Upload
joel-dorman
View
62
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
I submitted this paper on the Creation narratives in Genesis when I took the Book of Genesis at Liberty.
Citation preview
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE GENESIS CREATION NARRATIVE
A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. DAVID PETTUS
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE REQUIREMENTS FOR
OBST 605
LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
BY JOEL DORMAN
LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA
MARCH 3, 2012
Outline
Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
Overview of Creation Narrative Interpretations..............................................................................1
Significance of Creation Narrative Interpretations..........................................................................3
Genesis 1:1.......................................................................................................................................4
Nonhistorical View of Creation Narrative.......................................................................................6
Pictorial Day View of Creation Narrative.......................................................................................8
Progressive (Old Earth) View of Creation Narrative.......................................................................9
Gap Theory View of Creation........................................................................................................10
Recent (Young Earth) View of Creation Narrative.......................................................................12
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................13
Bibliography..................................................................................................................................14
i.
Introduction
Children in Sunday school are taught, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth.”1 These simple words, so profoundly etched into the collective consciousness of the
Judeo-Christian world, stood unchallenged for millennia. Contests against these words faced
throughout history related more to alternate views of creation and not a denial of the involvement
of a deity altogether. This all changed in the nineteenth century with Darwin’s release of The
Origin of Species. From that point to today, the simple words of Genesis 1:1 have launched
debates between naturalism and deism. In response to this debate, those holding a higher view of
the Bible, and the God it reveals, have felt compelled to attempt reconciliation between science
and Scripture.
This research offers a snapshot of the debate as it stands. Beginning with an overview of
the creation narrative interpretations, the issues at stake are presented. The discussion regarding
creation perspectives would be incomplete without an exegetically-based understanding of the
verse creating the debate, Genesis 1:1. Although some of the interpretations address other verses
and word usage, Genesis 1:1 is the beginning of the dispute and merits careful consideration.
From there, the five interpretations are presented and any outstanding features of each position
are expounded on.
Overview of Creation Narrative Interpretations
The five interpretations of the Genesis creation narratives discussed in this research are
the nonhistorical, pictorial day, progressive (old earth), gap, and recent (young earth) views.
These theological assertions, ranging from denial to literalism, cover the range of ideology in the
debate of origins. While there are various modifications to the proposals presented in these
1 All Scripture taken from The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011).
1
schools of thought, this research attempts to present a broad observation representing each
perspective. Likewise, there is some overlap of ideas from one to the next.
With the exception of the last view, all the interpretations of the Genesis creation
narratives are attempts to reconcile relatively recent scientific discoveries with the Biblical
account. Some are very creative while others rely on reinterpreting perspectives and Hebrew
expressions. At the very least, the debate is complicated by the reality that the creation account
is written to a prescience society by a prescience society. This is not to imply they were without
any understanding of their world, but “it is certain…the biblical account of creation was not
written to counter Charles Darwin or Stephen Hawking, but it was written in the light of rival
descriptions of creation.”2
Regardless, modern Christians must navigate the treacherous waters stirred by the
aforementioned Darwin and Hawking. The assumptions offered by most in the scientific
community cause students of the Scriptures to wrestle against the dogmatic assertions of modern
science and those of the creation narrative itself. The solidarity of modern science is not all as it
seems as biologist Franklin Harold remarked that modern biology cannot provide a satisfactory
and scientific answer to the complexity of life. This underlying problem in evolutionary
methodology creates renewed interest in the creation narratives.3
Perhaps, the resurgence of interest in origins of the universe is foundational to one’s
existential understanding. If humanity is an accident, then life is not sacred or special. This
explains not only the interest but also the deeply emotional nature of the debate.
