Gen 1: 4 Analysis

Todd S. Beall, Ph.D. ([e-mail])
Professor of Old Testament, Capital Bible Seminary, Lanham, MD
Evangelical Theological Society
Nov 19, 2010
On March 24, 2010 BioLogos released an interview with Bruce Waltke in which he stated that for
Christians to deny the reality of evolution would “make us a cult, some odd group that’s not really interacting with the real world.”1 His remarks, actually taped during a November workshop, sparked a flurry of repercussions, culminating with Waltke’s resignation from the faculty of Reformed Theological
Seminary in Orlando on April 6, 2010. That resignation has sparked outrage from many in the evangelical community who have denounced RTS as being too narrow-minded on this issue.2
The interpretation
of Gen 1-11 has always been a contentious issue, a point which the events of the last seven months has underscored. There have always been a variety of interpretations of these chapters. But in the past 20 years there has been a noticeable shift in evangelical scholarship from a largely literal understanding of these chapters to a more figurative understanding such as Waltke’s that would allow for theistic evolution. This shift (or retreat, as I would probably label it!) is especially notable among professors in my discipline of OT studies.3
What is especially troubling to me is the statement or implication that those who read Gen 1-11 in a literal fashion are simplistic, naive, and unscholarly. Sometimes the person framing their current view begins by saying, “I used to believe that the Bible was talking about a literal 6-day creation, but. . . .” In the light of the person’s new understanding of the genre of Gen 1-11 or the ANE parallels, he or she now
“sees the light,” and abandons the literal understanding for a figurative one. One can now join the mainstream of academia (both religious and scientific), uttering nice platitudes about how the Bible and evolution are not contradictory at all, and looking down upon those simpletons who haven’t yet reached
Transcript of Biologos video interview, http://thedesignspectrum.1 wordpress.com/2010/04/10/ full-transcript-of-bruce-waltke-video-clip/. I have personally viewed the video, and the transcript is accurate. See also Waltke’s clarifying statement, contained in The Aquila Report (http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option
=com_content&view=article&id=1855:ot-professor-bruce-waltke-resigns-from-rts-orlando-faculty-amid-historical-a
dam-and-eve-controversy). In this statement Waltke affirms that Adam and Eve are historical figures, but asserts that
“creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position, and as represented by Biologos, the best Christian apologetic to defend Genesis 1-3 against its critics.”
2See for example, Michael Spenser Harmon, “The Waltke Waltz,” (http://churchedunchurched.wordpress
.com/2010/04/09/the-waltke-waltz/): “The fact that someone so storied and so influential would be fired almost willy-nilly, based on an issue that is not a foundational one for the Christian faith, is absolutely incredulous. This isn’t even about the issue of scriptural inerrancy; it’s about a literal interpretation at all points. What is next: failure to believe that the bible has figurative language, or that the NLT is a perfectly valid translation? . . .My main concern is for RTS, where [Waltke] used to teach. When you make it your goal to nitpick, your community becomes very entrenched, self-centered, judgmental and on-the-fringe dangerous.”
3I had not realized the extent of the evangelical shift on this issue before researching the topic more thoroughly in 2008 in preparation for my chapter, “Contemporary Hermeneutical Approaches to Genesis 1-11,” in
Terry Mortenson and Thane Ury, eds., Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth
(Green Forest, AZ: Master, 2008) 131-62. I consulted over 200 scholarly works, most by evangelical authors who did not hold that Gen 1-11 should be taken literally.
1
Genesis 1-11: A Plea for Hermeneutical Consistency
Todd S. Beall, Ph.D. ([e-mail])
Professor of Old Testament, Capital Bible Seminary, Lanham, MD
Evangelical Theological Society
Nov 19, 2010
On March 24, 2010 BioLogos released an interview with Bruce Waltke in which he stated that for
Christians to deny the reality of evolution would “make us a cult, some odd group that’s not really interacting with the real world.”1 His remarks, actually taped during a November workshop, sparked a flurry of repercussions, culminating with Waltke’s resignation from the faculty of Reformed Theological
Seminary in Orlando on April 6, 2010. That resignation has sparked outrage from many in the evangelical community who have denounced RTS as being too narrow-minded on this issue.2
The interpretation of Gen 1-11 has always been a contentious issue, a point which the events of the last seven months has underscored. There have always been a variety of interpretations of these chapters. But in the past 20 years there has been a noticeable shift in evangelical scholarship from a largely literal understanding of these chapters to a more figurative understanding such as Waltke’s that would allow for theistic evolution. This shift (or retreat, as I would probably label it!) is especially notable among professors in my discipline of OT studies.3
What is especially troubling to me is the statement or implication that those who read Gen 1-11 in a literal fashion are simplistic, naive, and unscholarly. Sometimes the person framing their current view begins by saying, “I used to believe that the Bible was talking about a literal 6-day creation, but. . . .” In the light of the person’s new understanding of the genre of Gen 1-11 or the ANE parallels, he or she now
“sees the light,” and abandons the literal understanding for a figurative one. One can now join the mainstream of academia (both religious and scientific), uttering nice platitudes about how the Bible and evolution are not contradictory at all, and looking down upon those simpletons who haven’t yet reached that blessed stage of enlightenment.
