Christian Approaches to Interpreting Genesis 1 Compiled by Krista Bontrager

Christian Approaches to Interpreting Genesis 1 Compiled by Krista Bontrager ---------------------- The following is an attempt to summarize the major views of Genesis 1 that are currently competing in evangelical churches. This document is not intended to be an exhaustive discussion of the issues but rather a brief introduction to the key contenders. Some of the views exclude others, while some overlap in certain areas. For more information about any of these views, please consult the bibliography on the final page. ---------------------- THEISTIC EVOLUTION Theistic evolution (also called evolutionary creationism, fully-gifted creationism, or continuous creationism) suggests that God preprogrammed the universe to unfold through natural laws. God guided biological evolution to facilitate the formation of higher life-forms from lower ones. Some proponents of theistic evolution allow for strategic moments of divine interventions, such as the origin of the first life (Michael Behe) and the origin of the first humans. Most theistic evolutionists believe that Adam is the result of God infusing a preexisting hominid with a spirit. Opinions differ about whether the Adam described in the Bible was actually the first human being (which would mean he lived between 50,000 and 150,000 years ago), or whether he lived between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago and acted as a symbolic representative for all humanity. 1. Use of the Hebrew verb yatsar in Genesis 2:8 and 19 in its description of God forming Adam and the animals (much like a potter forms clay) suggests they were fashioned using preexisting material. 2. The Genesis 1 3 creation account should not be interpreted as literal history. Rather, it is an example of ancient Near Eastern mythology that reflects many universal truths. 3. This view does not conflict with the body of scientific evidence that seems to support biological evolution. 4. Proponents of this view are open to the findings of modern science, including the evolution of living creatures. 1

1. It contradicts several biblical passages that seem to indicate that God did not form humans and advanced animals from lower life-forms: " Use of the Hebrew verb bara suggests that Adam (Genesis 1:27) and the advanced animals (Genesis 1:21) were the result of direct intervention, not simply the outcome of the laws of physics. " The contrasting parallel structure on Creation Days 3 and 6 allows for natural laws to have produced the vegetation on the land, but seems to imply that the formation of the animals was a result of God s intervention. Compare the opening phrases of Genesis 1:11 12 with 1:24 25: Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation The land produced vegetation. And God said, Let the land produce living creatures God made the wild animals. " Genesis 2:8 and 19 describe God as forming Adam and the animals from the dust of the ground, not preexisting creatures. 2. It seems to contradict a body of biblical evidence that Adam and the events described in Genesis 1 3 were historical in nature. " Luke anchors Jesus genealogy in Adam (Luke 3:23, 38), placing him at the end of a long list of real historical people. " Paul bases a key component of his argument for salvation on an analogy of Jesus as the second Adam (Rom. 5:12 19; 1 Cor. 15:21 22). If the first Adam wasn t a real historical person and the Fall wasn t an actual event, then Paul s whole argument collapses because the analogy is no longer valid. " The foundation of Paul s argument concerning gender issues is rooted in the order of God s creation of Adam and Eve. (1 Tim. 2:11 15) 3. Some Christians would dispute the accuracy of biological evolution on scientific grounds. 4. It may unduly limit the interface between science and faith. (What role would science apologetics have in demonstrating the historical accuracy of the Bible? Why should we believe the Genesis creation myth as being more authoritative than another creation myth if it doesn t reflect actual historical events?) Major Contemporary Advocates: 1. Largely popular within mainline churches, such as United Methodists, United Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Roman Catholics 2. Michael Behe, author of Darwin s Black Box 3. Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome Project, author of The Language of God 4. Pope John Paul II ---------------------- 2

YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM The young-earth creationist view (also called creationism, creation science, the 24- hour view, the calendar-day view, recent creationism, or the traditional view) interprets the creation week as six consecutive 24-hour periods, followed by a 24- hour Sabbath. By working backward through the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, the age of the Earth would be calculated to between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. Young-earth creationists also generally believe that Noah s flood covered the Earth a few thousand years ago with water to a depth of more than twenty feet above the highest mountains. This event allowed the continents to separate, and it accounts for most of Earth s geology. 1. It s the most natural English reading of Genesis 1. 2. The words morning and evening specify the length of the day. 3. The length of creation days is compared to a literal workweek in Exodus 20:11 (used in combination with John 5:46 47). 4. It s the most commonly held understanding of creation both in Jewish and Christian history. 5. It often appeals to an appearance of age or mature creation argument (e.g., Since God created Adam and Eve as mature adults, the rest of creation could have been created to look old, but actually be young). 1. It lacks mainstream scientific evidence to support a young Earth. 2. It seems unable to account for strong scientific evidence pointing to an ancient age. 3. The events on Day 6 (Genesis 2) seem to imply it would have taken longer than 24 hours. Major Contemporary Advocates: 1. Largely popular within fundamentalist churches 2. Henry and John Morris at the Institute for Creation Research 3. Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis 4. John MacArthur, pastor, author 5. D. James Kennedy, pastor, author 6. Carl Baugh (although some of his research has been discredited by other young-earth creationists) 7. Kent Hovind (although some of his research has been discredited by other young-earth creationists) 8. Almost any creation science textbook used in Christian schools or in the homeschool community (e.g. Bob Jones Publishing, A Beka). 3

OLD-EARTH CREATIONISM Summary: Genesis 1 describes various epochs of time in which God repeatedly and miraculously intervened to create various life-forms in order to prepare the Earth to be a suitable habitat for humanity. Basic Tenets: 1. The Universe/Earth is Old: Accepts the mainstream view for the age of the universe (~13.7 billion years old) and the Earth (~4.56 billion years old). 2. Creation: Rejects the idea that unguided (naturalistic) evolution is capable of producing the features and variety we observe in the history of life. Expresses skepticism (on both biblical and scientific grounds) that theistic (God-directed) evolution is the way God chose to create. 3. Progressive: God s creation miracles occurred in a series of long epochs of time in which God established each level of the environment before proceeding to the next one. 4. Generally views the biblical creation story as real history, not myth. 5. Avoids conflict with modern science over the age of the Earth. Cited Biblical Support: 1. The Hebrew language does allow the word yom ( day ) to be legitimately interpreted as a long period of time (e.g. Day of the LORD in Isaiah 13:6, 9) 2. Use of the Hebrew word yom ( day ) to refer to the entire creation week in Genesis 2:4. 3. The absence of the refrain of the six days (e.g. and there was evening, and there was morning, the first day ) at the end of the seventh day is most easily explained as indicating that the day did not end. Hence, this is not an ordinary day. 4. Phrase evening and morning signals the end of each creation day, not its length. 5. Phrase evening and morning, nth day brackets a 12-hour period (not 24). 6. Events on Day 6 described in Genesis 2 appear to take longer than 24 hours. 7. Genesis 2:5 implies that God used ordinary providence to cause the plants to grow (namely through rainfall). Such processes imply that Genesis chapter 2, which provides a description of the events that occurred on Creation Day 6, took longer than a mere 24 hours. 8. Use of the word generations (toledot) to describe the entire creation week. 9. Consistent with biblical statements that the Earth is ancient. [2 Peter 3:5 - ancient Earth; Deuteronomy 33:15 - ancient mountains; Genesis 49:26 - ancient mountains; Habakkuk 3:6 - ancient mountains; Judges 5:21 - ancient rivers; Psalm 68:33 - ancient skies] 10. Able to accommodate the scientific evidence that the Earth is billions of years old. 4