2 Tremper Longman, How to Read Genesis (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2005), 72.
3 William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 269.
2
Significance of Creation Narrative Interpretations
The significance of the creation narrative and its interpretations often goes without
explanation; however, this significance cannot be overstressed. The first few words of Genesis
establish humanity’s place in God’s universe. In addition, this narrative establishes the King of
universe and His ability and authority to govern the affairs of His creation. These verses, then,
establish a philosophical framework by which to evaluate the functions of the systems in the
universe. One’s perspective on the creation accounts have implications far beyond an event no
human actually witnessed.4
Likewise, the Biblical narrative of creation is also a polemic against pantheism and
dualism. Although pantheism is essentially a kind of monotheism, the Biblical account confronts
the ideology that god is everything by identifying, in the first three words (in Hebrew), that God
created everything. In confronting dualism, Scripture’s noticeable silence of any alternative
force existing beside God makes it clear to the interpreter: it was God alone creating.5
There are also issues relating to the veracity of the total witness of Scripture when
addressing the issues of the creation narratives. Genesis 1:1 leaves no doubt as it states, “God
created.” If one begins to vacillate as to the method of God’s creative force, one needs to look
no further than Jeremiah 10:12(a), “But God made the earth by his power.” In the Lord’s
response to Job in Job 38:4-21, His creative powers are the basis for His argument.
Turning to the New Testament, John 1:1-3 teaches not only was God the agent of
Creation, but the Word (incarnated as Jesus) was present and “though him all things were made;
without him nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:3). Hebrews 1:10 also declares the
4 Daniel Harlow, "Creation According to Genesis: Literary Genre, Cultural Context, Theological Truth." Christian Scholar's Review 37, no. 2 (January 1, 2008): 163-198. http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed February 24, 2012), 163-164.
5 Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 304.
3
world was the product of His hands. Bolstering this assertion are the simply overwhelming
words of Colossians 1:16(a), “for in him all things were created.”
If one asserts creation was not a product of God Himself, then the remainder of Scripture
is referring to a mythological event. Further complicating this is these references use creation as
proof of God’s power and authority. If Scripture refers to an event as historical reality when it is
not, the validity of the rest of Scripture is (rightly) called into question.
The significance to contemporary humanity is not merely the uncompromising statements
against alternative ideological, theological, or philosophical perspectives. These statements are
certainly valid to humanity, but the ultimate significance of the creation narratives is one of
sovereignty. In a world where humans are mistreated, killed, and overlooked, the issue of worth
is paramount.6 If a loving creator formed all there is, He maintains the right to rule over
creation’s affairs. If all there is reduces to chemical reactions by random chance, humanity is
reduced to an accident with no intrinsic value. Again, this reduces to the issue of sovereignty:
either humanity is its own master or humanity owes its life and sustenance to a Creator to Whom
it will answer.
Genesis 1:1
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The first words
of the Scriptures present a unique set of interpretative challenges. In order to present the various
interpretations of the creation narratives, the first words of the Scriptures must be analyzed.
These profound words set into motion God’s interaction with humanity. Immediately one must
address the phrase “in the beginning.”
6 John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001), 65-66.
4
Although philosophers and scientists mostly agree the universe had a starting point,
humanistic scientists typically hold there was matter smaller than the head of a pin containing all
the mass of the present universe. This tiny collection of matter ignited and in the timespan of a
few seconds, the universe grew by an exponential, and virtually incomprehensible, amount.
Even contemporary scientific theory of a space-time and ten-dimensional string theory rests on
one idea: the universe had a definite beginning.7
Scripture asserts not only the Lord’s creative ability but also the reality of this definite
beginning. Even the phrase “in the beginning” (in Hebrew) signifies this definite beginning.
Moreover, it indicates a definite period of time that many commentators hold is connected with
the ultimate end of the same universe God created. This being the case, the Holy Spirit begins
the story of the universe with a foreshadowing of its end.8 Thus, this single Hebrew word is one
of inauguration and eschatology. In regards to its definite beginning, many humanistic scientists
and ardent theologians would find agreement.
The first verse of the Scriptures continues stating, “God created.” This is certainly the
point at which humanistic scientists and people of the Scriptures diverge. The Hebrew word for
“created” in the Scriptures always has God as its subject. This is not some general deity but is
the God of the Scriptures. This verb, reserved for the God alone, emphasizes the freedom of
God’s innovatively creative ability. Furthermore, the placement of this unique noun and verb
combination stresses to the reader: God is the subject of the Bible.9
7 Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 18-19.
