Approaching the Creation Account

Civility

Ever encountered this attitude?

“If you do not believe in a ‘literal’ creation account (young earth with six, twenty-four-hour-days) then you do not believe the Bible!”

I think that can easily be understood as exalting your interpretation to the level of infallible Scripture. The possible implications are weighty: you’re unfaithful (and possibly not even a Christian) if you don’t understand Genesis this particular way.

Another common level of accusation attacks the motives of anyone who disagrees.

“If you don’t read it literally (again, assuming their idea of literal), then you must not want to submit to God’s authority!” Or, “you must want to synchronize the Bible with evolution. You’re more committed to evolution than God’s Word!”

The accusation is that we are driven by an agenda, and really want to interpret Scripture according to our particular view. That is painfully ironic.

One side is accused of accommodating to unbelieving culture, yet are not those who major on the “literal, twenty-four-hour-day, six day creation week” not captive to their evangelical subculture? There’s an agenda there, as well: typically, combatting evolutionary theory, or something similar.

A funny and sad story:

When Johnny was president of Columbia International University, he received in the mail a listing of Christian colleges that taught Young Earth Creationism, and Columbia was listed among them. He wrote the organization that published the list to say that there were people among the faculty at Columbia who held that position, and that it fit within Columbia’s doctrinal statement, but that it was not an official doctrine of the school. He soon received a revised listing that put Columbia among schools that did not believe in creation!

–Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden, In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood pg. 25

The false dilemma is that we must choose between godless, evolutionary origins or the literalistic creationist interpretation. Either/or: either young-earth, literal twenty-four-hour day creationism or naturalistic evolutionist.

But, why aren’t there the options of science versus a misunderstanding of Genesis, or Genesis versus scientific error?

I think we need to be more charitable in the discussion, more loving to our neighbors. To accuse someone of being a liberal holding to some unbiblical worldview simply because they disagree is to bear false witness, and that’s sin. Why the lack of civility when debating the issue? The debate isn’t what’s wrong, we should work hard at understanding God’s Word in the church community. It’s how we do it that needs to change.

We must do better. And in the end, Jesus didn’t misunderstand Scripture, ever. Christ perfectly understood, believed, and lived according to God’s Word. And he did that as our representative, in our place, because all of the elect, in some way, mishandle God’s Word.

That should be a dose of humility for us all.

Authority

There can be social pressure when it comes to this issue. This particular view (literalistic interpretation of the creation account) has been elevated by some to be a mark of orthodoxy. We may not be considered real Christians if we don’t agree with the party line! Some churches and denominations have made it a “sign on the dotted line” issue. No breadth, no leeway, no options.

We must not cave to social pressure. Man pleasing will make for terrible biblical interpretation. We must not conform our hermeneutic to the group we want to fit in to, or be accepted by. They may be right. And they may have helpful insight. But they aren’t our final authority. The merits of Scripture is what should decide the meaning, and Scripture also determines the hermeneutic itself.

Our believing community is an authority, don’t ever think that it’s not. It should carry much weight with us (Christ’s gift to his church is teachers, after all). The community of the church local and the church universal should have influence on our theology. It’s just not the final authority.

Asking the Right Question

I realized that all my life I had been reading Genesis from the perspective of a modern person. I had read it through the lens of a historically sophisticated, scientifically influenced individual. I assumed that Genesis was written to answer the questions of origins that people are asking today.

–Johnny Miller, In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood pg. 20-21

As my pastor always reminds the congregation, the text must have meant something to the people it was originally written to. That principle is a presupposition for study of the whole Bible. Genesis and Revelation are just books where this principle makes all the difference in the world.

If the biblical creation account in Genesis is actually answering our modern, scientifically influenced questions about origins, then what meaning was there for the original hearers, who were worlds apart? What about them? How would they even get that? What point of reference would they have to understand a scientific account?

Rather, we should ask: what did Moses mean? Was Moses, inspired by God, writing to rebut evolution, Darwinism, atheism? Were the ancient Israelites sweating over the age of the earth? Were they debating young versus old? Is that what they truly needed to know?

Do we think that God’s people, freshly redeemed from bondage in Egypt, needed to be equipped with the knowledge that creation happened in six twenty-four-hour days? Was the age of the earth of paramount importance? Did God see that as their pressing need?

Did the original hearers have anything that even resembles our modern scientific mindset?

The answer to all of these questions is obviously “no.” So why on earth have we been reading the Genesis creation account as if it was written to modern people, in a scientific context, in scientifically technical language, according to modern scientific criteria? Why?

