Tags


The intent of this post is not to present a chapter and verse detailing of the contents of Genesis 1-3 – this is not a commentary.  Also, this will not present all of the historical issues that have surrounded these chapters (Gap theory, etc).  However, what it will do is to examine some important aspects of the historical nature of the text and point out some flaws in modern interpretive methods of Genesis 1-3.

Too often, I think, the struggle that we involve ourselves in, when we attempt to interpret Genesis 1-3, is trying to understand the text from our point of reference.  We attempt to reconcile what God was teaching his people Israel, and now his Church, with our modern scientific worldview.  Hermeneutically, this seems highly inappropriate, no matter how earnest someone’s motives may be.  This piece of scripture was originally written to a group of people whom God had just rescued from captivity in Egypt.  He communicated to them in a way that they would have understood; and he taught them a specific message that he wanted them to know.  It is our duty, when interpreting this text to attempt to understand the original audience’s understanding as well as the authorial intent.

Genesis 1-3 is a piece of scripture (which includes through chapter 11) that fits into the genre of heroic narrative.[1]  More specifically, though, it is a cosmic epic, in that, it tells of the formation of the people of God and of the whole creation.[5]  In these chapters, God is portrayed as the ultimate hero, while Adam and his wife are portrayed in the role of the hero who failed, as they show us what happens when God’s Word is not obeyed.  God had created an orderly cosmos out of chaos – man, through his sin, brought chaos back into that order.

The language of Genesis 1-3 seems somewhat poetic, at least, in part.  The precise words should not be read literally or figuratively.  As we read it, we need to be captured by the author’s message.  In other words, the intended message, not the specific words, should be viewed literally.  The message of Genesis 1-3 is this: God has shown us, through his creation, by merely speaking order and life into chaos, darkness, and empty void that he is the only one who can bring order into our chaos.  In other words, the message of Genesis 1-3 is the beginning of the gospel – we need God.  This is not to discount the biblical fact that God created the cosmos and all organisms that reside within it.  I think that the text states, literately, that God did create the cosmos; however, the order that is portrayed in Genesis is not literal, but, again, nor do I view it as figurative.  The order isn’t the point; the point is that God did it.  The fact that God created these things should show us how much we do, indeed, need him – again, he is the ultimate hero.

Aging the Cosmos?

I’m not sure that this is a fruitful enterprise.  In the period of ten years, I’ve searched the scriptures for consistent and reliable evidence for the general age of the cosmos, or for a consistent and reliable method for ascertaining the age of the cosmos.  I haven’t found either.  In my view, I don’t think that it matters if the cosmos is young or old.  It only matters to me that my God created it and everything in it.

An important question to answer is whether the data in Gen. 1-11 can be reconciled with an old-earth view – my answer is, “No”.  However, this does not mean that the data would specifically states that the earth is young, either.  Do I believe that the earth is old? No; but frankly, I see no consistent biblical method or data that provides this answer.  

Genealogy

Many within our brethren have attempted to use genealogies within the Old and the New Testament as a method of dating the age of the cosmos.  For many, this seems like a logical enterprise, as, from their 20th and 21st century perspective, genealogies are always chronological, complete, and logical, insofar as those recording them could be.  However, anthropologists, as well as Old Testament scholars have known for years that ancient and biblical genealogies do not fit this model and practice.  Most biblical genealogies fit into the pattern of showing a simple line of descent excluding generations, as well as the people within those generations.  Also, some biblical genealogies seem to unconcerned with biological descent, emphasizing, instead, prominent or honored individuals “in the family”.[2]  Also, anthropologists have noted a loseness to the order of ancient genealogies, to the point where a chronology via the genealogy cannot be established – in other words, the list of descendents are not in order.  In short, while Western and modern genealogies might emphasize the order and inclusiveness of a particular line, Eastern, ancient, and biblical genealogies do not seem to be concerned with these concepts. Instead, the emphasis seems to be pointing toward significant and honored ancestors.  Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the apparent age of genealogical individuals is as clear as it appears; as it seems that other factors, other than simple chronology of time, were used to assign age.[3]  While this may seem to relegate this genealogies into the realm of myth, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth, as there is nothing deceptive about these practices – they were simply how it was done in this culture.  Which is a prime example of the necessity of proper exegesis – understanding historical-cultural issues of the author and recipients (why was it written, what was happening during this time in this culture, and what did it mean to them).

Answering Theistic Evolution

While, I hope, that I have made it clear that I do not believe the author intended to tell us the specific details of the structure of creation in Genesis 1-3, I do hold that Adam is not a representational first person – but the historical first person in all of creation.  I believe that abandoning this view leads to significant theological error and inconsistency. Since the general consensus within the Theistic Evolutionary camp is that Adam was not a historical first-man, but merely allegorical or simply representational, I will begin the discussion in this section from this point and move into other biblical issues if one accepts naturalistic processes to account for the cosmos and the origin of life.[6]

The Necessity of the View of the Historical Adam

The Bible is littered with references to a historical Adam.  The genealogies found in Genesis 5, 1 Chronicles 1, and Luke 3 all have their genesis in the historical Adam (the earlier discussion of the weakness of genealogy and dating should in no way diminish Adam’s mention in biblical genealogy; as all of the biblical genealogies find their beginning with him).  Jesus seems quite convinced when he is using a reference to Adam and Eve to support his teaching on marriage (Matt. 19:4-6).  Jude 14 also seems lacking any doubt in regards to the historicity of Adam.  Paul also seemed convinced that Adam was the historical progenitor of humanity, as he spoke of Adam being formed first and the woman coming from him (1 Cor. 11:8-9 and 1 Tim. 2:11-14).

