“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
This is how the Bible starts in Genesis 1:1. While this doesn’t seem to be all that controversial a statement (since none of us, or our ancestors, were there), it is all too frequently a point of contention and battle in the public square. As such, it’s not at all surprising that a lot of terms and assumptions get thrown around, and that much of the conversation gets dumbed down to “Creation vs. Evolution” – completely missing the point.
In a similar fashion to our group article this summer on Atonement, I’d like to (fairly quickly) take a look at the different views of Creation, and in that light I think we need to set where the boundaries lie between a Christian view of Creation and a non-Christian view.
Guardrails
In the case of Creation, the Judeo-Christian boundaries are set by Genesis 1:1 – Who created? God. When did He create? In the Beginning. What did He create? The heavens and the earth – everything.
The basic dividing line between a Christian view of Creation and a non-Christian view settles on the original cause – were the heavens, the earth and life upon earth the product of God’s intervention or random chance? That is the basic question. Not evolution. Not timelines. Just this – was it God or chance that caused everything that exists in our universe?
Where we often get hung up, though, is on the how. How did He create? Here, we end up with (at least) five differing views, all of which are based upon different interpretations of Scripture and the evidence of Creation provided by God, and one atheistic view. So let us examine the six views:
1. Historic Creationism
In this view of Creation, the earth and the universe is very old (having been created prior to the first day), and then over the course of six literal, 24-hour days, God transformed it and brought forth life upon it – literally as described in Genesis 1 and 2. This is a historic view held by Augustine, which does not contradict modern scientific dating methods, but does take issue with macroevolution (because of its required length of time and random nature).
This view is supported, along with the other Christian views apart from Young Earth Creationism, by many Evangelical churches, along with Hugh Ross’ Reasons to Believe.
This view of Creation holds that the earth and all of the universe was created by God in six literal, 24-hour days, literally as described in Genesis 1 and 2. Probably the most conservative of the views of Creation, this is the one that is most often characterized in the media as the “Christian view”, and it is also the one most often characterized as “Anti-Science”, because it views the earth as young (between 6k and 10k years) and humanity as young, as well. Historically, this view was an outgrowth of the Protestant Reformation and its tendency to treat the bulk of scripture, apart from obvious allegory, as literal.
Adherents of this view also tend to be the least tolerant of differing views of Creation, with many considering all other views as anti-Christian. Key proponents of this view include Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis (along with his Creation Museum in Kentucky) and a number of systematic Calvinist churches, who have integrated this view of Genesis into their theological system (because death of animals – even dinosaurs – cannot, in their system, have occurred before the Fall of Adam and Eve).
This view, similar to Historic Creationism, holds that the earth is very old, as dated by science, but that human life on earth is very new, in comparison. In this view, there is a gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, during which the (later recorded) war in heaven occurred, in which Satan and his angels were cast down, which resulted in the Earth being thrown into chaos, becoming ‘formless and void’, tohu a’vohu, as described in Genesis 1:2. Then, God recreated life on earth from the void, creating Adam and Eve between 6k and 10k years ago.
This view arose during the Eighteenth Century, primarily as a response to geological discoveries which date the earth as being much older than six thousand years, reconciling the evidence of Creation with the Biblical account.
This viewpoint of Creation observes that, in light of the literary form of Genesis 1 and 2 as Hebraic poetry, along with its pattern of literary unfolding, the Genesis account of Creation should be viewed as a allegorical truth, not literal-scientific truth. In this view, the seven-day creation story is a “framework”, or is symbolically a description of how and why God created everything. So, in this view, the earth is old (as dated by science), life on earth is old, and humanity is new, though (in some views) theistic evolution may have occurred prior to Adam and Eve. The most common views of Intelligent Design also falls within the literary framework view of Creation, as well.
This viewpoint is supported by early church fathers, along with some of the writings of Augustine. Contrasting with Creation in six literal 24-hour days, adherents often point out that “day” and “night” weren’t created until Day Four in the Genesis chronology.