2
Bloggers Michael and Greg on Oct 22-23, 2009, http://www.reclaimingthemind.4 org/blog/2009/10/ john-macarthur-on-the-lie-of-evolution/ In my survey of various blogs, there were very few bloggers that supported
RTS’s position or objected to Waltke’s position.
5For example, R. Laird Harris states, “I will freely admit that the view that the days were 24-hour days is a natural first reading of the chapter” (“The Length of the Creative Days in Genesis 1,” in Did God Create in Six
Days? [eds. Joseph Pipa, Jr. and David Hall; 2nd ed.; White Hall, WV: Tolle Lege, 2005] 103). See also the views of
Mark Ross, Hamilton, and Wenham, discussed in my paper, “Christians in the Public Square: How Far Should
As a result of the shift among evangelical OT scholars on this issue, we are now producing a whole generation of pastors and scholars who at the least are uncertain about what to do with Gen 1-11, and more likely than not are perfectly content to see them as largely figurative, intending to teach
“spiritual” truths, not necessarily historically accurate ones. I read probably thousands of blog posts in preparation for this paper, and I offer the following one as typical of the vast majority of bloggers on this issue: [blogger 1]: The poll indicates that most people don’t believe in theistic evolution, even if
Evangelical scholarship may be headed in such a direction. And the reason why the gauntlet will continue to fall is that it is so easy and natural to read the book of Genesis at face value. That is not going to change.
[blogger 2] I agree. This is one of the main reasons why it will be slow. But, I’m happy to see
Evangelical scholarship moving in the direction that it is. Hopefully things will begin to trickle down as time goes on. It may take a while for the laity to get on board, but hopefully it’ll happen and the church will stop making another Galilean Gaff. And to be frankly honest, I’d rather be on the side of men like
Bruce Waltke, John Walton, Victor Hamilton, and Tremper Longman than John MacArthur, ICR,
AIG, and the average reader of Genesis. I respect the former because of their knowledge of the world of the Old Testament, Genesis, and the Ancient Near East and how it’s unparalleled by those in the YEC camp. Their careful scholarly attitude and manner as opposed to the shrill “for us or against us” battle cry of young earth creationists.4
What is a pastor or a new seminary student who does not yet have a mastery of Hebrew or the
ANE supposed to do, when those with such knowledge tell us assuredly that Genesis need not–indeed, should not–be read in a literal way? He is going to feel a bit foolish for holding such a naive view. And that is the reason for this paper: first, to assert that there are those who are trained in these disciplines, but who believe that the literal understanding of Gen 1-11 is the best understanding after all; and second, to ask my esteemed colleagues who hold a figurative view what the hermeneutical basis is for their position, and how they apply this hermeneutic to the rest of the book of Genesis.
I want to make clear that I know a number of these men personally, and have the greatest respect for their scholarship and their contributions to evangelical Christianity in general. But when I see a wonderful exegete such as Bruce Waltke (whose 2-volume work on Proverbs is simply a masterpiece) state that Christians who don’t accept evolution will be marginalized like a small sect, then it is time for me (and hopefully others) to speak up.
Accommodation to Scientific Thinking
I begin with the obvious: the various non-literal interpretations are given primarily to harmonize the biblical text with current scientific theory. They have little to do with the exegesis of Gen 1, since the simplest, most direct reading of the text indicates that God created the world in six 24-hour days, as many of these same evangelical scholars acknowledge.5 Many evangelicals are convinced either of evolutionary
3
Evangelicals Go in the Creation-Evolution Debate?” (paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical
Theological Society, Nov 15, 2006) 3-4.
In this work, Waltke dismisses the literal 24-hour view, 6 explaining simply in a footnote that “most scientists reject a literal twenty-four hour period” (Genesis: A Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001] 61
n. 29). Where, one might ask, is the good, high quality exegesis which Waltke displays in many of his other works?
Because “scientists” reject the view, are we who hold to biblical inerrancy supposed to follow suit, without asking first what the biblical text actually says?
7See for example, Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New
York: HarperCollins, 2009); Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New
York: Simon & Schuster, 2006); and Suzan Mazur, The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry
(Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic, 2009).
8“Contemporary Hermeneutical Approaches,” 132. Much of my discussion in this paper is based on this chapter. 9Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005) 41-55. See my critique of Enns in
“Contemporary Hermeneutical Approaches,” 140-46.
10Howard J. Van Till, The Fourth Day (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986) 79-82; Claus Westermann,
Genesis 1-11: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984) 1-5. theory or (at the least) the geological evidence for the age of the earth. This understanding then guides their interpretation of Gen 1. Waltke makes his presupposition (that evolution is the driving factor in his interpretation of Gen 1-2) clear in the 2009 video released by Biologos, but it was already evident in his earlier commentary on Genesis.6 I believe that these evangelicals are wrong to give such great credence either to current evolutionary theory or geology, since both are based upon the unproved assumption of uniformitarianism: the idea that the processes we see at work now in the universe were always at work at the same rate in the same way. So, for example, according to uniformitarianism, we can determine the age of fossils by using Carbon-14, since the rate of decay has remained a constant throughout time. However, a catastrophic event such as the flood of Gen 6-8 (see also 2 Pet 3:3-6) renders the uniformitarian assumption invalid; in fact, uniformitarianism is in direct contradiction to any miraculous event. Still, the continual teaching of evolution in public schools and universities for decades has taken its toll. There is more evidence than ever against Darwinian evolution, but sadly many evangelical scholars are not current on the subject.7
What Hermeneutical Approach Should Be Used in Gen 1-11?
