B E G I N N I N G    A G A I N ,
F R O M    T H E    B E G I N N I N G

By Phil Weber

It is hard to imagine the Bible without the book of Genesis, and especially without the first few chapters. William Jennings Bryan, well-known for his impassioned defense of creationism at the 1925 Scopes trial, placed such importance on the biblical account of creation that he could say, “It would be better to destroy every other book ever written, and save just the first three verses of Genesis.” Although few of us would be willing to trade the balance of Scripture for just three verses, we probably sympathize with Bryan in his hyperbole. The whole story of redemption really is built on the foundation of creation. God could hardly “buy back” in redemption those who did not originally belong to Him through creation. He could hardly be the final authority in a universe that came into existence apart from Himself. The crucial role of the doctrine of creation helps explain the intense interest generated by biblical references to creation, and especially by the Genesis creation account. As a community of faith, we are blessed to possess this jewel of biblical revelation, whose brilliance can be admired from so many angles. Taking a look at what's actually written To see the passage in its purest light, a good first step is to carefully distinguish between the passage itself and the human traditions which may distort our vision of it. If you have ever studied the Bible with people who never read it before, you realize how much our perception of familiar texts can be channeled by traditional interpretations and speculations. These traditions may or may not be correct, but they blur the distinction between divinely revealed truth and human authority. This very dynamic of reading Scripture in the light of received tradition blinded the eyes of the scribes and teachers of the law to the arrival of the Christ. Is our reading of Genesis encumbered by human traditions? To test this possibility, read the following statements and decide (without looking!) whether the Scripture explicitly confirms or denies the statement, or whether the Bible does not speak specifically on the matter: The date of creation is October 23, 4004 B.C. Adam and Eve, having not had an umbilical cord, had no navel The waters above the firmament/expanse are below the sun, moon, and stars The people mocked Noah and his sons as they built the ark There was a vapor canopy surrounding the earth before the flood It had never rained prior to the flood The ark came to rest on Mount Ararat 1. We can thank Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), a devout believer and respected scholar, for proposing the specific day of creation, but even his 2000 pages of Latin text on biblical chronology are not enough to win much support for his precise calculations today. 2. The navel question has stirred occasional controversy, but is generally dismissed as a novel speculation. 3. This is explicitly denied, at least if a literal interpretation is used. Gen.1:7 describes the waters being divided below and above the firmament. In 1:17, the lights are set in the firmament, placing them below the “waters above.” 4. That people would mock Noah seems logical enough, but I have yet to find any mention of it in Scripture. The image in my mind of Noah preaching to the gathered mockers also exists without clear biblical support. Noah is called a “preacher of righteousness” in 2 Peter 2:5, but we are never told in what contexts he practiced that mission. 5-6. These are conceptually related, but neither are explicitly affirmed by Scripture. Ken Ham, probably the leading spokesman for the young-earth variety of creationists today, includes each of them in his list of arguments that are “doubtful, hence inadvisable to use.” 7. OK, this may be the tricky one. There is an explicit biblical connection between the ark and Ararat; the catch is that in Genesis, Ararat refers to a range of mountains, not a specific peak. As some might have known, or guessed, none of these statements is specifically confirmed by Scripture, though most people seem to think one or more of them really ought to be!

Some evangelical approaches to Genesis Disagreement about Genesis begins with the very first phrase, but more than any other issue, the interpretive strategy applied to the days of creation signals the fundamental approach. Here is a sampling of strategies offered by modern evangelicals: Literal Days (Young-Earth Creationism/Strict Concordism): The days are days of the exact duration we experience now, and provide a reliable chronology for the birth of the universe one week prior to the creation of humanity —Henry Morris (1984), Ken Ham, Institute for Creation Research. Days as Ages (Old Earth Creationism/Progressive Concordism): The days are typological, representing long, indeterminant periods roughly corresponding to geological ages — Hugh Ross, James M. Boice (1982), Gleason Archer (1986). Gap Theory: Literal days and recent creation of humanity, but an undetermined time gap between an original creation ruined by Satan (Gen 1.1) and a restorative re-creation which begins in Gen 1.2 — G. H. Pember (1900), Daniel Kauffman, author of Doctrines of the Bible (1923),F. H. Dake (1961). Intermittent Days: The days are 24-hours long, but are not consecutive. Each day introduces a long creative period — Robert Newman (1981) Days of Revelation: God revealed creation to Moses in conversation over six days. The descriptions for each day summarize the daily conversation — E. J. and P. J. Wiseman (1985). Days Provide a Literary Framework: The days provide a pictorial or poetic structure around which the creation narrative develops its theological points — Meredith Kline (1958), J. I. Packer (1988), Bruce Waltke (1991). Divine Days: The days are figurative representations of God's activity, as a master craftsman, in a dimension outside of time as we know it — John Collins (1994). The fact that so many ideas have been advanced may be discouraging, confusing, or even threatening. It can also be a fascinating indication that we are dealing with a truly profound unit of revelation. Perhaps it can help us remember that the enemy of biblical creationism is not another variety of biblical creationism but the atheistic philosophy of scientific naturalism.