As I moved into my graduate studies focusing on the Old Testament, I began to see other questions that seemed to remove the emphasis from the elapsed time of creation, and that suggested that the account in Genesis is not concerned with the timing of creation, either directly or primarily, and perhaps not even at all.

–John Soden, In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood pg. 21

He continues:

The issue at hand is not whether God could have created the earth in six twenty-four-hour days. Nor is the primary issue whether he did do it in six twenty-four-hour days. God could have done it any way he wanted. The primary issue is what Genesis 1 is intended to teach us. It is only a secondary consideration of how the meaning of Genesis 1 correlates with our conception of current scientific understanding.

–Ibid., pg. 22

With all of that in mind, as we proceed to look at the creation account in Genesis one, let’s take note of a few assumptions to be questioned, beliefs to be challenged:

1. Genesis 1 is primarily about the origin and age of the universe.

2. The literalistic, scientific reading of Genesis 1 is the only (even necessary) way to read it.

3. People who read it any other way don’t believe the Bible; the literalistic, scientific reading is a mark of Christian orthodoxy.

Introducing Genesis, part 2

Part 1

Can you recall God’s interrogation of Job in chapter 38 the book of Job? God questions Job if he can say how God created! And can Job answer? No. The whole point of God’s questioning is to expose that Job does not know (and therefore cannot challenge God). He doesn’t know because God has not revealed it in special revelation.

The Genesis account doesn’t give us the scientific mechanism of creation. Rather, creation is described as what “seems to the popular eye to occur.” And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Does this mean we deny that the creation narrative is historical? Not at all. It is historical, it really happened, but it is not intended to give scientific information. Genesis is Scripture, correct? What is the intended teaching of God’s Word?

Q. What do the Scriptures principally teach?
A. The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.

–Westminster Larger Catechism Q/A 5

So why do so many people treat Genesis differently than the rest of the Bible?

Genesis is not primarily about general history of the world. It’s a selective history. It’s not a video recording of all history, capturing all the details. Obviously it isn’t, for where is Cain’s wife from? If we insist that all historical details are included in the Genesis account, then we’ve got problems. How could Cain build a “city” if only he and his wife lived there? The narrative doesn’t tell us everything there is to know. It tells us what is needed in God’s purpose of the text. It provides Redemptive History.

Hermeneutical Points:

Original Context

The original audience, the author(s) of the text, the intent of the author(s).

Who were the first listeners of the text? What was their background, their current situation? What questions would they need answered? Do you think they were asking how old the universe was?

What kind of literature is the creation narrative? Are we even supposed to interpret according to strict literalism? That would require zero figurative language (is that even possible?). Genre is vital to proper understanding of the text.

Do we expect a scientifically precise language to be used? All figures of speech would be out. The Bible uses common human expression. It’s not telling us astronomy. To try to ascertain the location of the earth, or it’s shape, is to misunderstand the purpose of the Bible.

For quite a while, evangelical Bible readers have come to these opening chapters with certain expectations, born out of a Western, modernist, scientific presupposition. The expectation is that this part of the Bible that tells us of God’s creating the world will tell us how he did it, and how long it took. What has been ignored is, what was the purpose of the text, as Moses gave it to the Israelites delivered from Egypt?

“Yes, I’m sure they were concerned about evolution, and God was giving them specific answers to modern scientific concerns.”

Not.

Indeed, the Bible gives answers, but it also corrects the questions we ask. The Bible is for our instruction, yet we are not the original recipients. We must put ourselves, as much as possible, in the place of the original hearers of the text we are studying. They were a particular people in a particular situation, and God was speaking into that context. On top of our sin and finitude, we are also prone to chronological snobbery. But, we must allow Scripture to shape even the questions we bring to it.

Here’s a taste of the original context of the first hearers of Genesis:

Pagan worldviews and creation myths. Where was Israel before receiving Genesis? Egypt. For how long? Four hundred years. God delivered them from a pagan nation, and they were going to claim a land that was occupied by, more pagans! Lots of unbelief surrounded them. Naturally, since the Hebrews alone were God’s people.

Perhaps that sheds light on the purpose of Genesis 1-3? What would God’s covenant people need to know, freshly redeemed from captivity?

Who is God, what is real, how do we know things, who are we, how should we live. Then, after hearing the creation narrative, they would be wondering why doesn’t that good creation, the garden, match our experience now? The account of the fall of man is given, explaining why the world is the way it is now.

The Genesis account can be understood more clearly in light of the background of the original hearers.

