Introduction
The doctrine of creation is not an obscure doctrine in Scripture. Although there are many biblical doctrines that are based upon just a few scriptural references, there are at least 75 references to creation in the Old and New Testaments. The first two chapters of Genesis contain the primary biblical information on creation, so they provide the basis of the biblical doctrine. The meaning of this simple narrative is truly straightforward. This portion of the Bible, however, has been the object of considerable speculation by various writers who have placed interpretations upon the text that have little to do with what the writer originally was trying to convey to his audience. Clearly, the meaning of Scripture as with any writing has to do with how it would have been perceived and understood by its original audience. What any subsequent generation might force upon it, based upon its unique presuppositions and world-views, is a different matter altogether. Such things will change with the passing of the generations. But the author's original intent ought to determine the meaning.
The Genesis account of creation, and with it the biblical doctrine of creation, has been the subject of such "rethinking" and "reinterpreting" over the years. This has elicited quite a number of approaches to the narration proffered by the author of the document. Consequently, there is much controversy on the interpretation of certain features of the chapters. Still, certain basic truths stand out in such a way as to lie beyond legitimate controversy or quibble, or so it would seem. Let us begin by stating in uncomplicated language one of these points of a general interest, and then address those aspects of the chapters which require further scrutiny.
According to the first two chapters of Genesis, the entire process of animate and inanimate creation appears to have been completed in a very short process of time. There is nothing in these chapters about eons or ages. Not one thing. There is no mention of protracted periods of time. Our author only speaks of evenings and mornings, and of the passage of a few short days which comprise a single creative week. It ends with a single Sabbath, not hundreds or thousands of them. In the present historic moment this may be the most controversial aspect of the chapter, even among professed creationists, for it flies in the face of so much of modern scientific theorizing about the origin of the universe. But the question whether the penman of Genesis wished his readers to believe this, based simply upon what he says about the matter, lies safely beyond dispute. According to this writer, the creation took only six days. When the seventh day came, creation was over.
This point appears to stand on its own merits. The text is so plain that little may be said to object to the conclusion that the writer of Genesis wanted his first readers to believe this basic fact. One may argue either that he does not believe it or that he cannot accept this to be accurate, based upon issues or information extraneous to Genesis, but he may not fairly claim that the early readers would have gotten any impression different from the one stated above in this little synopsis. As a liberal theologian, Dr. Gerhard von Rad, observed in his commentary on Genesis, "What is said here is intended to hold true entirely and exactly as it stands. There is no trace of the hymnic element in the language, nor is anything said that needs to be understood symbolically or whose deeper meaning has to be deciphered" (47, 48). According to Aila Annala, "Anyone who reads the Genesis story in Hebrew will find out quite soon that it is prose -- a historical description of the beginnings. Something very typical for Hebrew prose are the many waw-consecutive forms in the beginning of the sentences (the repeated "ands" in the beginning of the sentences in many English translations). To make the creation story into a hymn is as difficult as trying to sing a couple of pages from a modern history book" (Creation Story: History, Myth, Hymn or Saga?). The writer has written what he has written; one ought to accept it or reject it. But one must not do it the injustice of attempting to bring those words into line with what one would have liked for him to have said based upon a modernistic interpretation of the events which he chronicles.
Genesis 1-11
‘One of the fundamental beliefs of evangelical Christianity is that "the Bible is its own interpreter". This belief comes under attack when Christians try to interpret Genesis 1-11 so as to fit into evolutionary biology and uniformitarian geology. Various justifications are given for this, e.g. "the Bible is teaching religion and not science", or "we must interpret Genesis by general revelation (=science)", or "the Bible was written in terms of the naive unscientific beliefs of its day". When each of these arguments is examined it is found that it involves interpreting the Bible according to ideas drawn from outside the Bible. Thus the Bible is no longer its own interpreter.'[1]
Is there any explicit teaching within the Bible itself that suggests its details are not to be pressed in matters of the physical creation? I know of no such teaching. When reference is made to the original creation, the creation narrative is treated as fact without any reservation. Consider Peter’s argument in 2 Peter 3:5-7, 'But they deliberately forgot that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and with water. By water also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the Day of Judgment and destruction of ungodly men.' Note that he does not shrink from reliance upon some of the details of the Genesis narrative. Other examples of Biblical references back to Genesis (e.g. Exodus 20:11; Matthew 19:4; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Tim. 2:13-14), to be considered in more detail below, show a similar reference to specific details such as creation in seven days (Exodus 20:11) and creation of woman from the man (1 Timothy 2:13-14).