8 K. A. Mathews, vol. 1A, Genesis 1-11:26, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 126-27.
9 Gordon J. Wenham, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 14.
5
Genesis 1:1 demonstrates the creative force behind all there is. Creation is the indication
of measured action of an artist. The universe, according to Genesis 1:1, is not the product of
impersonal, random processes. Instead, the assertion of Scripture is creation exists as an
example of divine purpose in which God exercised a desire to create then a desire to make
Himself known to His creation.10 From this understanding, the five interpretations of the
creation narratives will be presented.
Nonhistorical View of Creation Narrative
This interpretation of the creation narratives assumes the story is a myth. Although
various adherents to this perspective might allow some level of moral truth taught through the
passage, many in this group consider the Biblical account of creation a sophisticated myth. It
stands beside the other Ancient Near East creation stories as windows in a culture’s history but
not to be understood as a serious account of origins.11
The Genesis account of creation is attacked by this camp as ranging from folktales akin
to contemporary American folklore of Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny.
The more agreeable supporters of this interpretation merely view the stories as a method of
explaining the world around the ancients and exist today providing a snapshot of their culture.
Although the ranges of opinion and tolerance are diverse, the unifying perspective is the same:
these stories, although important to those who told them, are not true. Moreover, those holding
this interpretation base their beliefs on interpretations of current scientific research.12
10 Conor Cunningham, "What Genesis doesn't say: rethinking the creation story." Christian Century 127, no. 23 (November 16, 2010): 22-25. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed February 24, 2012).
11 Ross, 12-13.
12 Cunningham, 22-23.
6
This view does not have support in a Biblical worldview. Only with a complete disregard
of the Biblical texts can this position be supported. Further supporting this view is the
documentary hypothesis of Wellhausen in the late nineteenth century. Although his purpose was
not directly related to creation, the process of dissecting the alleged sources behind the Biblical
text casts significant doubt to the veracity of the accounts themselves. If the book of Genesis is
really series of fragmentary, but distinct, sources, then the book as a whole is nothing more than
a collection of stories haphazardly stitched together.13
At its core, this view of creation denies the existence of any deity. It depends entirely on
natural processes with no ultimate meaning and no ultimate cause. Redemption becomes a
needless fiction because humanity has no purpose beyond the definition of evolution chance.
Regardless of the contributions of societies, cultures, and individuals, their existence is reduced
to random chance and mutation without any hope of answering the questions of consciousness.
Logically, this view also is indefensible. Although beyond the scope of this research, any
view of creation must be logically defensible in that it must provide complete answers. This
view rests on the concept that matter existed without defining its origin. This matter suddenly
exploded creating the elements needed for everything in existence in the universe without
defining its cause. For reasons unknown, this matter coalesced due to gravity resulting in suns,
planets, and moons without explaining the origin of gravity. Without explaining how or why,
amino acids then form out of these planetary chemicals giving rise to life. This life, through
natural selection, produced all life in existence and the entire process from start to finish
occurred without any outside stimulus. It is logically indefensible.
13 Wenham, xxvii.
7
Pictorial Day View of Creation Narrative
The pictorial day view of creation treats the days of creation as an issue of structure and not
of chronology. This approach is a literary perspective in which the alternatives are presented as
God showing Moses six pictures representing creation or Moses choosing to assemble his story
of creation in six divisions. Although sequential in their presentation, this interpretation does not
necessarily view the six days of creation as chronological. This literary perspective supports its
own claims by the structure easily seen in the text. As a group, days one through three and days
four through six offer some level of parallel. In addition, there are similarities specifically
between days one and four, two and five, and three and six.14
An issue with this view is the highly theoretical nature of it. Nothing in the text indicates
this to be the case and nothing throughout Scripture supports this perspective. Many
commentators, however, agree with the grouping and pairing of certain days as a literary device.