Scripture interprets Scripture (Analogy of Scripture)

 The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

–Westminster Confession of Faith 1.9

Christ and Redemptive History

Remember the Grammatical-Historical method of interpretation? It focuses on grammar, and interprets the text on it’s own merits.

The tendency is to isolate the text from the rest of Redemptive History, and not interpret the text in that larger context.

Rather, we should interpret with a Redemptive-Historical-Grammatical method, not limiting the meaning of a text based on its own merits but within the context of Redemptive History, based on its place in the timeline, and in light of Jesus Christ. We must interpret Genesis within the larger context of Redemptive History, including eschatology. Do we think this portion of Scripture can be properly understood when divorced from the rest of God’s Word?

We have the fullness of revelation. We have been provided the fuller meaning. We can understand Genesis better than the original audience, and even better than Moses, because we are looking back to the reality, while they only had types and shadows.

Christ himself said that our interpretation must be Christocentric. That is what the New Testament authors did. Our method of interpreting Genesis must be that of the the New Testament.

The big question is: what is the ultimate authority for determining a proper hermeneutic? What will be the bottom line to say “this is the correct way to do it”? According to what will you say, “that’s a correct hermeneutic” or “that’s a bad hermeneutic”?

Because of sin and our finitude, and the nature of special revelation, the only way to properly understand anything is to submit to God’s revealed perspective. This even applies to hermeneutics. It will be on God’s authority that we say “that’s a correct hermeneutic.” So the answer is: the Triune God speaking through His Word (the Bible) alone is the only infallible authority in our quest for a proper hermeneutic.

We aren’t trying to find length of days, or interpreting according to “science” (whatever that happens to mean at the time). Christ interpreted, starting with Moses, the things concerning himself. The Apostle’s interpreted that way. That’s what we must do. Yes, Genesis obviously has implications for science, but the primary meaning of Genesis, like all of Scripture, is Jesus Christ.

This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.

–Westminster Confession of Faith 7.5 (God’s Covenant with Man)

Do we think that we can properly understand the first Adam, without reference to the last Adam?

Do we think we can understand the creation without considering the new creation?

We read “in the beginning God created . . .” but then in the New Testament it is revealed that “the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.”

In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was with God,

and the Word was God.

He was with God in the beginning.

All things were created through Him,

and apart from Him not one thing was created

that has been created.

Life was in Him,

and that life was the light of men.

That light shines in the darkness,

yet the darkness did not overcome it.

–John 1:1-5

For everything was created by Him,

in heaven and on earth,

the visible and the invisible,

whether thrones or dominions

or rulers or authorities—

all things have been created through Him and for Him.

He is before all things,

and by Him all things hold together.

–Colossians 1:16-17

We must interpret Genesis in light of Christ. Does that sound strange? It shouldn’t. Paul wrote that Adam was a type of Christ! He calls Jesus the second Adam, and that both are representatives. We learn that Christ’s work is connected to Adam. See 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5.

We must interpret Genesis even in light of eschatology. That probably sounds really strange, since we tend to isolate eschatology from Redemptive History (it’s ironic that we do that to the beginning and end of the Bible). But it shouldn’t sound strange. There’s a new creation. There’s a restoration of all things.

The two big, key hermeneutical presuppositions to remember throughout our study of Genesis are:

1. Larger context of Redemptive History

2. Centrality of Christ

As Richard Belcher of RTS says, we don’t “find” Christ in the Old Testamnet, but are confronted with Him. All the threads finally make sense in light of Christ. We expect the Old Testament to testify about Christ! We don’t read Christ back into the Old Testament. Rather, we acknowledge that we don’t understand the Old Testament properly apart from Christ.

“We don’t read our Bible’s as if we are Jews, locked in the Old Testament without Christ . . . We read our Bible’s backwards.”

–J.V. Fesko

So what is the point of our studying Genesis?

Do you want to know your Savior better? Christ is revealed in Scripture. Christ is the goal and ultimate meaning of the Scriptures. All of Scripture testifies about Christ. Including Genesis 1-3. We see special connection between Christ and this part of the Bible throughout the New Testament. We will understand the fulfillment, in Christ, if we understand what it was he was supposed to fulfill. As Jesus did on the road to Emmaus, “Then beginning with Moses . . . He interpreted for them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:27)

We want to know God in Christ better. Understanding the beginning will help us understand the fulfillment. We’ll understand Christ’s work better if we understand what it is connected to. We will appreciate Christ more, and be moved to worship him.

The hope is that this study will strengthen us in what to believe concerning God. As said before, the Christian worldview is taught in the beginning.