5. Day-Age View
In this view of Creation, the ‘days’ in Genesis 1 are viewed in light of the Hebrew word yom, used to describe each “day”, which may also be interpreted as ‘age’. Thus, each “day” may be thousands, millions or billions of years old. So, in the Day-Age View, the earth is old and life may be old, as well. Theistic evolution and intelligent design also fit well within this view.
Historically, this view also borrows from the writings of Augustine, who observed that literal days could not exist until after Day Four when the sun was created.
6. Atheistic Creation
This is the primary non-Christian view of Creation, which holds that the earth is old and all life is old, all products of random chance and natural selection. While often portrayed as the view of Charles Darwin, this is not accurate, as Darwin held an agnostic view more akin to intelligent design than random chance. The one common thread between this view of Creation and the Christian views is that none of them can be claimed as “scientific” views, because the original cause – God or chance – cannot be scientifically proven, and thus must be taken on faith.
The Public Square
Regarding Creationism, Christians have spent a great deal of effort and emotional capital on this topic, to little end – primarily adding to the predominant secular view which posits a false choice of “science vs. religion”. It would be far better off, in my belief, if it confined its arguments to keep what is science in the realm of science, and what is faith in the realm of faith. By attacking “evolution”, it is my belief that many Christians miss the heart of the matter – the origin of life (a question of faith/philosophy, not science) – and end up quibbling about its post-origin mode of development (a question of science and observation – the evidence of Creation).
The purpose of science is to answer the questions of HOW something happened. The purpose of religion is to answer WHY something happened. By trying to answer HOW with a WHY, we only end up looking foolish – and not for the glory of God. One need only look to Galileo and the issue of heliocentricity to see what happens when we confuse the two.
Additionally, internal quarreling within the church on this topic is self-defeating. Any of the views above, 1-5, are acceptable Christian views which honor Scripture, even though some take different parts literally or figuratively. Declaring Christians that don’t hold to your view as sell-outs to the world (I’m looking at you, YEC’s) isn’t helpful or Christian. Deriding Christians who hold to a more literal view of Genesis 1 (I’m looking at the rest of you) as anti-scientific hicks isn’t helpful or Christian, either.
In the public square, we have seen the enemy, and all too often the enemy is us…
[Thanks to Mark Driscoll, whose taxonomy I've borrowed and expanded upon in the heart of this article.]
59 Comments(+Add)
Would it not be technically accurate to say “Chance” cannot cause anything? Chance is just the probability that it might happen.
Blah. I don’t know what I believe anymore. Seen it all too much. How can we not know something like this for sure (among tons of other stuff we don’t know), drives me nuts.
There’s gotta be a lesson there…I just don’t see it all…
There is a strong argumentative aspect to Genesis 1. There were apparently many competing accounts in the ancient Near East of how the world came into existence, which were all common in Egypt when the Hebrews were captive there. I don’t personally know these stories off the top of my head, but I’ve heard that the writing in Genesis 1 and 2 deliberately contradicts important elements of these stories. That may be something to take into account when reading Genesis 1, I don’t know. I just know that what the author chose to tell about was deliberate, and I know what the author doesn’t say anything about is the time frame. Perhaps this is because this was not an important element of other creation stories.
All these views are nice, but you really have to look at why Genesis 1 was written the way it was, and the context of the time in which it was written.
I’m a literal 6 day, young earth guy.
It always flips out all of my “friends” (even the one’s like K. Silva) when I throw that out there.
There’s some really good evidence too that the Creation story in chp. 1 may have risen as a critique of the city creation accounts in the Enuma Elish.
It’s been quite convincing to me. Especially when we have to admit that there are 2 creation accounts at the beginning of Genesis.
From a creation vs. evolution standpoint–which is a stupid debate to me and I really don’t care about it–I just take the stance that God is the originator of the created order, hence the name Creator.