Certainly, the Lord created the environments on days one through three and populated these
environments on days four through six, but this does not constitute a different interpretation on
the entire structure of the creation narrative.15
Further complicating this view is the absence of any literary clues in the text signaling the
interpreter to the highly fluid nature of the text this view requires. The text is presented
historically and chronologically. The text is presented as truth in its current form and regardless
of modern science’s problems with God’s revelation. This being the case, the burden of proof
would be on the creation and not on the Creator.
To its defense, however, this view has the unique advantage of the ability to navigate the
current scientific trends and the desire to hold a theistic view of the universe. Regardless of how
14 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1998), 407-408.
15 Harlow, 173.
8
the scientific community views the chronology of evolution, the pictorial day interpretation is not
concerned with any discrepancies. Since this view rests on the entire creation narrative as a
sequence and not chronology, it retains its capability to circumvent any potential scientific
challenge.
Progressive (Old Earth) View of Creation Narrative
As the parenthetical part of its name indicates, the progressive view of the creation narrative
allows for an old earth while maintaining God as the creator. In some ways, this interpretation
rests on the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1. Although the Hebrew word usually refers to the
twenty-four hour day modern humanity associates with it, this is not its only usage. In addition
to its use as a marker of sunset to sunset, it also refers to spans of time. At some circumstances,
it refers to an unspecified length of time. Most obviously, this view accounts for the apparent
age of the universe through these unspecified periods called “days.”16
Walton discusses the likelihood of the Hebrew word for “day” covering an indefinite
period of time:
In the semantic range of yom we must include (1) the daylight hours, (2) a twenty-four day, (3) special days (e.g. day of his death), and (4) a plural use that can refer to a few days or even a year. Furthermore, (5) the definite article can be added to yom to make it mean “today,” or (6) a preposition can be tacked on the front and a demonstrative pronoun associate with it say “in that day” or simply “when.”17
There are, however, more subtleties to this interpretation than just an alternate meaning
of “day.” Although the abrupt changes to species were separated by large amounts of time,
progressive creationists still view God as the creator and author of the changes. They do not
deny mutation of species resulting in changes within the species but they deny the interspecies
mutations naturalistic evolution insists triggered the development of new species. Stated
16 Erickson, 407.
17 Walton, 81.
9
alternatively: when new species came into being, God did not use previous species to create the
new one.18
In this way, this view does not violate the Biblical references to these life forms
reproducing “according to their kinds” (Genesis 1:12, 21, 25). Additionally, it does not violate
God’s unique creation of different types of animals. Lastly, this interpretation does not create
Scriptural problems with the exceptional creation of humans.
One of the primary problems with this interpretation is in the reinterpretation of the word
“day.” There is no indication in the text that it is meant to be taken in any other way than the
typical meaning of “day.” There are additional problems with the references to evening and
morning throughout Genesis 1. Furthermore, while certainly existing before Darwinism, this
interpretation gets most of its fuel from its offer to answer some of the questions presented by
naturalistic evolution.
Gap Theory View of Creation
The Gap Theory is built on a suggested “gap” between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
Proposed by seventeenth century Dutch theologian Episcopius and scientist J.G. Rosenmüller, it
fell out of favor until the late nineteenth century by Scottish theologian Thomas Chalmers. This
interpretation gained wide acceptance with fundamentalists when it was embraced in the notes of
the Scofield Reference Bible.19
It hypothesizes an alternative translation to Genesis 1:2. If the word translated “was” in
Genesis 1:2, were translated as “became,” the phrase now supports the gap theory. This alternate
translation is certainly within the semantic range of the Hebrew word.20 Additionally, the gap
18 Erickson, 505-506.
19 Elwell, 480.20 Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs
Hebrew and English Lexicon, electronic ed. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000), 224a.
10
theory allows for the apparent billions of years modern science insists exists between the “big
bang” and the formation of the Earth and the life it sustains.