What is God saying?

Callisto - a moon of Jupiter

After we clear our own view of the text and begin to look at what is actually written, an exciting and sobering question confronts us: what is God, through the writer, desiring to teach us through the words on the page? This is the challenge of interpretation, or as the KJV puts it, “rightly dividing the word of truth.”

We may try to avoid this challenge by claiming we can choose between interpretation and a literal reading, but that can hardly be the case. No one reads every biblical passage literally (for example, David’s plea to God in Psalm 17:8, “Hide me in the shadow of your wings”), so a literal reading of Genesis 1 is just as interpretive as a typological or poetic reading. We can no more choose between a literal reading and an interpretation than we can choose between speaking English and using a language — in both instances, the former is a specific example of the larger category which follows.

The real question we must bring to every text is which interpretive approach most faithfully corresponds to the writer’s intentions. For many passages of Scripture, there has been general agreement about those intentions, at least among those who regard the Bible as inspired and authoritative. The parables of Jesus, the history of Israel and the poetry of the psalms quickly come to mind as examples. The prophetic texts, in contrast, have not produced such general agreement, and neither has the creation account.

"Boomerang" Nebula

So what advice can we find in the evangelical community regarding the proper interpretation of the creation account? A great deal, it turns out (please see sidebar, Some evangelical approaches to Genesis).

Consider these salvos from two of the interpretive camps currently vying for the loyalty of the faithful. From the literal interpretive community, Dr. Bert Thompson: “If the days of Genesis are not twenty-four hour days, the whole interpretation of Scripture becomes hopeless! . . . If the day-age theory is right, Jesus lied!” From the day-age perspective, evangelical scholar Gleason Archer: “The . . . difficulty with the twenty-four hour theory is that it gives rise to an insoluble contradiction with Genesis 2 . . . it results in a fatal undermining of the inerrancy of Scripture to which all consistent evangelicals are committed. The surrender of inerrancy is too high a price to pay for the preservation of the twenty-four hour day theory.”

Both of these brothers can’t be correct; at least one of them must have overstated his case. I think both of them have. In both statements, the divine authority of Scripture is declared to rise or fall upon the interpretation of a single word in a single passage. If there were a word that could conceivably bear such weight, “day” is surely a poor candidate, for its specific meaning varies more than most with the context in which it is used.

Since biblical interpretation is an enterprise of fallible humans, statements such as these demonstrate the tragedy of the Genesis debate among evangelical believers. We ought to be gathering insight into a profound and foundational passage of revelation from as many quarters as possible. Instead, we build high walls around narrow angles of vision, stifling inquiry and reducing our vision.

Nebula M16

The way to an enlarged vision of creation and of our awesome Creator may not be through the familiar arguments in favor of either the literal or the day-age interpretation. Both interpretations have a lot to recommend them, but in my opinion, at least the rhetoric surrounding both interpretations suffers from the same shortcoming — an unhelpful preoccupation with scientific confirmation of theological concepts.

What about science?

Although the scientific data to which literal and day-age interpreters appeal varies widely, both interpretive communities make frequent reference to scientific research as validation for their views. In this vein, Hugh Ross is passionate about the way his old-earth science provides proof of inspiration by repeatedly and in detail confirming his understanding of the days as ages. Creation scientists work with similar diligence to find young-earth alternatives to the mainstream scientific view for the age of the earth, going to great lengths to show that science, “rightly understood,” confirms their interpretation of literal, recent days. In this way they also are granting to science an authority, and even an interest, which is notably missing in the biblical passages about creation.

Hebrews declares, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.” Why “by faith” and not “by science”? Perhaps it is because the word of God, as a truth “forever settled in heaven,” is reduced and misappropriated when we tie it too closely to inevitably changing scientific understandings.