This should in itself be enough to dismiss the frequent statement that we may not press the details of the account. Yet, most people would want to interpret scripture upon a basis of Kantian philosophy. But this philosophy itself is not sanctioned by Scripture. No clear distinction is ever made in the Bible between statements concerning the physical creation and theological statements. One influences and determines the other. Note that in the Biblical references given above, the form which the original creation took is made the basis of theological and/or ethical teaching. The separation between physical creation and theology is one that has to be imposed upon the text by us. It is not naturally there in the Bible.
The Literary character of Genesis
It seems a more serious attempt at exegesis when appeal is made to the literary nature of Genesis l.[2] Even here care is needed that an outside standard be not imposed. One cannot simply define Genesis 1 as poetry by using a standard of poetry drawn from outside the Scripture, without assuming the very point at issue. Even if Genesis 1 were poetry, we would still be entitled to inquire what truth it conveys. Our answer to that question would have to be framed in terms of the rest of Scripture. If we take the passages referred to above we obtain enough to place us in conflict with modern evolutionary approaches. Thus the claim that Genesis 1 is poetic does not resolve the problem.
Furthermore, by what criteria do we call Genesis 1 poetic? The parallelism of day’s l-3 to 4-6 is often cited. This however, is merely parallelism that makes up Hebrew poetry. Hebrew poetry consists of a series of couplets or triplets exhibiting complementary, climatic or antithetic parallelism e.g. in Psalm 5:1, 'Give ear to my words, O Lord;': is complemented and paralleled by ‘Consider my meditation’. This is clearly different from the fact that on days l-3 God creates the environment and on days 4-6 the creatures who are to live and rule in the respective environments. One is a parallel of ideas in successive stichoi, the other a parallel of ideas which may be several verses apart.
Nevertheless it may be argued that the very fact that Genesis 1 exhibits such a structure proves that it is not to be taken literally. Surely, to state this argument is to refute it. Short of some sort of metaphysical presupposition that regards history as totally random and all order in historiography as being a result of arbitrary human imposition, I cannot see how one would ever prove such a proposition. The attempt to make a case by analogy from the book of Revelation is quite beside the point. If we took elements of Revelation as symbolical without explicit Biblical warrant then we would be guilty of imposing an outside standard upon the Scripture. Revelation itself tells us that we are meant to see symbolism in its pictures: ‘the great city, which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified’ (11:8); ‘And a great portent appeared in heaven’ (12:1); ‘and on her forehead was written a name of mystery, ‘Babylon the Great ... I will tell you the mystery of the woman ... This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains ... and there are also seven kings ... The waters that you saw, where the harlot is seated, are peoples and multitudes ... And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth’ (17:5-18). It is the lack of a similar interpretation of the ‘symbolism’ of Genesis which so sharply distinguishes Genesis and Revelation.
Structured history
Even though there is no logical reason why the presence of a structure should prove that a passage is not to be taken literally, this idea seams to have great emotive appeal. The whole question of structured history needs to be examined more closely. The title of this paper limits discussion to Genesis 1-11. This is because among evangelicals anyway there is a willingness to accept the historicity of the patriarchal narratives. However, the patriarchal narratives are structured history in the same way as the earlier chapters of Genesis. They fit within a framework created by the heading ‘These are the generations of ...’ (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12, 19 etc.). There are clear instances of parallel structure. Thus the experiences of Isaac parallel those of Abraham. Both have barren wives (15:2; 16:1; 25:21). Both lie concerning their wives (20:2; 26:7). Both face famine in the Promised Land (12:10; 26:1). Both make a covenant with the Philistines (21:22-34; 26:26-33). If parallelism of structure proves that a passage is not historical then the patriarchal narratives are not historical. This of course is the conclusion of many liberal exegetes, but evangelicals once more maintain an inconsistency, being willing to apply a higher-critical principle in one area of Scripture but not in another.