If Adam is not the historical first person of all humanity then Paul’s theology falls into the realm of nonsense, as his role is crucial to Paul’s presentation of the gospel.  In Romans 5:12-21, Paul uses the original sin of the historical Adam to contrast the work of Christ.  Throughout this part of Romans, Paul speaks of Adam in the same sense as that of Christ, in that the historical work of one man (Christ) is able to free us from the historical sin of one man (Adam).[7]  If Adam is not what I have claimed him to be then Paul’s whole argument would fall apart – it makes no sense for Paul to compare Jesus (a historical man) to a mythological or symbolic man.  Not to mention, what would be the point of a historical atonement if Adam were a symbolic or mythological figure?  Theistic evolution weakens the theological basis for the incarnation.

Original Sin (The Fall)

The theology that Paul presents is that of a historical Fall (sin) that introduced death into the creation (Rom. 5:15), this historical problem requires a historical solution – Christ crucified on the cross.  If Adam was not historical, where did sin come from?  If Adam wasn’t then what do we make of the Fall?  When it comes to the origin of sin, we have three choices to choose from: (a) it entered the world and man through the Fall of the historical Adam; (b) it was already there and evil is crucial to (a part of) creation; (c) it is person dependent, in that each person brings his own sin into the world.[8]  Option ‘a’ has been the historical view within Christianity for centuries. Option ‘b’ sounds like an off-shoot of Gnosticism, Monism, or Manichaeism; all of which have been branded heresies by the Church. Option ‘c’ fits within Pelagianism, which was deposed as heretical during the era of Augustine.  Theistic evolution cannot accurately account for the biblical data on the issue of original sin. The only option that makes sense of the biblical data would be option ‘a’, the traditional Christian view; the others fall vastly short.

In Acts 17, we have an account of Paul speaking to a non-Jewish audience – Athenian philosophers.  He preached to them the message of Jesus Christ and of the Resurrection; but not only that – he also spoke of God’s creation.  Even though he spoke to these philosophers in the Stoic fashion, he did not waver in, nor seem embarrassed by, his view of Genesis 1-3.[9]

“The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.  And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way to him and find him” (Acts 17:24-27a).

Paul seemed convinced of the truthfulness of the biblical account of creation.  I believe that I can make a stronger argument, though.

Jesus

Jesus is described in the prologue of the Gospel of John as thus, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:1-3).  Jesus is God incarnate, one with the Father, was with God at the event of creation, and made all things.  This same Jesus seems convinced of the truthfulness of the whole of the Mosaic witness, which includes God’s creation of the world and everything in it.

“Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father.  There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope.  For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.  But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:45-47). “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’” (Mark 10:6)

If Jesus believes in the truthfulness of the Genesis account of creation (and, according to the apostle John, made all that is), shouldn’t we believe it as well?

Biblical Authority

        It should be evident from the above discussion on Adam, the Fall, and Jesus (briefly) that it would be quite difficult to a biblically consistent Christian if one holds to Naturalism as the explaining force behind the physical universe.  In my view, one who holds to this view ultimately views Naturalism as their ultimate authority.  As, if Theistic Evolutionists are correct then Adam never existed; man is not bound by original sin; the incarnation is unnecessary; and, the crucifixion of Jesus is unnecessary.  In other words, the biblical account of Jesus would likely be relegated to bedtime stories told to children, at best.  We wouldn’t need to be saved from our sin – because “sin”, from a biblical perspective, wouldn’t exist  We would only need to be “saved” from our ignorance through employing the processes found in the scientific method.  Would we really need to take the biblical account of God, or the Bible, itself, seriously, in this view?

Conclusion

How we view the first three chapters of the book of Genesis matters.  What matters almost as much, is our interpretive method(s).  If we attempt to read into Genesis a scientific or modern perspective then we will fail to bring the full significance and full message of the book of Genesis to light.  However, if we are faithful to attempt to understand these ancient people in their time and in their ancient context then the book of Genesis comes alive with meaning.  

May God guide you in your journey to get to know Him.

                       

[1] William W. Klein, et. al., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 329.

[2] Tremper Longman III, How to Read Genesis (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 121-122.

[3] John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 45, 283.

[4] Klein, Biblical Interpretation, 331.

[5] Denis O. Lamoureux, “Evolutionary Creation: Beyond the Evolution vs. Creation Debate,” Crux, 39 (June 2003), 14-22.  Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), 206-207.

[6] A.B. Canedayy, “The Language of God and Adam’s Genesis & Historicity in Paul’s Gospel,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 15 (Spring 2011), 27.

[7]Michael Reeves, “Adam and Eve,” Should Christians Embrace Evolution: Biblical and Scientific Responses (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009), 45-46.

[8] Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Faith Has Its Reasons, 2nd ed. (Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2005), 10.