Seems the Nicene Symbol really takes care of it for me and I don’t need to say anymore:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
Anything more seems like a waste of time…
Joe, I am a literal 6 day, young earth guy, as well.
It always flips out all of my “friends” when I tell them you’re a 6-day, young earth guy too.
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) claimed all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories…time, force, action, space and matter. Comparing Genesis 1:1…
“In the beginning” = time
“God” = force
“Created” = action
“Heavens” = space
“Earth” = matter
The Creation story in Gen 1 contradicts many aspects of the ancient near east epics, particularly the epic of Gilgamesh – creation apart from violence, out of nothing, and as “good” were key aspects of the Genesis Creation account…
I’m a “God created it, and I’m not going to claim to know exactly how He did it (whether literal or figurative), and I’m not sure it really matters…” kind of guy. As such, I usually find myself arguing against whatever the prevailing groupthink is…
You know, if we consider the grand story of the Bible, the so-called meta-narrative–that great story of redemptive history of which Jesus of Nazareth is the both the origin and culmination–and then consider where God decided his prophets should begin Scripture–’In the beginning…’ (and why that phrase is imitated in the NT in Matt, Mark, John, for example)–it really does put the whole (Creation) thing into a different perspective.
Why did God, or at worst (if you don’t happen to believe in Holy Spirit inspiration), Moses, begin the story of our redemption at that one point that has caused more controversy than any other point in Scripture? Why would God or Moses deliberately set himself up for a failure that ’science’ was certain to highlight and ‘prove’? After all, science has slamdunked creationism, hasn’t it? Intellect 1, God 0.
Why didn’t God, or Moses or Joshua, begin some place a little less controversial? Why begin at the place he had to know would piss off those who happen to believe in the delusion of Darwinian evolution? Why not make it easier to believe? Why not begin someplace else? That is the question that has always intrigued me.
Of course, one of my favorite profs at seminary reminded us that there can be no real doctrine of atonement apart from a literal doctrine of creation. I agree with him. Creation plays far too significant of a role in the entire canon to simply say it is a myth or a mere framework or even a mere poem. If God didn’t literally create the first heavens and earth, then how can we reasonably expect that God will literally create the new heavens and new earth and redeem people and resurrect them?
Chris, with all due respect, I think it is far too simplistic to say that science answers the ‘how’ and religion answers the ‘why’. Which science? Which religion? I would suggest that apart from the ‘why’ the ‘how’ is a rather meaningless pursuit. The how is designed in such a way as to point to the why (Romans 1, among others). Seems to me that before we ever even ask the ‘how’ we should ask the ‘why.’
I realize that I will likely draw the ire of those who disagree with this perspective, but I really don’t see how Genesis 1 can be anything besides what it is if in fact we accept the rest of the Bible as redemptive, historical fact.
How can I believe anything beyond Genesis 1 (as meaningful or true) if I don’t accept Genesis 1 at face value? If the Scripture is not truthful at the very beginning, then how can anything else be remotely close to true?
jerry
haha Keith, glad I can help you entertain your friends.
Chris L,
I’m not saying I’m not comfortable with your position. I think one of my first posts here was entitled, “I can’t prove Creation”
Still, I personally believe in the literal 6 day, young earth account.
Jerry,
I would note that the view of Genesis 1 as “literal” did not come about until the Age of Enlightenment, and did not fully take hold until the Modernist Age.
The literary form, itself, suggests a great deal of symbology (particularly with the words chosen, the numbers of times each was used, and the patterns involved – “deep calling out to deep”), as fit with much of Hebrew literature. Additionally, the literary form is quite different in the first few chapters of Genesis than the remaining chapters, suggesting a difference in interpretation. I would also note that, from the records available, the usage of Genesis in first century teaching – even among the Essenes (the most conservative interpreters) was symbolic and not literal.
It was not until after the Reformation that a literal, six 24-hour day interpretation was taught as doctrine.