In my chapter in Coming to Grips with Genesis, I discuss four possible approaches to Gen 1-11:
1) basically myth, with little or no historicity; 2) largely figurative, but not myth; 3) partly figurative (not myth nor entirely literal); and 4) literal.8 I see only views 1 and 4 as applying a consistent hermeneutic throughout Genesis. While the mythological view (thankfully) is not yet popular among evangelicals
(though Peter Enns’ position is close9), it is actually commendable in that the same hermeneutic is applied throughout Genesis. The same is true for the much-maligned literal view.
Is there Warrant in Using Two Different Hermeneutics for Gen 1-11 and 12-50?
In this short paper there is not time to go through each figurative view in detail. But there is a basic problem with them all: all treat Gen 1-11 (or at least Gen 1-2) using a different hermeneutic than they employ in the later chapters of Genesis. Van Till and others argue that since Gen 1-11 is primeval history, it should be interpreted differently from the rest of Genesis and the rest of the OT.10 In other
4
Sadly, even Bruce Waltke succumbs to this argument, though o 11 nly for the creation account. He writes,
“The creation account is unlike any other history. History is generally humanity recounting its experiences. The
Genesis creation account is not a record of human history, since no humans are present for these acts” (Genesis, 76).
The Genesis account is “history,” not simply human history. Why define “history” simply in terms of human history, and then claim that the creation account is not “history,” since humans were not present?
12Westermann recognizes the importance of the genealogies in Gen 1-11. He states that too much attention has been paid to creation and the fall as the “themes” of Gen 1-11, and the genealogies have been ignored (Genesis
1-11, 2-5). He concludes, “the genealogies are an essential constituitive part of the primeval story and form the framework of everything that is narrated in Gen 1-11” (p. 6).
13D. J. A. Clines, “Theme in Genesis 1-11,” in I Studied Inscriptions Before the Flood: Ancient Near
Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, eds. Richard Hess and David Tsumura (Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994) 305.
14Eleven times, if the second mention of Esau in 36:9 is included.
15Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, New International Commentary on the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) 2-8; Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary;
Waco, TX: Word, 1987) xxii. Walter Kaiser observes that “The real key to the literary genus of this difficult section of Scripture is found in the author's recurring formula ‘the generations of’ which demonstrates his organization and his understanding of the materials.” Kaiser, “The Literary Form of Genesis 1-11,” in New Perspectives on the Old
Testament, ed. J. Barton Payne (Waco, TX: Word, 1970) 61. words, a unique hermeneutic should be used for these chapters, since they are not “history.”11 This permits scholars to treat Gen 1-11 figuratively (or, as Van Till states, like a parable) but the remainder of
Genesis (the accounts of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph) as historical.
Unfortunately for this interpretation, such a distinction between Gen 1-11 and 12-50 will not hold up under scrutiny. Genesis 12 would make little sense by itself, without the preparatory genealogy given in chapter 11 (where Abram, Sarai, and Lot are first introduced). But since Gen 11 gives the genealogy of
Shem, this connects it back to the genealogy of chapter 10, to the flood account in chapters 6-9, and to the genealogy of chapter 5, where Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japeth are first mentioned. But since Gen 5 is a genealogy that begins with Adam himself, this takes us back to the creation account in Gen 1-2 where
Adam is first mentioned! What kind of hermeneutical gymnastics will allow us to take Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as historical people, but not Adam, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japeth?1
2
In a similar way, D. J. A. Clines notes that “there is no clear-cut break at the end of the
Pentateuch. . . . The precise beginning of the Abraham material–and therewith the conclusion of the pre-
Abrahamic material–cannot be determined. . . . There is at no point a break between primeval and patriarchal history–11:10 (descendants of Shem) resumes from 10:21-31 (family of Shem) and is directed toward 11:27-30 (Abram and Sarai).”1
3
There are two other structural indicators that Gen 1-11 is to be understood in a similar way to
Gen 12-50. First, Gen 12 begins with a waw-consecutive verb, wayomer (“and he said”), indicating that what follows is a continuation of chapter 11, not a major break in the narrative. Second, it is widely agreed that the structure of the entire book is based on the phrase eleh toledoth (“these are the generations of . . .” or “this is the history of . . .”) that occurs ten times in Genesis.14 Each time this phrase occurs it narrows the focus to something that has already been discussed: the heavens and the earth (2:4), Adam
(5:1), Noah (6:9), the sons of Noah (10:1), Shem (11:10), Terah (11:27), Ishmael (25:12), Isaac (25:19),
Esau (36:1), and Jacob (37:2).15 Since six of these occurrences are in Gen 1-11 and four occurrences are in Gen 12-50 it seems clear that the author intended both sections to be understood in the same way, as a
5
So also Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “Legitimate Hermeneutics,” i 16 n Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1979) 145. Elsewhere Kaiser makes the point that this linear view of history is quite different from the cyclical view of time found in ANE cosmologies: “It is this linear view of events and happenings [found in
Gen 1-11] that actually inaugurates the very discipline of history.” Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents: Are They
Reliable and Relevant? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001) 83. See also G. C. Aalders, Genesis, vol. 1 (The
Bible Student’s Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) 45: “The entire design of the book [of Genesis] indicates that the positive intent was to present actual history.”