Menzel 3, "Ant" Nebula

The accepted cosmology, or the conceptual idea of how the universe is structured, has changed radically since Genesis was written. History suggests that if Christ does not return for another few centuries, it may change radically again, and our current scientific understandings will be regarded with the same scorn the modern world holds for medieval geocentrism, the idea that the sun revolved around a stationary earth. If we tie the Bible too closely to our modern science, we may repeat the error of the medieval church, which adamantly insisted the Bible taught geocentrism. Psalm 93:1 seemed incontrovertible: “The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” The scientific community has never forgotten that late Reformation misstep, and it still uses it as an argument against the authority of the Bible.

The interpretive principle which seeks to find specific scientific understandings to match the meaning of biblical texts is sometimes called concordism — a dynamic to which both literal-day and day-age interpreters appeal. The results are apparently quite satisfying to those who agree, but many times outrage and dismay their opponents. One scholar, with equal parts acuity and cheek, summarized the situation by saying that the day-age interpreters adjusted their reading of Genesis to match their science, while literal-day interpreters adjusted their science to match their reading of Genesis.

Not all Christians have felt the need to brush up on the laws of thermodynamics, the details of astronomy, or the vagaries of carbon-14 dating before prayerfully searching Genesis for God’s message in it. There are a variety of non-concordist interpretive strategies espoused by evangelicals. These readings steer the focus away from the features of creation, and concentrate on the fellowship between Creator and creation. The details vary, as one might expect when dealing with Genesis, but the general approach is one expressed by Mennonite theologian J.C. Wenger in the middle of the last century: “In Genesis 1–3 we have simple narratives which are not ends in themselves but which were intended to provide true theological explanations of man’s deepest questions . . . I would therefore suggest that we refer to the early chapters of the Bible as theological narration.”

A complete solar eclipse

Reading the account as a very specific theological text which utilizes a broad-brush description of the world, not for its own sake, but in the service of theology, does not answer every interpretive objection. It leaves some questions unanswered. It has some very attractive features, however. First of all, it seems more in tune with the stated purpose of the Bible, given by Paul to Timothy as “to make us wise unto salvation.”

From a historical perspective, it underscores the marvel of biblical revelation. We have no record that the Hebrews were more scientifically advanced than their neighbors. If anything, their dependence on the Philistines for iron indicates the opposite. How did this technologically disadvantaged group of wanderers come to record an account of the birth of the world so completely original in its ideas about a single, sovereign, transcendent Creator God? Where did they come up with theology so radically different, so highly exalted in comparison to the sordid polytheistic mythologies of their more advanced neighbors? This, and not any parallels we can draw between its language and the latest scientific consensus, is the more enduring miracle of Genesis.

Non-concordist interpretation also avoids the pitfall of confusing the date of creation with the doctrine of creation. Genesis is explicit about the doctrine of creation—that God created the universe,

Nebula NGC 4676, "The Mice"

transcends its limitations, yet remains intricately involved in it as Sovereign Lord and Creator. It is not explicit about the date of creation. Dogmatic construction of biblical chronology from the present to creation is widely recognized to be highly problematic.

Since I really can’t say how old the earth is from a purely biblical standpoint, when I am presented with scientific arguments for one age or another, I can smile and say, “I don’t know . . . that’s interesting . . . you might be right. I wasn’t there when it happened.” It really doesn’t matter to me when it happened because the date doesn’t change the doctrine. Creation is just as amazing to me if God created it all in an instant (as many in the early church believed), in six 24-hour days, in six days of varying length, or in six eons.

A Modest Proposal

Some final suggestions. Caution should also be used with the principle of “as literally as possible,” especially when there is a difference of opinion in the community of faith. The text is equally violated whether we interpret a figurative passage literally or a literal passage figuratively. Remember geocentrism and Psalm 93.

Figurative does not mean false. We do not understand the parables of Jesus to be false because they are figurative, and we are not troubled by the Scripture’s speaking of God’s right arm, for example, even though we know He is Spirit and does not have a body. It is no accident that the deepest teachings about the kingdom are given to us by the figurative formula: “The kingdom of heaven is like . . . .” A better maxim than “as literally as possible” might be “as accurately as possible.”

Many have pointed out the interesting parallels between the early chapters of Genesis, describing the beginning of time, and the book of Revelation, describing the end of time. Doesn’t it make

Phil Weber

sense to be as generous in spirit regarding the details of the account of the primeval past as we are with the account of the eschatological future?

I have a modest proposal. What if we would all agree on the divine inspiration and authority of the creation account in Genesis, celebrate together the creation theology and doctrine which all evangelicals agree it teaches, and for the rest, humbly follow Paul’s injunction to Timothy: “Do your best . . . to accurately handle the word of truth.”