So, either the church had it wrong for 1500 years, and the Jews never had it right (and it didn’t matter) – or, its importance was in its symbology, and whether it was also literally true was not of chief importance.
Additionally, I would suggest that Paul’s description in Romans 1 would support a figurative interpretation that does not contradict the evidence of Creation (ex. Galileo and heliocentrism), rather than one that would pit the evidence of Creation (science) vs. a literal account of Creation.
Which I believe is possible, as well…
God created…
Chris L.,
Just so you don’t think I’m being snarky about the ‘how’ and ‘why’, I want to add a further clarification. To say that religion gets the ‘why’ and science the ‘how’ is an argument that Stephen Jay Gould used. He said religion gets the Rock of Ages and science gets the Ages of Rocks. I don’t buy that argument because it is based on the assumption that ‘religion’ (and in this case Christianity) has nothing to say about the how. I don’t think it is too simplistic to say that ‘God spoke and it was…’ Truly, thus, a display of His awesome power which is exactly the point.
Or, as the author of Hebrews said, ‘By faith, we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.’
Perhaps we put far too much importance on the ‘how’ which is not to say we should ignore it (after all it is God’s pleasure to hide things and the kings delight to search them out). But, that said, the why seems to outweigh in importance the how which, despite our best science, we will never conclusively or fully understand.
Search away we must, but I think that search will not end until by faith we rest in God.
Thanks for a great article again. I hope someday to have skills that match yours!
jerry
“So, either the church had it wrong for 1500 years, and the Jews never had it right (and it didn’t matter) – or, its importance was in its symbology, and whether it was also literally true was not of chief importance.”
I don’t know how we can conclusively know how the average ‘uneducated’ Israelite coming out of Egypt after 400 years of pagan indoctrination would understand what Moses meant. Seems to me we might have to make quite a few assumptions since not a lot of commentaries exist from those days when they wandered the desert of Sin.
On the other hand, I don’t know how it can be more complicated than face value. Hebrew was written in the forms you speak (poetry, parallelism, etc.) so that the ‘uneducated masses’ could memorize it easier, and commit it to memory (for reasons explained in places like Deuteronomy 6, and elsewhere in the Pentateuch.) This is especially so since the weapons of mass production had yet to be invented. It may be a small point, but I don’t think that the presence of symbolism, poetry or form necessary precludes a literal interpretation of the account of Genesis 1 which is expanded and explained in Genesis 2.
I have to go to bed now, so I’ll be back to revisit this conversation tomorrow. It is a favorite topic of discussion of mine.
jerry
I believe the “literal six day” view is an honest attempt to espouse a literal interpretation of Genesis, and I respect that…
…even though it is quite implausible unless God created physics to fool us.
The whole things is one giant mystery except for the identity of the Creator, Jesus.
Chris L,
thanks for pointing out the Gilgamesh issues…they also problematize the idea of mosaic authorship.
nc – I wouldn’t say that Gilgamesh calls Mosaic authorship into question, but rather that the account given/passed to Moses either a) called the key assumptions of Gilgamesh into question; or b) Gilgamesh was a bastardization of the actual account which was given/passed on to Moses.
Because the Torah was primarily transmitted orally, the tradition that Moses recorded the portions permitted to be written fits with both his position and education…
Chris L., I usually agree with what you write, but I have to say that this comment (and really your whole view because of it) is way off base and this view itself has caused more damage than the YEC’s who are belligerent. If God created all things, He created science as well. When you make statements like the one above, you are giving in to the dualistic worldview of the sacred/secular where matters of science are seen as fact/truth and matters of faith as opinion.
My point isn’t to say that there can’t be varying views of the creation account, but that it is important that we maintain a complete or whole view of truth. You cut your argument that God created everything off at the knees by relegating it to the realm of “faith” only.
Let us keep all matters, faith in the unseen and understanding of the seen, in perspective as all a part of God’s truth.