17Stek, “What Says the Scripture?” 241.
18Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 40.
19Waltke, “The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One,” Crux 27 (1991) 6.
20Andrew Kulikovsky, “A Critique of the Literary Framework View of the Days of Creation,” (unpublished paper for Louisiana Baptist University, July 28, 2001) 15.
21Note too that Jesus did not distinguish between Gen 1 and 2 when he quoted from both chapters in answering the question about divorce (Matt 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-8). consecutive history.16 Therefore, hermeneutically there is no warrant for treating Gen 1-11 differently from the rest of the book.
What about a Separate Hermeneutic or Genre for Gen 1?
Many evangelicals would agree that Gen 3-11 should be treated literally, but they still insist on a different heremeneutic for Gen 1 (or Gen 1:1-2:3). John Stek separates Gen 1:1-2:3 from the rest of
Genesis, calling it a “prologue” to the rest of Genesis.17 Wenham likewise holds that since Gen 1 is outside the toledoth outline, it is an “overture” to the rest of the story, and thus doesn’t need to be interpreted the same way.1
8
Yet there is no basis for separating Gen 1:1-2:3 from the rest of the book. Even Waltke, while also calling Gen 1:1-2:3 a prologue, acknowledges that it is clearly linked to the remaining sections: “the author of Genesis links this prologue to the rest of his book structured about ten historical accounts by clearly linking it with his first two accounts. The first account . . . (2:4-4:26) is unmistakably coupled with the prologue by the addition, ‘when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.’”19 Indeed, each of the toledoths carries on the story of a subject mentioned in the preceding account.20 So, contrary to Wenham, the first toledoth in Gen 2:4 is linked to Gen 1 in the same way that the second toledoth in Gen 5:1 is linked to the account of Adam in Gen 1-4. The same pattern is seen in the other toledoths. Those who seek to separate Gen 1:1-2:3 from the rest of Genesis fail as miserably as those who seek to separate Gen
1-11 from the rest of the book.21
Many would argue that Gen 1 should be viewed non-literally because it is a separate genre from the rest of the book. This argument is at once seemingly more sophisticated (what layman would dispute this claim, not being as aware of various genres, etc.?) and more elusive, since in fact a separate genre for
Gen 1 is difficult to demonstrate. Indeed, among those who view Gen 1 as a separate genre, there is little unanimity as to its precise classification.
6
For example, Walter Brueggemann, Genesis: A Bible 22 Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta,
GA: John Knox, 1982) 26-28. See also Arnold, Encountering the Book of Genesis, 23: “Its elevated style is more like poetry.”
23Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 10. But Wenham points out that Gen 1 differs from the ANE creation stories, which are poetic: “Gen 1 is not typical Hebrew poetry.” He ends up calling it “elevated prose, not pure poetry,” since “most of the material is prose” (Ibid.).
24Waltke, “Literary Genre,” 6.
25Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003, reprint ed. [orig. pub. 1901]) 37-38.
26Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 80. See also Gerhard Hasel’s helpful summary of the genre of Gen 1 in “The
‘Days’ of Creation in Genesis 1: Literal ‘Days’ or Figurative ‘Periods/Epochs’ of Time?” Origins 21 (1994) 15-21.
27C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ:
P&R, 2006) 44.
28Waltke, “Literary Genre,” 9. Waltke has adopted this phrase from Henri Blocher. It is fascinating that in an article entitled “The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One,” Waltke ultimately refuses to choose a normal genre category, and finds the need to make up a phrase that describes the content, not really the genre, of Gen 1.
29So also Hasel, “‘Days’ of Creation,” 20: “It is hardly sui generis in an exclusive literary sense which will remove it from communication on a factual, accurate and historical level.”
30Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1990) 543.
31The three chapters in Gen 1-20 with more waw consecutive imperfect forms are chapters 5 (60), 11 (51) and 19 (64).
32Todd S. Beall, William A. Banks, and Colin Smith, Old Testament Parsing Guide (Nashville, TN:
Broadman and Holman, 2000) 1-15, 46.
Some see Gen 1 as poetic.22 Wenham calls it a “hymn.”23 If Gen 1 was poetic, then one would expect to observe many figurative expressions in the text. But even Waltke rejects the classification of
Gen 1 as a poem or a hymn: “Is it a hymn? Hardly, for the poetic mode, the linguistic conventions, and doxological tone of known ancient Near Eastern hymns are notably absent in Genesis 1.”24 Gunkel, who viewed the genre of Genesis as “legend,” states that apart from Gen 49, “all that the book contains is prose in form.”25 It is not written using Hebrew parallelism, but rather the normal prose structure. The contrast between it and a genuinely poetic passage that celebrates God’s creation, such as Ps 104, is striking. Psalm 104 is a poetic description of the creation; Gen 1 is not.
The inescapable conclusion is that Gen 1 is narrative prose.