If one looks carefully at these structured histories, one sees that the structure is theological. Abraham and Isaac both face barrenness and famine because they both experience the trial of faith in being forced to believe the promise of God contrary to the physical situation (Romans 4:17-18; Hebrews 11:8-12).[3] The structure that underlies the parallelism of Genesis 1 is that of covenant vassal and suzerain. On days l-3 the environment or vassal was created and on days 4-6 the appropriate creature or suzerain to live and rule in that environment. This notion of covenant head and vassal underlies also the story of the Fall in that on the fall of the suzerain the vassal is placed in rebellion against its Lord (3:17-19). Further the idea of covenant structures the whole of history into old and new covenant each under their respective heads (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:45-49). For the historian who proceeds on antitheistic assumptions such a theological history must be rejected. He must assign all such histories to the category of theological subjectivism. A theologically structured history presupposes a God who actively shapes history so that it conforms to his plan. A liberal exegete who denies the existence of such a God must dismiss as true history all Biblical accounts which see theological patterns in history. The evangelical has no basis for such an a priori dismissal of structured history. The fact that Genesis 1 displays a structure in no way prejudices its claim to historicity.
Scriptural interpretations of the Genesis account
So far the views discussed have consisted of statements about Scripture which were not themselves based on Scripture. An a priori statement about the Bible cannot claim Biblical authority. Discussion of this area has been obscured by the number of these statements and there is a need to return to interpreting Scripture by Scripture and not by hypothesis. There are a number of passages which reflect upon the original creation. Some have been referred to in other connections above.
Exodus 20:8-11 is significant in that it gives us a clear answer to the debated question about whether the 'days' of Genesis are to be taken literally. The commandment loses completely its cogency if they are not taken literally.[4]
This passage is also important in giving a proper direction of our thought. It is often said that the creation is described in seven days because this is the pattern of labor to which the Hebrews were accustomed. The text however says the very reverse. The Hebrews are to become accustomed to a seven-day week because that is the pattern that has been set by God. The point is an important one as it is crucial to the distinction between true and false religion. The oft-repeated claim that human thought and custom has created the categories through which, of necessity, all God’s activity must be viewed is a denial of the spirit of Biblical religion. It gives to man the priority which rightly belongs to God.
Psalm 104 deserves more consideration in this question than it usually receives. The Psalm follows in a general fashion the order of the creation days. The one point that is of particular interest is that the psalmist has integrated the account of Genesis 1 with that of the creation of springs in Genesis 2:4-6. The reference to springs falls where one would logically expect it between the account of the creation of dry land (Psalm 104:6-9) and that of vegetation (Psalm 104:14-17). The problem of relating the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 is outside the scope of this paper but any attempt must begin with Psalm 104. Unfortunately some evangelicals have accepted too readily the assertion of the documentary hypothesis that they are independent accounts of creation. The psalmist knew better. A number of passages which refer to the original creation of man and woman and their relationship may be considered together (Matthew 19:4; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9; 1 Timothy 2:13-14). Note that the account is taken literally and made the basis of teaching on the relation of man and woman. Even if in only this point we take issue with evolutionary theory we find ourselves in complete antithesis to naturalistic evolution. If on the authority of Scripture we hold to the Biblical account of the creation of man and woman then we can give up all hope of a harmony between the Bible and ‘science’. The proper subject of this paper is the interpretation problem and these passages are adduced to show that the rest of Scripture sees the early chapters of Genesis as literal history. It may be objected as a last resort that only those details of the account mentioned as literal by the rest of Scripture may be taken literally. Even if this point be granted there is still enough contained in just these few verses to reopen the battle with evolutionary theory. However the argument that only those passages in Genesis 1-11 referred to elsewhere as literal accounts are to be taken as such may be summarily dismissed. The early chapters of the Bible are clearly a unity and whatever interpretation method is valid for part is valid for all. This fact has been realized by those who have sought by various arguments to find evidence of ‘poetry’ in one part and to extend it to all. Yet all these attempts in so far as they were not attempts to see how the rest of Scripture treated the chapters in question must be condemned as methodologically faulty. Scripture is its own interpreter.