Christian –
God didn’t “make” science, because science isn’t a thing – science is simply “the study of…”. God, by His definition, knows everything, so for God there is no “the study of…”
However, God made man, whose knowledge is incomplete, and therefore, science is for man “the study of …” where “…” is the observed evidence of Creation (Rom 1:20), which gives evidence of its Creator, not disproof of Him.
Conversely, faith is “belief in …”, which is vastly different than “the study of …”, because faith is about what is not seen/observed whereas knowledge is about what is seen/observed.
Faith and science are not dualistic – they both can deal with the same subject matter, but one is about “belief” and the other is about “knowledge”. In fact, “belief” feeds “knowledge” in a scientific system, because, at first one has a particular belief (a hypothesis), and then – based on observable evidence – “faith” is either proven (and becomes knowledge), is disproven (and becomes knowledge, as well) or there is not enough evidence to come to a conclusion.
Where a number of Christians go wrong (particularly YEC’s, IMHO) is when they substitute “faith” (belief in a literal six-day creation) for “knowledge” (evidence of a literal six-day creation). In fact, they attack “knowledge” (evidence of an earth older than 10k years, evidence of human history greater than 6k years, evidence of starlight greater than 1 million years old) with “faith” – which is a losing proposition in a modernist society. Instead, I would suggest confronting the primary bit of “faith” that honest scientists must concede – that there is not enough evidence to prove the initial cause of the universe or the cause of life. Here, a Christian is on equal footing, because they are confronting belief with belief (that we must either believe an intelligent being was the initial cause of the universe and life within it OR we must believe that it was all an accident) and knowledge with knowledge (that observable evidence might explain how something works, but not what initially caused it to work in the first place).
If it was not “faith” only, then it would be knowledge, and we would have no need to have faith in God, but rather we would be like the demons and angels, who know for certain that He exists and how He works in the world. Instead, we have a belief and a faith in God, but we cannot know it all for certain – otherwise, by definition, it would not be “faith”…
Discussing the “mechanics” of creation should be a dispassionate “parlor room” discussion and never an entrenched view since it is irrelevant to redemption and obviously beyond our ability, as well as Scriptural specificity, to prove. Many, not all, who espouse the 6 day view wear it as a self righetous badge of orthodoxy. They also question a person’s view of Scripture when they don’t remain in lockstep with the 6 day view.
In the end, my profound and substantive view of the entire “how” debate is “Who cares”. By the way, only 3025 angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Remember, God rested on the 7th day and then on Sunday He got back to work!
Chris L,
interesting…
What about the critique of the Enuma Elish?
It seems that if the inverted parallels in the structure of Gen 1 and the EE make a strong case for an exilic/post-exilic structure.
How do you define Mosaic authorship?
do you think every word as we have it was written by Moses himself? If so, why? Or was Moses an initial contributor or there is a kind of “mosaic core” of material or what?
Personally, I think Moses may have contributed to the material…but over time the material is edited/redacted as the theology evolved and to the point that we have the documents as they are now.
I think form criticism reveals a lot.
Excuse me if I derail this highbrow conversation with a simplistic view.
I don’t care how I got here I only care that the one who put me here hasn’t abandoned me.
Why’s, How’s, What’s, are mere distractions to the Who. IMHO.
How can I believe anything beyond Genesis 1 (as meaningful or true) if I don’t accept Genesis 1 at face value? If the Scripture is not truthful at the very beginning, then how can anything else be remotely close to true?
I think this idea doesn’t take into account unspoken assumptions about how to read a text…it doesn’t grapple with the “decisions” made prior to the text with respect to the hermeneutic.
All hermeneutics rise/are decided prior to reading.
Chris,
sounds like #6.
But don’t you think that some of these ideas/discussions aren’t at least a little bit interesting?
I hear you though, if what you mean is to avoid dumb arguments and demonizing over this issue.
Kind of like what happens here when you admit you voted for Obama….
I kid, I kiiiiid….Just trying to keep it light…
Seriously.
nc,
Yep!
I did read #6. I was only confirming my own view and adding support to yours.
