The great American writer Marilynne Robinson’s novels and essays are deeply informed by her Christian faith, so it is perhaps no surprise that she has written a commentary on Genesis. In his review, Philip Bunn notes Robinson’s unapologetic embrace of a traditional approach to the Bible, which one might not expect in a work aimed at a broad audience that does not share her religious commitments or her particular brand of Calvinism:

Robinson unabashedly takes stances that will draw ire from some serious historical-critical scholars. For one, she believes Genesis to be scripture, inspired by God and delivered through Moses’ authorship. At the same time, she takes stances that might offend some fundamentalist readers.

She agrees with certain critical scholars who see in Genesis the explicit influence of other Ancient Near East creation myths and flood stories. She herself sees no problem with this influence; it is no mark against Genesis that it bears the influence of the culture in which it was written. In fact, she sees in Genesis the marks of an author, Moses, who is steeped in both Hebrew and Egyptian learning, aware of these other traditions, and willing to provide a divinely inspired counterpoint to them.

“The gods of the Enuma Elish”—a Babylonian creation myth—“suffer hunger, terror, and loss of sleep,” Robinson writes, and they create through acts of cosmic violence, constructing earth and sky and rivers and seas out of corpses and carnage. The contrast to the God of Scripture could not be more poignant: “Against this background of ambient myth, to say that God is the good creator of a good creation is not a trivial statement. The insistence of Genesis on this point, even the mention of goodness as an attribute of the creation, is unique to Genesis.”

It is God’s care for his creation, but particularly the humans made in his image, that is central to both Genesis and Robinson’s interpretation of it.

Last week, the Lebanese parliament chose Joseph Aoun to be the country’s next president, filling a position that has been vacant since 2022. Aoun, currently commander of the military—and reportedly supported by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia—edged out Suleiman Frangiyeh, Hizballah’s preferred candidate. But while Aoun’s victory is a step in the right direction, David Daoud sounds a cautionary note:

Lebanon’s president lacks the constitutional authority to order Hizballah’s disarmament, and Aoun was elected as another “consensus president” with Hizballah’s votes. They wouldn’t vote for a man who would set in motion a process leading to their disarmament.

Habib Malik agrees that hoping for too much to come out of the election could constitute “daydreaming,” but he nonetheless believes the Lebanese have a chance to win their country back from Hizballah and, ultimately, make peace with Israel:

Lebanon’s 2019 economic collapse and the 2020 massive explosion at the Beirut Port were perpetrated by the ruling mafia, protected ever since by Hizballah. [But] Lebanon’s anti-Iran/Hizballah communities constitute a reliable partner for both the U.S. and Israel. The Lebanese are desperate to be rid of Iranian influence in order to pursue regional peace and prosperity with their neighbors. Suddenly, a unique opportunity for peace breaking out between Israel and Lebanon could be upon us, particularly given President Trump’s recent reelection with a landslide mandate. It was under Trump’s first term that the Abraham Accords came into being and so under his second term they could certainly be expanded.

As matters stand, Lebanon has very few major contentious issues with Israel. The precisely targeted and methodical nature of Israel’s war in Lebanon against Hizballah and what has unfolded in Syria make this outcome a far more attainable goal.