The assumption of a gap between disorder and organization is similar to many other
Ancient Near Eastern creation stories.21 It is easy to conclude, based on this perspective, that this
gap between chaos and order is present in all these stories because there was an actual gap.
Taking this common element in coordination with the scientific conclusions and the gap theory
of interpreting the Biblical account of creation is quite attractive.
This particular interpretation of the creation narrative falls on exegetical difficulties.
Although the Hebrew word can mean “became,” it is indefensible from a Hebrew point of view
in Genesis 1:2. The author (traditionally, Moses) constructed the sentence the way it is and not
in a way that would accommodate this other translation. Walton summarizes, “If the author had
intended this, he would have put the verb first in the sentence and attached a preposition to the
word ‘formless’.”22 Since this is not how the text has been transmitted, the exegetical possibility
of the gap theory is in jeopardy.
Furthermore, the timing of this reinvigoration of this theory is a response to Darwin’s
theories and not something produced through rigorous exegetical study. Although this gap was
offered earlier in the history of theology, it did not enjoy widespread acceptance until there was a
reason to react using it as a defense. It is very problematic to offer exegetical solutions produced
as a reaction.
Recent (Young Earth) View of Creation Narrative
21 Longman, 77.
22 Walton, 72 footnote.
11
This view held sway for the majority of the history of Biblical thought. This
interpretation has several variations within it, but it all rests on one premise: creation occurred in
six literal days. This view denies virtually any kind of evolutionary assistance in creation, unless
one counts alleged microevolution (a term modern science does not use). Moreover, this view
maintains an extremely high view Scripture and it is this belief the adherents use as their basis
for interpretation.23
Virtually all conservative commentators (including the ones listed in the bibliography)
agree there is nothing in the text of Genesis 1 indicating anything other than six literal days in
which God created. It is the defense against modern science causing Biblical interpreters to
choose meanings other than the one clearly stated. Walton, who does not hold to this overall
creation interpretation, admits, “the idea of creation in seven days serves as one of the main
sticking points in the attempts to harmonize science and Scripture.”24
It is in Walton’s point where this view finds most of its problems. Modern science does
not validate creation could have occurred in six, twenty-four hour days. According to modern
science, it took billions of years for this process to occur. Although the text does not indicate a
ready-made alternative to the literal historicity of itself, the problem lies in the mountain of
empirical data against it.
However, those holding this view rest in the text itself and not modern science.
Repeatedly, Genesis 1 refers to “evening and morning” and gives a day reference (Genesis 1:5,
8, 13, 19, 23, and 31). It seems the text appears insistent: these were literal days. Again, apart
23 Elwell, 304.
24 Walton, 80.
12
from recent scientific perspectives, the text does not indicate any alternative theory of
interpretation.25
Conclusion
At a fundamental level, creation is not so much a debate on how creation came into
existence insomuch as it is a debate on who is in control of the affairs of humanity. If God
created, then humanity has a responsibility to Him. If He did not create, humanity owes Him
nothing. As stated in the significance section, the implications are crucial as they define how
humanity accepts or rejects Scripture and the God of those Scripture. Scripture’s assertion is
clear, “in the beginning God created” (Genesis 1:1a). Exceptions to this rule must be addressed
with the One Who created, not the ones attempting to uncreate Him.
25 Matthews, 144.
13
Bibliography
Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles Augustus Briggs. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. electronic ed. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000.
Cunningham, Conor. "What Genesis doesn't say: rethinking the creation story." Christian Century 127, no. 23 (November 16, 2010): 22-25. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed February 24, 2012).
Dembski, William A. The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998.
Harlow, Daniel. "Creation According to Genesis: Literary Genre, Cultural Context, Theological Truth." Christian Scholar's Review 37, no. 2 (January 1, 2008): 163-198. http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed February 24, 2012).
Longman, Tremper. How to Read Genesis. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2005.
Mathews, K. A. Vol. 1A, Genesis 1-11:26. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996.
Ross, Hugh. The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001.
Walton, John H. The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001.
Wenham, Gordon J. Vol. 1, Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002.
14