Being a former “6 dayer” I have come to believe that view, especially when proffered publicly, is counter productive to the gospel. I cannot bring myself to believe God would make such nonsense an important spiritual issue to the lost, as well as His church. Even if God did create everything in six 24 hour days, for what purpose would He make that known as a tenant of redemptive faith? I actually think that debate reveals our unquenchable thirst for issue about which to debate.
Old earth, young earth, middle aged earth, who really cares? I do believe science and faith should agree, and Scriptures tell us the heavens declare His glory. The “Who” of creation renders all the other questions as residual and a form of doctrinal recreation. It only gets unproductive when it becomes more than chit-chat and friendly musings.
Perhaps “Mosaic Editorship/Recordership” would be more accurate.
I take the view that Genesis was the oral history of the Hebrew people, inspired by God (in terms of what was passed down, and the specific words/phrases used to carry it). [I would note that Oral histories have been shown to be much more stable and unchanging than written/copied histories, because everyone in a community knows if a mistake is made in the retelling (because it's memorized by all) but writing allows them to depend on a small group of writers/editors)].
Exodus picks up with what would have been known to Moses, and the remaining three books of the Torah were based on events during his life and what was given to him directly from God.
Because of his education in Egyptian royalty, Moses would have been among a few of the Hebrews with the ability to write. As such, I take the view that he wrote down the oral history prior to Egypt as “Genesis” (which explains the stylistic difference within Genesis and between Genesis and the remainder of the Torah) and that he recorded the story of his lifetime and the guidance of God in the remaining four books.
Chris L,
fascinating…
thanks.
I am not a literal 6-day creationist (and no, PB, that is not the result of Duke’s cultic influence on my life) but in the last few months I am excited to add some more nuance to what I once thought were simply mythical stories attempting to explain how or why we came to be while critiquing the predominant stories of the day (EE and Gilgamesh, for examples). These reflections are from a Christian Theology course I am now finishing up and are not fully formed, yet. I thought posting here might help me think them through some more….
I am putting this is 7 parts….purposefully. I know it is long but would love to hear thoughts on this.
1- The OT is about God’s election of a people, Israel. The OT is first and foremost about God having said “yes” to Creation in Israel and determining to enter into the Drama of Creation to work out the “no” uttered by Creation.
2- God by God’s own choosing has elected creation. God has chosen it. It is the sight for God’s display of his identity – for how this works. Enfleshment is God’s taking on the people of Israel for the redemption of the world. Israel is the non-nationalistic nation. Israel’s identity is not one that curves back on itself but is opened up to the world. They are a people that arise not from themselves in the first place. Where do they come from? Israel is the people who’s life emerges from YHWH’s calling them into being. They do not begin from biological root. Biology comes out of their calling. Thus, their bios is always open to theos. Their biological constitution has their tap root in God’s calling them into being (Abram). Israel comes OUT of a calling, arising in their obedience to YHWH. They are the people whose very being is ecstatic – they are always standing outside and beyond themselves in their obedience to YHWH. (In God’s binding God’s self with Israel we already see the gesutre of Incarnation unfolding).
3- Enfleshment is the motion of the Incarnation itself. The motion of the Incarnation is already to be found in Israel’s life. Such that the bush burns but isn’t consumed. The bush (creation) set ablaze with the presence of God, now speaks for God. This is already the gesture of Incarnation. With every gesture by which Israel says yes to God’s directed towards them YHWH further enters more deeply into the drama of the world. This deepened drama leads the people to Sinai - God deepens God’s presence with the people and writes the Law – Israel’s life is one that is emblazened with YHWH’s presence. From Noah to Abraham to Moses to David and from there to the renewed covenant in Jesus (complete renewal and reiteration in its most concentrated form).