Even Westermann agrees that Gen
1:1-2:4 “is a narrative.”26 Collins calls it “exalted prose narrative,” acknowledging that it is not poetry, and that “we are dealing with prose narrative,” yet trying still to maintain the possibility of a non-literal hermeneutic.27 Though acknowledging that Gen 1 is narrative, Waltke then concludes that the genre is “a literary-artistic representation of the creation”–which, in fact, is not a genre type at all.28 The best that
Stek can do is to call it sui generis (its own genre), which emphasizes the uniqueness of Gen 1. Surely we would agree with Stek that in theme Gen 1 is unique; but it is hardly unique in form.2
9
Indeed, Gen 1 is presented in a normal narrative form. The standard form in Hebrew for consecutive, sequential narrative prose is the waw consecutive imperfect.30 Genesis 1 contains 50 waw consecutive imperfect forms in its 31 verses, an average of 1.6 per verse. This represents more waw consecutive forms than all but 3 of the first 20 chapters in Genesis.31 By contrast, in the poetic section of
Gen 49:1b-27 (Jacob’s blessing of his sons), there are only a total of eight waw consecutive forms, or
0.30 per verse.32 To put it another way, Gen 1 has five times more narrative sequential markers than a
7
So also Hasel, “‘Days’ of Creation,” 20: “the creation account of Genesis 33 1 is a historical prose-record.”
Likewise Kaiser states, “Basically, there are two broad categories for arranging the material: poetry or prose. The decision is easy: Genesis 1-11 is prose and not poetry. The use of the waw consecutive with the verb to describe sequential acts, the frequent use of the direct object sign and the so-called relative pronoun, the stress on definitions, and the spreading out of these events in a sequential order indicates that we are in prose and not in poetry. Say what we will, the author plainly intends to be doing the same thing in these chapters that he is doing in chapters 12-50.”
Kaiser, “Literary Form of Genesis 1-11,” 59-60.
34Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 55.
35John Walton, “Creation,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, eds. T. Desmond Alexander and
David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003) 156.
36Ibid., 161-62.
37John H. Walton, Genesis (The NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001) 84. comparably long poetic section. There seems to be no doubt that the author of Gen 1 intended that the narrative be understood as normal sequential action. The genre is clearly narrative, not poetry.3
3
Does Gen 1 Represent an ANE Worldview?
Many evangelical scholars hold that we must understand Gen 1-11 (or at least Gen 1-2) through the framework of the ANE milieu. For example, Peter Enns boldly states that it is a fundamental misunderstanding of Genesis to expect it to answer questions generated by a modern worldview, such as whether the days were literal or figurative, or whether the days of creation can be lined up with modern science, or whether the flood was local or universal. The question that
Genesis is prepared to answer is whether Yahweh, the God of Israel, is worthy of worship. . . . It is wholly incomprehensible to think that thousands of years ago God would have felt constrained to speak in a way that would be meaningful only to Westerners several thousand years later. To do so borders on modern, Western arrogance.3
4
Enns is not alone in this approach. In his article on “Creation” John Walton spends most of the article discussing the ANE documents rather than the biblical text. He states that the theological message of the Bible was communicated to people who lived in the ancient Near
Eastern world. If we desire to understand the theological message of the text, we will benefit by positioning it within the worldview of the ancient world rather than simply applying our own cultural perspectives.35
Later Walton states, nowhere in the ancient Near East did people think of creation primarily in terms of making things.
It is only our post-Enlightenment, Western way of thinking that focuses so steadfastly and exclusively on physical structure and formational history. . . . The origin of matter is what our society has taught us is important (indeed that matter is all there is), but we cannot afford to be so distracted by our cultural ideas. Matter was not the concern of the author of Genesis3
6
In his commentary on Genesis, Walton adds, “It is fruitless to ask what things God created on day one, for the text is not concerned about things and therefore will not address itself to that question.”3
7
Similarly, Howard Van Till holds that Gen 1 should be read as an “artistic portrait,” as a form of
“storied theology,” an “example of something written in the form of Ancient Near Eastern artistic
8
Howard J. Van Till, “The Fully Gifted Creation,” in Three Views 38 on Creation and Evolution, eds. J. P.
Moreland and John Mark Reynolds (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999) 209-211. Though I disagree completely with
Van Till’s conclusion, I agree with his analysis that old earth special creationists are “in the exceedingly awkward position of attempting to interpret some of the Genesis narrative’s pictorial elements (interpreted as episodes of special creation) as historical particulars but treating the narrative’s seven-day timetable as being figurative. I see no convincing basis for this dual interpretive strategy” (p. 211). Earlier, Van Till commends the young earth special creationist position of at least having “the merit of attempting to follow a consistent interpretive strategy in the early chapters of Genesis” (Ibid.).
39Howard J. Van Till, The Fourth Day (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 79-82.
40Ibid., 82.
41Ibid., 82-83. Van Till concludes that they are most similar to parables. “Though it is not to be taken literally, it is to be taken seriously” (Ibid.).
42See further my discussion in “Contemporary Hermeneutical Approaches,” 134-40.
43Even Hermann Gunkel noted the vast difference between the “totally wild and grotesquely titanic barbaric poetry of the Babylonian account and the “solemn, elevated tranquility” of the “temperate prose” of Genesis
(Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006 (orig. published in
German in 1895)] 80). literature. . . . It is a piece of Ancient Near Eastern primeval history literature.”38 Elsewhere Van Till makes a large distinction in Genesis between primeval history (Gen 1-11) and patriarchal history (Gen
12-50). Whereas patriarchal history is drawn from remembered historical oral tradition, primeval history is “Hebrew literature written in the literary tradition of ancient Near Eastern cultures.”39 The stories of primeval history “serve as ‘packaging’ that contains the message content,” rather than the content itself.4
0
Whether those stories are true or not is a Western question, not an ancient Eastern or Hebrew question. It shifts the emphasis away from the heart of the matter and directs attention to peripheral matters, to matters beyond the scope of the narrative. . . . The truth of a concrete story in ancient Hebrew literature does not necessarily lie in its specific details but rather in the eternal verities it illustrates.4
1
Thus, according to this view, those who expect to find truth in the details of Gen 1-11 are naive and perhaps even arrogant. Recognizing that Gen 1-11 is not intended to be taken literally frees us from a host of knotty problems–problems that (according to this view) the text does not even address.
