Abraham that the outcry of Sodom has come to him and he is going down to investigate.

But the narrative doesn’t have God telling Abraham outright. First God wonders if he should inform Abraham about his plans (Gen 18:17). Then he decides to tell him, because he chose Abraham for a particular purpose, namely, “that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice” (Gen 18:19).

In other words, this is a teaching moment for Abraham. God informs Abraham about Sodom because he intends that Abraham should learn YHWH’s “way” of “righteousness and justice,” so that he might pass this on to his family and household.

After all, Abraham is coming to know YHWH, a God unlike the deities of the Mesopotamians (among whom Abraham used to live) and the Canaanites (among whom he currently lives). Since YHWH is starting a new people group from Abraham’s descendants, who are to model an alternative way of life among the nations, it is imperative that Abraham come to understand more fully the character of this God.

And what better way to teach this than by an interactive, dialogical session.

So, God informs Abraham of his plans.

Abraham’s Bold Intercession in Genesis 18—On Behalf of Sodom

Abraham immediately responds, objecting that it wouldn’t be right for God to destroy the city if there are fifty righteous (or innocent) people living there (the Hebrew word ṣadîq can mean either righteous or innocent).

Abraham’s motivation for interceding for the city is twofold.

It is based on the (unstated) fact that his nephew Lot, along with his family, is living in Sodom. This shows that Abraham has an implicit sense of justice and fairness.

However, his intercession is also based on a misreading of what God said.

God did not say that he was planning to destroy the city, only that he was going to investigate whether the situation required judgment (“if not, I will know”; Gen 18:21). That Abraham read this as meaning that the destruction of Sodom was a foregone conclusion is based on his misreading of YHWH’s character as a harsh judge.

But the point of the episode is precisely that Abraham would learn about YHWH’s version of justice. So Abraham has jumped the gun.

Here is how the teaching proceeds:

  • Abraham makes an opening offer of fifty; God says sure.
  • Then Abraham says, how about forty-five; God says fine.
  • Abraham proposes forty; God agrees.
  • Then Abraham drops the “price” by ten instead of five, and offers thirty; God says, let’s do it.
  • Abraham then offers twenty; God agrees.
  • Then Abraham says, I have one final offer—how about ten? God says, ten it is.

No Bargaining Here

Contrary to a traditional reading of the text, there is no bargaining (or bartering or haggling) going on here, since bargaining involves two people starting at opposite ends and meeting in the middle. The dialogue in Genesis 18 is different.

If this were a used car sale, where the buyer keeps on reducing his offer and the seller accepts every offer the buyer makes, I would think the seller wants to simply give the car away.

It is as if YHWH is looking for an excuse to save Sodom (and Lot).

What is God trying to teach Abraham about the “way of the YHWH” from this exchange? What sort of “righteousness and justice” is God displaying here? Certainly, one infused with mercy.

But the fact that Abraham (not God) stops at ten suggests that Abraham hasn’t learned what God wanted to teach him.

Yet God sends angels to save Lot and his family—even though that is not something Abraham explicitly asked for.

Abraham’s Lack of Intercession in Genesis 22—Even for His Own Son

So, God devises another teaching moment. But this time he ups the ante. He tells Abraham to offer up his son as a burnt offering at a place three days distant.

It is not his nephew, but his son, who will die. And God will not do the destroying; Abraham must do this himself.

But God gives him three days of travel to think about it.

What will Abraham do?

We already know the answer from Genesis 22.

The question is: What is the test of the Aqedah really about? Is it (as is commonly thought) about whether Abraham loves God more than his son?

Is Abraham’s attempt to sacrifice his son, without even interceding for him, meant to be a positive model for us?

Tune in for the next blog post on this subject, where I critically examine the nature of the test.