4- Everything for Israel turns on Sinai. Thus, to say the Torah is from Moses is really to say that Moses is the mediator at Sinai. Everything else springs from this moment. It is here that God brands the people as his own and gives them their identity. Their identity, both as a collective group and as individuals, is not something they grasp for themselves but something given to them. This is what it means to be God’s people. Israel is the very definition of what it means to be a people whose identity and agency is mediated by YHWH.
5- What is creation? What does it mean to be a creature? To be a creature is to be ever before the Creator. To be a creature is to have one’s existence in derivation from the Creator. It does not mean there is a continuity between our existence as creature and our Creator. At least not a necessary continuity – no necessary link between the Creator and the creature. There is absolutely “no-thing” connecting the creature and the creator. This means that when the creature looks within him/herself to locate the ground of their existence and identity they see nothing. No thing. When you try to establish the foundation of the “I” that is you you see nothing. When the creature tried to find the basis of its identity and agency, the ground on which it rests we come face to face with our own nothingness. Whatever life the creature has the creature is not the source. The creature comes forth from nothing and rests on no thing. This is why theologians speak of creation ex nihilo - from nothing. This points to something else – points to the fact that as creatures we exist from beyond ourselves and find our life and being from beyond our own natural nothingness. God made all things out of nothing but in making them out of nothing he made them through Jesus Christ who is the image of God. Athanasius has shown us the mistake of individualism and shows us that to look within ourselves is to make the turn to nihilism. Our existence is a being in communion. In a certain sense, the intense turning in on oneself is the structure of hell. Hell is the radicality of the aloneness that refuses every gesture of communion. The intensity of that aloneness is like the intensity of the fires of hell
But in the doctrine of creation we learn that communitarianism isn’t enough either. As we saw before this is one more way we as individuals subsume or absorb the other. We must qualify community. Under the conditions of the fall, our lapse, where we have begun to rest on ourselves we have taken as our possession even the agency of the other person – we absorb them into our nothingness as a means to shore up our own nothingness.
6- This leads me to the purpose for Gen. 1 and especially 2 and why I feel we must understand the above before we can properly understand why Gen 1&2 are written and from where they arise (I think they arise out of a consciousness of Sinai as we will see here). That is to say, I think that when we make Gen. 1 and 2 all about how or why the world was created we miss the deeper theological reasons they were written – to express who we are as a people dependent upon God our Source as Life and Law Giver….
Gen. 2: Here we find the gesture of Sinai being acted out in poetic fasion. We also learn the results of the refusal of this mediation – it is precisely by the effort of the creature to seize for themselves their own life and existance (the tree of life). It is the refusal to accept God as the limit on us. It is the refusal of God’s limiting presence on us. God is the tree that sustains their life – God is in the midst, in the middle/center of the Garden, giving life. But on the other hand we have another tree – the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ALSO in the middle of the garden. So we have a double representation of God. On one hand I have God as the sustainer and giver of life and secondly I have God as the limit on my life. Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for on that day you eat you will die – by defining your sustanance not on me as the life-giver and rather exceed into your God given limit, trying to sustain yourself, you die. God says in order to live you must rest in me the Lifegiver who is ALSO the Limit upon you. Already we see the basics of the covenant. God is the giver of the covenant, of life, but is also the limit upon them (the Law) as the basis of life. God in the Garden is the life and law giver. The fall is the enactment to transgress that limit (which WE as fallen humans like to call, “freedom” – but this “freedom” brings death). Our Lifegiver tells us what to do. Of course we have the freedom not to do it but in that refusal we embrace death. To try to secure our own destiny and to seize our own creation is to Fall. In this we distort Creation and turn it into an environment of domination.
7 – So then, who is Jesus the Messiah given all of this? He is the one in whom the world is remade again.
peace.
less than 10 days. Not bad
Joe – lol.
I cool down quickly. Plus, I was excited to see Chris L making sense again
I knew it wouldn’t take long for that to happen.
Chad,
Response to #1.