But this view, while it may at first sound appealing, fails miserably when one actually considers the arguments in a bit more detail. First, and foremost, the Bible claims to be the authoritative Word of
God. This means that God superintended and directed what was to be written. To argue that Moses or whoever wrote Gen 1-11 was so immersed in the ANE world that it caused him to write in the way of other ANE literature is to deny the uniqueness of the biblical record. Certainly God could have directed
Moses to write in this way, but He was under no obligation to do so! In fact, ironically it is the creation account that would have had to be supernaturally revealed (whether passed on orally or directly given) to
Moses, since no human was alive to witness the acts of the first five days! Why would God have used
ANE myths to reveal His truth to Moses concerning this unique event?
While there are some similarities between the biblical record in Genesis and ANE myths, there are far more significant differences.42 Even those who wish to see a great deal of ANE influence in the biblical text admit that the biblical record is unique.43 And the Lord continually tells the children of Israel in the OT not to be like all the other nations in their worship of other gods, in their worldview, and so forth: they are unique as a people, and they serve a God who alone is worthy of worship, trust and
9
See for example the warnings against following af 44 ter the religious practices of Israel’s neighbors in Deut
18:9-14.
45For example, see Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science (Atlanta: John
Knox, 1984), 42-46; John H. Stek, “What Says the Scripture?” in Portraits of Creation, ed. Howard J. Van Till
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 229-31; Waltke, Genesis, 76; Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Polemic Nature of the
Genesis Cosmology,” The Evangelical Quarterly 46 (1974) 81-91; Gordon Johnston, “Genesis 1-2:3 in the Light of
Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” (paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society,
Nov 15, 2006) 10-14; 53-73.Tony Shetter (“Genesis 1-2 in Light of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths” [paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov 15, 2006] 30-33; and Wenham,
Genesis 1-15, xlv, 9.
46Van Groningen points out that the attempt to draw out theological “facts” from Genesis 1-11 from a nonfactually historical text is “a type of inverted allegorical exegesis.” While allegorical exegesis drew spiritual truths from historic events, “contemporary exegetes attempt to draw historical facts from symbolic, mythical, religious stories which have been drawn from various deeply religious pagan sources.” G. Van Groningen, “Interpretation of
Genesis,” JETS 13 (1970) 217.
47So Waltke, Genesis, 77; Stek, “What Says the Scripture?” 239; Walton, Genesis, 155. Walton sees in the
ANE texts a liturgical significance “connected to the construction of sanctuaries.” He concludes that the seven-day creation cycle in Genesis “put the creation narrative in the context of an enthronement/temple dedication-type of setting” (Genesis, 157). That conclusion is a stretch, to say the least, since the Genesis text mentions nothing of a temple or a building/throne dedication. See now John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 2009). For further discussion, see my “Contemporary Hermeneutical Approaches,” 158-59. obedience. Far from following the thinking of the ANE, Israel was told to reject it categorically.44 In fact, the biblical account in Genesis is so unlike other ANE literature that many scholars hold that the creation account is actually a polemic against the ANE creation myths.45 If the perspective of Gen 1-11 is so contrary to the ANE worldview, then why should we assume that it was written according to that same worldview? Actually, it stands apart from the ANE worldview in every respect, beginning with the most obvious difference: there is only one God, not many; He is eternal, not a created being; and He created the rest of the world in an orderly, purposeful way.4
6
Space does not permit a full rebuttal of the ancillary idea propounded by Waltke, Stek, and
Walton that the seven days of Gen 1 are based on an ANE typology, and thus are not to be taken literally.47 But none of the cited texts with “seven” have anything to do with creation, nor do any of ANE creation texts mention a seven-day period of creation. It is quite possible that the number “seven” was prevalent in non-creation ANE texts because of a distant memory of the actual literal creation week that
Genesis describes.
How Do the NT Writers Approach Gen 1-11?
In the rush to interpret Gen 1-11 in a non-literal way, some evangelical scholars seem to have neglected the NT treatment of these passages. If Gen 1-11 is to be taken non-literally, then the New
Testament writers should provide important evidence for this hermeneutical approach. In fact, the opposite is the case. There are at least 25 New Testament passages that refer to Gen 1-11, and all take the account literally.
The creation account is referenced by Jesus in Matt 19:4-6 (and the parallel account in Mark
10:6-8). This passage is especially significant since Jesus cites both Gen 1:27 and Gen 2:24 as Scripture that is authoritative in settling the question of divorce. There is no indication that He takes either the creation of man in Gen 1 or the account of the creation of Eve in Gen 2 as an allegory or a figure. Paul cites Gen 2:24 (“the two shall become one flesh”) as authoritative in his section on marriage in Eph 5:31
10
Also in 1 Cor 11:48 8-9 Paul explains that the woman was created from the man.