Paul wrote that all Scripture is profitable. We will know God better. We’ll know who we are, better. We’ll understand the whole of Scripture better. We will understand the failure of Adam, better. And will will know the person and work of the second Adam, Jesus Christ the promised Redeemer, better.

If we have engaged in “Bible study”, even of the Old Testament, and have not met Christ there, then we have not interpreted adequately. If we claim to have exegeted the text yet have not been confronted with Christ, then we have not completed our exegesis. Our interpretation is incomplete if Jesus is not there.

Introducing Genesis

“Then beginning with Moses . . . He interpreted for them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.”

–Luke 24:27

“You pore over the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, yet they testify about Me.”

–John 5:39

Perhaps second only to the book of Revelation when it comes to difficulty in interpretation, or the most disagreement and fighting over interpretation, is the book of Genesis.

There of course are unbelieving interpretations. These interpretations come from a commitment against God, not from belief. They include seeing the creation story as a myth, perhaps plagiarized from the pagan people surrounding the Hebrews. The liberals don’t see it as historical at all. They deny that Adam was a real person, that the fall into sin actually happened, and perhaps that God created the universe. There’s the evolutionary view of religion, which insists that the Hebrew religion was originally pantheism and then gradually “evolved” into monotheism. Or, the Genesis story is just a nice story to communicate some “truth,” but is not factual because it doesn’t measure up to “science.”

These unbelieving disagreements over Genesis flow from the presupposition that the Bible is not God’s Word, and not authoritative.

But what about believing interpretations? Disagreements that Christians have.

“the first chapter is written in the simplest language; yet it contains matters of the utmost importance and very difficult to understand. It was for this reason, as St. Jerome asserts, that among the Hebrews it was forbidden for anyone under thirty to read the chapter or to expound it for others.”

–Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis, pg. 3

There is more than one way to interpret Genesis. I’ll be more specific: there’s more than one Christian interpretation of Genesis 1-3. Surprised?

In a bubble, where fair, informed, and educated discussion is not valued, we may think that it’s the interpretation we have heard or nothing else; there’s not even another option.

False dichotomy, false choices, abound: it’s either this interpretation of creation, or you must believe in evolution!

Some actually say (I’m not exaggerating) you either believe in 6, 24 hour days, or you deny the Bible’s authority!

“Heretic! Burn him at the stake, he doesn’t believe what Genesis 1-3 obviously means!”

Between Christians there is much disagreement. There’s disagreement over the length of the days in the creation week. There’s disagreement over the age of the earth. There’s disagreement over the compatibility with evolution.

I’ll ask all of you, what has your understanding of Genesis 1-3, been? What do you think the creation narrative means?

Two common Christian interpretations:

Old Princeton – evolution is compatible with the biblical account of creation. This was arrived at by beginning with the findings of “science” (specifically geology), and accommodating the Genesis account to them. In general, to this day, the approach is to start with geology or whatever “scientific” conclusion, then interpret Scripture accordingly.

Creation Science – this is the reverse of the Old Princeton approach. Science is accommodated to Scripture. This employs a literalistic method of interpretation. The plain, surface meaning is what it means, on it’s own, and literally. No room for anything beyond the strictly literal. This presupposition (literalism) is crucial to this view. Sadly, even Reformed theologians adopt this, quite uncritically. Reformed theologians reject this literalistic hermeneutic when it comes to eschatology (last things). Yet, they accept it of Genesis 1-3? Strict literalism is recognized to be an error in interpreting “last things”, yet uncritically accepted when interpreting “first things.” Very inconsistent.

J.V. Fesko points out (lecture 1) two things that obscure the meaning of Genesis 1-3

1. The Grammatical-Historical method of interpretation

This method of biblical interpretation focuses on the grammar used, which is appropriate. This method also focuses on the original historical context, especially the first audience and the author’s intention. However, that’s often where it ends. What (tends to) happen is the text is interpreted entirely on its own. As a result, the text is isolated from the rest of Redemptive History.

2. Scientifically-driven exegesis

The text is approached as if it’s a science textbook, what is looked for is scientific information, answers to modern scientific questions (the motive is typically to combat evolution). The “Creation-Science” movement does this, and there are entire ministries and organizations that exist solely for this issue! Ironically, creation-science was begun by a Seventh Day Adventist. It also relies on the presuppositions of Dispensationalism. Some even say that the creation account is a scientific account and does not teach theology! Even if theology is granted, the study amounts to little more than a scientific study of the doctrine of creation for the purpose of arguing against evolution.

While there are implications for science, the text is not primarily about science.

So how should we approach Genesis?