Against this one might argue that even though the NT treats Genesis 1-11 as literal, this should not be taken as proving that it is a literal description. One may argue that the NT writers were accommodating themselves to the beliefs of the time or that these passages are referred to only as illustrations and that their literalness is not implied by the NT usage. The first alternative must be rejected as involving a denigration of Christ and his apostles. The accommodation argument when used as a way of avoiding the implications of Christ’s use of the OT for the doctrine of Scripture has been rightly rejected by evangelicals.[5] It is inconsistent to attempt to revive it to avoid the implications of NT teaching on another subject. Furthermore the fundamental objection against a rule of exegesis drawn from outside Scripture applies here also. If the accommodation idea is to be allowed in the discussion then it must first be demonstrated that it is itself taught by Scripture.
The second alternative will not bear examination. Clearly in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 and 1 Timothy 2:13-14 the argument of Paul would collapse if the details of the account to which he refers did not happen as recorded. It is foolish to suggest that his point would still be valid even if woman was not created after and from the man and even if Eve was not beguiled into sin. Similarly Peter’s point is without cogency if the world was not destroyed by the Flood (2 Peter 3:5-6).
Conclusion
The thrust of this paper has been to direct discussion away from theoretical pre-exegetical arguments over the interpretation of Genesis and to concentrate on the way the rest of Scripture interprets it. We meet simple literalism in the scriptural exegesis of Genesis. Certainly not every detail of the chapters in question is referred to elsewhere but when they are literalism prevails.
If this be the case why has so much discussion been concentrated on arguments which are not only inconclusive but also diminish the right of Scripture to be its own interpreter? I suspect that the real debate is not interpretation at all. If it were, then it would have been decided long ago by a comparison of Scripture with Scripture. The real problem is that we as Christians have in a double sense lost our historical perspective. We have forgotten that the church has always been under pressure to allegorize Genesis so that it may conform with Plotinus or Aristotle or some other human philosophy. We have treated the problem as though it were a modern one, as though we alone have had to face the onerous task of holding to a view of cosmic and human origins which is out of sympathy with the philosophical premises of our culture.
The second sense in which we have lost our historical perspective is that we have forgotten that until our Lord returns we face strife and conflict in this world. We have sought to avoid that conflict in the intellectual realms. We have accepted the claim of humanistic thought that its scholarship is religiously neutral when the Bible teaches us that no man is religiously neutral. Man either seeks to suppress the truth in unrighteousness or to live all his life to the glory of God. In that total warfare scholarship is no mutually declared truce.
A.M. Rehwinkel, The Age of the Earth and Chronology of the Bible, Lutheran Publishing House,
Arthur Custance, The Virgin Birth and Incarnation, Zondervan,
Arthur Custance, Without Form and Void, published by author, Brockwill, Ont., 1970.
Bernard Northrup, "Without Form and Void" in Bible-Science Newsletter, March 1971,
Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and the Christian Faith, Presbyterian and Reformed,
C.G. Ozanne, The First 7000 Years, Exposition Press, N.Y., 1970.
E.W. Bullinger, The Witness of the Stars, Kregel,
Eugene Faulstich, "A Computer Looks at the Bible," published by author at
Frank Marsh, Evolution or Special Creation? Review and Herald,
Frank Marsh, Evolution, Creation and Science, Review and Herald Publishing Co.,
Frank Marsh, Life, Man, and Time, Outdoor Pictures, Anacortes, Wa., 1967.