1. Critics argue that Exodus 20:11 gives an inspired interpretation of the length of the work of creation. 2. Some Christians object to billions of years of plant and animal death and suffering before the fall of Adam on the basis of Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:25 26. 3. Contradicts the commonly held view in Jewish and Christian history of the days being 24 hours. THE FOLLOWING FOUR APPROACHES ARE CLASSIFIED AS DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF OLD-EARTH CREATIONISM: 1. GAP THEORY This position asserts that there is a gap of millions, possibly even billions, of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. According to this theory, God made an earlier creation, but a rebellion (probably in connection with Satan s rebellion) caused God to judge Earth so that it became formless and void. What we read then in Genesis 1:3 2:3 is actually the second creation of God. The days are interpreted either as 24-hour periods or as day-age periods, depending on the variety of the gap theory. 1. Relies heavily on an alternative translation for the Hebrew word haya (Genesis 1:2) as And the earth became formless and void 2. Darkness (Genesis 1:2) elsewhere in the Old Testament as a sign of God s judgment. 3. The Hebrew words without form and void, empty appear in Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 34:23 to refer to places that have suffered the desolating consequences of God s judgment. 1. Many contemporary Old Testament scholars say that the grammar of Genesis 1:2 does not offer strong evidence for interpreting Genesis 1:2 as, And the earth became formless and void. 2. There is no verse in Scripture that explicitly mentions an earlier creation. 3. The 24-hour version of the gap theory has the same scientific hurdles as the young-earth position. When did the fossil record occur before or after Genesis 1:2? Major Advocates: 1. Scofield Reference Bible 2. Jack Hayford, pastor of Church on the Way 5

2. DAY AGE CREATIONISM According to the day-age view (also called progressive creationism or concordist view), the days of Genesis 1 should be understood as seven sequential, finite but unspecified long epochs of time. The creation week describes events from the point of view of an observer standing on the surface of the Earth, as the Creator prepares it to become the habitation for humanity. 1. See Cited Support under Old-Earth Creationism. 1. Some say that the sequence of Genesis 1 does not exactly correspond with the scientific record, unless the Biblical interpreter engages in some hermeneutical gymnastics. " Flowering shrubs and full-grown trees (Day 2) come after the creation of sea animals (Day 5) according to the scientific record. " The Sun, Moon, and stars (Day 4) appear long before the creation of the Earth (Genesis 1:2), according to the scientific record. Major Advocates: 1. Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield, from the Old Princeton Seminary (1800s) 2. Gleason Archer, former Professor of Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School 3. Walt Kaiser, President Emeritus of Gordon Conwell Seminary 4. Hugh Ross, President of Reasons To Believe ---------------------------- 3. FRAMEWORK VIEW The distinctive feature of the framework interpretation is its understanding of the author s use of the word day as a literary vehicle to teach that God created everything. According to this interpretation, God s supernatural creative words or fiats are arranged topically, not chronologically. Creation events are grouped in two triads of days (see below). Adam is king of the Earth (Psalm 8); God is the King of Creation. DAYS OF FORMING DAYS OF FILLING Day 1 Light and darkness Day 4 Luminaries Day 2 Sky Birds Day 5 Seas Sea Creatures Day 3 Dry land Land animals Day 6 Vegetation Humans DAY OF RESTING Day 7 Sabbath 6

1. See Cited Support under Old-Earth Creationism. 2. Strong literary evidence for a parallelism between Days 1 3 and Days 4 6. 3. Moses wrote Genesis 1 as a polemic against idol worship and a call to covenant obedience. 4. Open to the findings of modern science over the age of the Earth and the appearance of living creatures (including theistic evolution), since no chronology is implied. 1. The use of the terms Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, etc., seem to imply a chronological sequence. 2. Some versions of this view (such as Kline s two-story theology) are rather complex and it may legitimately be asked whether the Israelite reader would have understood the creation account in the way that Kline and others propose. 3. It may unduly limit the interface between science and faith. (What role would science apologetics have in demonstrating the historical accuracy of the Bible?) Major Advocates: 1. This view is popular in Reformed churches. 2. Meredith Kline, Westminster Theological Seminary 3. Mark Futato, Reformed Theological Seminary ---------------------------- 4. ANALOGICAL DAYS God s workdays described in Genesis 1 are analogous (but not necessarily identical) to human workdays. They set a pattern for our rhythm of work and rest. The six days represent periods of God s historical supernatural activity in preparing and populating the Earth as a place for humans to live, love, work, and worship. The events described on these days are generally understood as being broadly consecutive periods of time of unspecified length. However, some of the events may overlap in part, or they may reflect logical rather than chronological criteria for grouping certain events on certain days. 1. See Cited Support under Old-Earth Creationism. 2. It accounts for the cultural and literary structure of the Hebrew text. 3. When the Mosaic Law commands God s people to observe the Sabbath, it draws on the analogy between the pattern of God working and resting and human work and rest. " Work six days and then rest on the seventh (Exodus 20:8 11). 7