The book of Genesis is not only the beginning of creation and what exists, but it is also the beginning of the Bible. That may sound obvious, and anticlimactic. So what? Genesis is not just the first book of the Bible, but it is also the beginning of the story of redemption.

Rod Mays, a professor at RTS, said something during a class that I had to think about. He said that every component of the Christian worldview is contained in the beginning of the book of Genesis. I had to stop and think for a moment. My first reaction was, “how could that be?” It’s so early on, things haven’t developed yet. What about the New Testament? All the parts of the Christian worldview are in Genesis?

Then I realized that he was right. Everything is there. Not at its clearest, but it’s all there.

Genesis introduces the Christian worldview. However, mere doctrinal points is not the point of the beginning of Genesis.

If the main focus of studying Genesis 1-3 is not science and the length of days and the age of the earth and arguing against evolution, then it tends to be a systematic theology study. Genesis 1-3 becomes fragmented into neat little parts: doctrine of God, anthropology (man), reality, sin, etc. But still, it’s mostly dealt with on its own. And Genesis 1-3 is not interpreted in its Redemptive-Historical context.

But Genesis 1-3 doesn’t merely address the nature of things (ontology). God hasn’t merely delivered us a system of points. Protology is what is there. Eschatology is “last things,” protology is “first things.” Genesis 1-3 doesn’t merely belong under a heading of “creation,” the significance is greater than that. We’ll develop that as we go.

First, as is proper and very necessary when we study the Bible, we need to examine ourselves. We must first be conscious, or aware, of our presuppositions. When we understand interpretation, that we interpret according to assumptions (there are no beliefs in isolation), then we will first try to look at our assumptions so we do not read them into the text of Scripture. Traditions and inherited beliefs are very powerful, and stick with us.

If we have been raised on a certain view of the text, then that will come into play. If we have always thought that the Genesis account is not historical, then that will affect how we approach the text. Our assumptions about how we should interpret the Bible at all will obviously affect our reading of the text.

Unlike some approaches to biblical interpretation, however, our goal is not to set aside all our assumptions and come to the text fresh, with a blank mind. First, that’s impossible. Second, it would be unfaithful. Certainly none would argue that we had better hold tightly to the belief that God’s Word is God’s Word, inerrant, infallible, and coherent. To attempt to come to the Bible neutrally would be futile and unbiblical. We must come to the text as believers, and engage in believing study. So what of our presuppositions, then?

We must be aware of them. If we don’t know they are there, we won’t be able to examine them in comparison to the teaching of Scripture, and won’t exchange false beliefs for the truth. It helps in our study to question our traditional understanding in light of the textual evidence and ask if our interpretation holds up, or a different interpretation does more justice to the text.

And we need to be reminded of what we must presuppose about the text. All that we do is under the Lordship of Christ. All activity is religious activity, including Bible study. The Bible itself tells us what to believe about the Bible. God has told us how to handle his Word. We come to it knowing that the Holy Spirit gives illumination. That we must be regenerate to believe what the Word says. All Scripture is God-breathed (the Triune God speaks in Scripture), and therefore the Bible is infallible (it cannot err or mislead us). We must submit to what it says as truth. We are not the judge of what is true. God has preserved his Word, as he has said all of it is for our instruction (so it is not limited to a time and culture in the past). Jesus said that the Scriptures testify about him, and that what was written about him in the Scriptures would be fulfilled. The Bible is ultimately about Jesus. We also know that sin is the spoiler of understanding.

These are a few necessary presuppositions for our philosophy of interpretation. We’ve already addressed how we do not come to the Bible (or anything) with a totally open mind. Our background, culture, family, education, everything particular to us as individuals also plays into our interpreting of the Bible (and everything else). But God has spoken clearly in his Word, for the purpose of growing us in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. So we are not hopelessly trapped in subjectivity, unable to understand the text as it is. So, we will look at what is objectively there in the text.

So let’s begin to examine ourselves, so we can come to the book of Genesis in a more appropriate manner. A helpful way to expose some of what we already suppose is by asking questions.

How have you, or do you currently, interpret Genesis, specifically chapters 1-3?

What are our expectations?

What are we assuming that text is about?

What questions are we asking the text?

What do we often assume the creation narrative will tell us?

What genre or type of literature is the creation narrative?

Have we even considered that question before?

Are we interpreting according to strict literalism?

If so, where did we get that method?

Where do we get our method of interpretation from?

On whose authority?

A big question is, what is the purpose of Genesis 1-3? Many assume the purpose is to tell us how God created.

Next time: the purpose of the text, and hermeneutical presuppositions.