49Likewise 2 Cor 4:6 says that God said “light shall shine out of darkness,” a possible allusion to Gen 1:2-5.
50See also the reference in Rev 12:9 to the serpent deceiving the whole world (cf. Rev 20:2-3).
51So also 1 Cor 15:22: “As in Adam all die, so in Christ will all be made alive.” The effect of the Fall on creation is expressed clearly in Rom 8:19-22.
52See also Jude 11: “they have gone in the way of Cain, run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.” Cain is regarded as historical, just like Balaam and Korah.
53See also Heb 12:24.
54So also John W. Wenham, “Christ’s View of Scripture,” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman Geisler (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1980) 9. Wenham’s entire essay is excellent, as is the following essay in the same book: Edwin A. Blum,
“The Apostles’ View of Scripture,” 39-53. and his argument against sexual immorality in 1 Cor 6:16.48 In a similar way Heb 4:4 cites Gen 2:2 (God resting on the seventh day) as authoritative Scripture.4
9
The account of the Fall is also regarded literally by NT writers. In 2 Cor 11:3 Paul refers to the serpent tempting Eve by his craftiness. Even more telling is Paul’s discussion of the role of women and men in 1 Tim 2:11-14. In this passage Paul gives two reasons why a woman should not have authority over a man: first, “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (referring to Gen 2:20-23, which states clearly that
Eve was created after Adam); and second, because “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression” (referring to the account of Satan tempting Eve in Gen 3:1-13–Eve specifically mentions being deceived by the serpent in Gen 3:13).50 Another important passage is Rom
5:12-14, which traces the beginning of sin specifically to Adam, explaining that “death reigned from
Adam to Moses.” Here both Adam and his sin are mentioned, in the same phrase as Moses. If Adam was not historical, then what about Moses?5
1
Cain’s murder of Abel in Gen 4 is also mentioned in the NT. 1 John 3:12 mentions Cain, “who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother.”52 Jesus Himself mentions “the blood of righteous Abel” in Luke 11:51 and Matt 23:35 when speaking of the prophets who had been killed. This is a clear reference to Gen 4:10-11 in which the Lord tells Cain that his brother’s blood cries out to Him from the ground.5 3
What about the account of the flood? Again, the NT writers have no doubt of the historicity of
Noah or the flood. Jesus says that His second coming will be similar to the days of Noah, when “they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until the day that Noah entered the ark” (Matt
24:37-38). What is noteworthy here is not simply the reference to Noah and the ark, but the details about marrying–the precise context of the flood according to Gen 6:2-4. Time and again the NT writers refer to the details (not just the “concepts”) of Gen 1-11. In Luke 17:26-27 Jesus speaks similarly about Noah, the ark, and the flood, and then continues with the example of Lot and Sodom and the Lord’s judgment on
Sodom and even on Lot’s wife (Luke 17:28-29, 32). Again, Noah and the ark are treated as history in the same manner as Lot and Sodom.54 There is no hermeneutical distinction to be made between Gen 6-8 and
Gen 19 in Jesus’ thinking. Peter similarly speaks of Noah and the flood in 1 Pet 3:20, 2 Pet 2:5, and 2 Pet
3:5-6.
In the great chapter on faith, the writer to the Hebrews begins by speaking of God creating the world (Gen 1), then mentions Abel’s better sacrifice than Cain’s (another “detail” from Gen 4:3-7), Enoch being taken by God and not seeing death (specifically quoting Gen 5:24), and Noah’s faith in building the ark (Heb 11:3-7). In the following verses he praises the faith of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph,
Moses, Rahab, the judges, David, Samuel, and the prophets (Heb 11:8-32). How can we take the people
11
See Westermann’s comment about the importance of the genealogies 55 in Gen 1-11 (cited in n. 12 above).
56Enoch is also mentioned as “the seventh from Adam” in Jude 14, thus verifying the genealogy of Gen 5:1-
18.
57Van Groningen rightly emphasizes the importance of the NT witness in the interpretation of Genesis: “If the New Testament writers are properly considered as inspired writers, as they indeed are, their consideration of
Genesis as revelation of historical events as well as facts, must be accepted and followed” (“Interpretation of
Genesis,” 215).
58For example, H. R. Boer, Above the Battle? The Bible and Its Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975),
95. Hoer writes: “Jesus again and again accommodated himself to existing beliefs which we no longer accept.”
59As John Wenham wryly observes, “He did not show Himself unduly sensitive about undermining current beliefs” (“Christ’s View of Scripture,” 14).
60Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 33-34, 38-39, 43-44.
61Wenham, “Christ’s View of Scripture,” 29.
62It is sad that some evangelical authors pay so little attention to Jesus’ view of Gen 1-11. For example, not one of the passages cited above is discussed in Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation (Jude 14 is mentioned, but in an entirely different context). and events in vv. 8-32 as historical, but not those mentioned in vv. 3-7? The writer to the Hebrews sees the entire OT as historically accurate.