" Work the land for six years and then let the land rest during the seventh year (Leviticus 25:3 4). " Celebrate a Sabbath year every 50 years (Leviticus 25:10 11). 4. It s open to the findings of modern science over the age of the Earth and the appearance of living creatures (including theistic evolution), since no chronology is implied. Major Advocates: 1. This view is largely popular in Reformed churches. 2. Herman Bavinck, 19th-century Dutch theologian 3. Vern Poythress, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia 4. C. John Collins, Covenant Theological Seminary 5. W. Robert Godfrey, Westminster Theological Seminary, San Diego ---------------------------- 8

WORLDVIEW APPROACH The primary purpose of Genesis 1 is to lay out the distinctives of the Jewish view on God and creation in contradistinction to other ancient Near Eastern creation myths. Moses intent in Genesis 1 was to construct a true creation myth that was a polemic against competing myths of the ancient Near East. Moses wanted the Israelites to understand that nature ought not to be worshipped (like the gods of Egypt or the Canaanite god, Baal) because YHWH alone is the Creator of everything. Questions about the age of the Earth or the accuracy of the historical accounts of creation are either secondary or irrelevant since those issues were not in the mind of the ancient author. (NOTE: The framework interpretation uses components of this method at times and vice versa.) 1. This view tries to incorporate insights from other ancient Near Eastern cultures to shed light on the possible historical and cultural issues to which the author of Genesis may have been writing in opposition. 2. It attempts to preserve the integrity of the human author s meaning and to not make the biblical text answer questions it was never intended to answer. 3. It recognizes that Moses wrote Genesis 1 as a polemic against idol worship and as a call to covenant obedience. 4. It is open to modern science findings on the age of the Earth and the appearance of living creatures (including theistic evolution), since no chronology is implied. 1. 1. It may unduly limit the interface between science and faith. (What role would science apologetics have in demonstrating the historical accuracy of the Bible? Why should we believe the Genesis creation myth as being more authoritative than another other creation myth if it doesn t reflect actual historical events?) Major Advocates: 1. John Walton, Wheaton College 2. Bruce Waltke, Old Testament scholar 9

WORKS CONSULTED Advisory Committee on Creation. Report of the Creation Study Committee. Presbyterian Church in America. July 6, 2002. http://www.reasons.org/ageearth/biblical-evidence-old-earth/report-creation-study-committee. Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary. Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation. Westminster Theological Seminary. http://www.wts.edu/about/beliefs/statements/creation.html (accessed February 3, 2009). Collins, C. John. Science and Faith: Friends or Foes? Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003. Erickson, Millard J. God s Originating Work: Creation. In Christian Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Godfrey, W. Robert. God s Pattern for Creation: A Covenantal Reading of Genesis 1. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2003. Grudem, Wayne. Creation. In Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Hagopian, David G., ed. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation. Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001. Longman, Tremper III. How to Read Genesis. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005. Reynolds, John Mark, and J. P. Moreland, eds. Three Views on Creation and Evolution. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999. Walton, John H., and Andrew E. Hill. Old Testament Today: A Journey from Original Meaning to Contemporary Significance. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. 10