Frank Marsh, Variation and Fixity in Nature, Pacific Press,
Fred Kramer, "A Critical Evaluation of the Chronology of Ussher" in Rock Strata and the Bible Record, edited by Paul Zimmerman, Concordia, St. Louis, Mo., 1970.
Fredrick Ross, "Without Form and Void" in Bible-Science Newsletter, April 1972, Bible-Science Association,
Harold Clark, Genesis and Science, Southern Publishing Co.,
Harold Coffin, Creation—Accident or Design? Review and Herald,
Henry Morris and John Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, N.J., 1961-1981.
Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, Baker Book House,
Henry Morris, The Bible Has the Answer, Creation-Life Publishers,
Howard Rand, The Stars Declare God's Handiwork, Destiny, Merri-mac, Ma., 1944.
John Klotz, The Ecology Crisis, Concordia Publishing House,
Francis Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, Tyndale House,
John Mackay, "Biblical Biology" on two tapes, Creation Science Association of Australia, Brisbane, Queensland, 1980.
John Whitcomb, The Early Earth, Baker Book House,
Joseph Dillow, The Waters Above, Moody Press, Chicago, II., 1981.
Joseph Goodavage, Astrology—the Space Age Science, Parker, West
Joseph Seiss, The Gospel in the Stars, Kregel,
Kenneth C. Flemming, God's Voice in the Stars, Louizeaux,
Lynn White, Jr., "The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis" in Science, March 1967, Vol. 155, pp. 1203-1207.
M.R. DeHaan, Genesis and Evolution, Zondervan,
P. J. Wiseman, New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis,
Peter.S. Ruckman, A Christian Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Institute,
Phoebe Courtney, Beware of Sensitivity Training, Free Men Speak, Inc.,
Raymond Surburg, "In the Beginning God Created" in Darwin, Evolution and Creation, edited by Paul Zimmerman, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Mo., 1959.
Raymond Surburg, "Mythical Interpretation of the Early Chapters of Genesis" in Evidences of Creation, edited by Walter Lang, Bible-Science Association, Minneapolis, Mn., 1969.
Richard Hanson, The Serpent Was Wiser,
Richard L. Means, "Why Worry About Nature?" in Saturday Review, Dec. 2, 1967.
Richard Teachout, "Noah's Flood—3398 B.C.," Bible-Science Association,
Robert Benedict, Journey Away from God, Fleming-Revell,
Robert E. Kofahl, "By Faith We Understand Creation and the Gospel, Physics, and the Canopy Models" in Third Creation Convention Book, edited by William Overn,
Robert L. Reymond, A Christian View of Modern Science, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, N.J., 1964.
Russell Akridge, "A Recent Creation Interpretation of the Big Bang and the Expanding Universe" in Bible-Science Newsletter, Bible-Science Association,
Russell Maatman, The Bible, Natural Science, and Evolution, Baker,
Thoburn Lyon, Witness in the Sky, Moody Press,
Walter Brown, "In the Beginning" Seminar Manual, Midwest Institute of Creation Research,
Walter Lang, "Five Minutes with the Bible and Science," January-February, 1977, Bible-Science Newsletter, Bible-Science Assn.,
[1] Theology Review Vol. 8, 1972
[2] Thompson, J.A., Genesis l-3 Science? History? Theology?, Theology Review 3/3 p. 16.
[3] The attempt to explain these parallel incidents in terms of the documentary hypothesis is shown to be ridiculous if an attempt is made to assign each parallel to a different source in every case in which a parallel exists. The cases of both Abraham and Isaac lying concerning their wives is often used as proof of the documentary hypothesis. However, inconsistently, the theory attributes both barrenness accounts and both famine accounts to J. The inconsistencies become more evident if the parallels in the life of Jacob are also considered. Basically the documentary hypothesis is able to make a plausible case by ignoring most of the incidents of ‘duplicate’ narratives. When all are taken into account then it is clear that the ‘duplicate’ narratives and the other ‘criteria’ for dividing documents come into conflict.
[4] John Murray (in Principles of Conduct [
[5] Packer, J. I., ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God (London: IVP, 1958), pp. 59-61.
No comments:
Post a Comment