Finally, as mentioned earlier, it is important to remember that Gen 1-11 is not simply about the creation, the fall, and the flood: it includes extensive genealogies.55 And the genealogy of Jesus in Luke
3:23-38 ends with 20 names taken from Gen 1-11 (Terah to Adam), taken as historical persons along with the first 55 names mentioned in the genealogy.56 How can one decide that these final 20 names were part of “primeval history” and not historical, but the other 55 names are historical? Such an approach simply does not make sense. It is more consistent (with Wellhausen and some critical scholars) to view all of the
Pentateuch as non-historical than to see only Gen 1-11 as non-historical. They must be taken together, since there is absolutely no indication that the NT writers saw it any other way.5
7
In an attempt to get around the clear evidence that the NT writers view Gen 1-11 as historical, some scholars believe that Jesus, Paul, Peter, and other NT writers simply accommodated their teachings to the views of the people of the day.58 But that position is untenable. First, in every case mentioned above, Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the writer of the Hebrews brought up the passages in Genesis to validate their point. There was no need for Jesus to cite Gen 1 and 2 in His discussion about divorce, but He did.
There was no need for Jesus to speak of Noah and the flood in discussing His second coming, but He did.
There was no need for Paul to speak of the creation of Eve from Adam to verify his position on headship, but he did. Such alleged accommodation on the part of NT writers is not consistent with the doctrine of inerrancy. And accommodation on the part of Jesus is doubly problematic–not only in terms of inerrancy but also in terms of Jesus’ integrity and sinlessness. Furthermore, Jesus did not hesitate to correct the wrong views of the day.59 In fact, five times in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus draws a contrast between what the religious leaders of the day were saying (“You have heard that it was said”) and what He taught
(“but I say”).60 As one writer observes concerning Jesus’ statements about the OT, “they form together a great avalanche of cumulative evidence that cannot honestly be evaded.”61 Clearly Jesus and the apostles saw Gen 1-11 as historical fact, not incorrect “packaging” of theological truth.6
2
Conclusion: A Slippery Slope
It is the conclusion of this author that the simplest, and the correct approach to Gen 1-11 is to take it as a literal, historical account, just as Jesus and the NT writers did. There is no need to apologize for
12
James Barr, Fundamentalism (Philadelphia: 63 Westminster, 1977) 42.
64Tremper Longman, How to Read Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005) 106-115. In these pages Longman treats Adam and Eve as historical persons. There is no hint that they should be regarded in any other fashion. 65Tremper Longman, “Is There a Historical Adam?” (http://biologos.org/blog/is-there-a-historical-adam/#).
See further Richard Carlson and Tremper Longman, Science, Creation and the Bible: Reconciling Rival Theories of
Origins (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010), where Carlson and Longman espouse theistic evolution.
66Noel Weeks, “The Hermeneutical Problem of Genesis 1-11,” Themelios 4 (1978) 16. such an approach. In his work entitled Fundamentalism, James Barr takes conservative evangelicals to task for insisting on a literal interpretation of Scripture but then abandoning it when it comes to the creation story in Genesis. Barr explains that “as the scientific approach came to have more and more assent from fundamentalists themselves, they shifted their interpretation of the Bible passage from literal to non-literal in order to save . . . the inerrancy of the Bible.” In order to avoid the consequence of an errant Bible, the fundamentalist “has tried every possible direction of interpretation other than the literal.”
Yet, Barr rightly continues, “in fact the only natural exegesis is a literal one, in the sense that this is what the author meant.”6
3
Barr is right on target. And there is a further danger in applying an inconsistent hermeneutic to
Gen 1-11. Where does the figurative hermeneutic stop? As mentioned earlier, critical scholars have long held that all of Genesis was figurative myth. Once we decide that Gen 1 is figurative, where does it stop?
We saw earlier that Waltke was careful to say that Adam was an historical person. Another evangelical,
Tremper Longman, used to hold that view as well.64 But now he is not so sure. In an August 14, 2010 blog entry on Biologos, Longman says the following:
The description of how Adam was created is certainly figurative. The question is open as to whether there was an actual person named Adam who was the first human being or not. Perhaps there was a first man, Adam, and a first woman, Eve, designated as such by God at the right time in his development of human beings. Or perhaps Adam, whose name after all means “Human,” is himself figurative of humanity in general. I have not resolved this issue in my own mind except to say that there is nothing that insists on a literal understanding of Adam in a passage so filled with obvious figurative description. The New Testament’s use of Adam (Romans 5 and 1
Corinthians 15) does not resolve the issue as some suggest because it is possible, even natural, to make an analogy between a literary figure and a historical one.65
The question I would ask Tremper Longman, and all those who take portions of Gen 1-11 figuratively, is this: what justification do you have for using a different hermeneutic for Gen 1-2 or Gen
1-11 than you do for the rest of Genesis? And how do you know when to stop taking the text figuratively?
Apparently, as can be seen by Longman’s comments above, there is no easy answer. As I have attempted to show in this paper, there is no justification for applying a different hermeneutic to Gen 1-11 or to Gen
1-2 than to the rest of Genesis. As Noel Weeks has observed, “The basic question is whether our interpretation of the Bible is to be determined by the Bible itself or by some other authority. Once science has been set up as an autonomous authority it inevitably tends to determine the way in which we interpret the Bible.”66 Our conclusion is that the only proper hermeneutical approach to Gen 1-11 (including Gen
1) is to regard it as historical narrative that is meant to be taken literally. To use some other hermeneutical approach and apply it in a piecemeal fashion is to embark on a slippery slope that ignores the plain evidence given by our Lord, the NT writers, and the text of Genesis itself.