“The library [ie, the Bible] is a unity in virtue of this historic message and purpose. It is not nationalistic. It is not a history of Israel, but it is a history of redemption. It is not the history of an idea, but of a long divine act.”—PT Forsyth, Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind, 10
jerry
Jerry,
Sorry, I must be missing something. What is the “-10″ following that quote and where does that quote come from?
thanks.
Oh…I see you edited to put the author in. I understand now.
I agree with what PT is expressing there.
I am not so sure I would put much emphasis, however, on stating that “this is not a history of Israel.” Indeed, it is a history of a particular and peculiar people but that history is bound to the God who has created them, formed them, saved them and is redeeming them.
As Jesus said, salvation comes from the Jews. We who are Gentiles must understand God as the God who chose this people (Israel). We are SOL (the real sol) unless a way is made for us to be brought into this history.
Friends,
That’s the last comment I will make on this thread. I should have opted out before I even started. I see that I will be in a significant minority here for being a reader of a literal Genesis and not a reader of a figurative Genesis and I really don’t have the will or the inclination to argue this with people I have come to love and care about deeply. It seems much simpler to read what is there. I find it hard to believe that a typical, coming out of Egypt Israelite would understand the words of Genesis 1 or 2 or 3 to mean anything other than what they say. (I don’t think we would have this conversation if not for the existence of Darwin.) We are the ones who bring these questions to the table because we feel like we need more than faith to live by and because we feel like we need to make ’science’ happy.
No one, least of all me, denies the theological component of the writing of Genesis, but then we must ask ourselves: Why begin at that place if God knew if would cause so much consternation among his people? I just find it hard to believe that God set us up for such arguments only to sit back and laugh at us when we do.
Enjoy the conversation, and may all of you be blessed. I just cannot take the stress that comes into my being when the simple reading has to be defended. I’m not copping out, I just don’t need the stress.
your friend,
jerry
PS–I don’t think that the simple reading makes people any less intellectually capable of handling the Scripture. Nor do I think that the complicated readings make people any more intellectually capable of handling the Scripture. I think this is, perhaps, a matter of what we are looking for when we approach Scripture.
Ah Jerry,
I’m in the minority with you. It’s not that big of a deal. I actually have a friend that believes that the Isrealites would have understood this to mean evolution used by God. I find that ironic since the idea of evolution didn’t exist for a little while. Oh well.
Chad,
Believe me, you are not the first person to say you were gone and then come back. Rick, Julie, and I’m sure many others have. There are some that I say I did it but I said that I would still comment. I just like to put over/under’s on everything. I actually had yours at 15 and I was taking the under so…
Jerry-
I understand and respect your decision.
Just so that I am clear, I do not think less of people who hold a literal interpretation of Gen 1-2. In fact, I honor and respect those who interpret it as such. But even if one takes it literally that does not mean we should not drill deeper into it. It does not mean that we should not prayerfully consider the theological import that this “literal” account of Creation that jumpstarts the story of God might be and how it relates to the rest of the story. Someone may wish to argue that the story of the Prodigal Son is “literal” (i.e. it really happened historically), which would be fine, but that would not preclude any of us from determining what the significance of such a historical event means for us as God’s “children.” I see Gen. 1-2 much the same way.
Indeed, it would be odd that the Bible would start out with 2 chapters aimed at scientifically or historically detailing the beginnings of the universe and then devote the rest of the book to a story of faith and redemption.
grace and peace.
lol. Well, had this ditty on Creation not cropped up you may have lost that bet. It is a subject fresh on my mind and I love discussing it – much more than politics, even
i lose all the time, it’s why I don’t put money on it.
Except this conversation was had long before Darwin was born. I don’t particularly care what you believe about Gen 1, but the position that you have to believe in 6 day creationism or the rest of the Bible is suspect is a bit absurd. If I believe that Jesus’ admonition to chop off limbs to avoid hell was figurative, do are the scriptures suspect? What about if I believe the elements of communion are not actually the body and blood of Christ?
All that is required is that the scriptures can communicate what the scriptures intended to communicate.
Chris L,
I’m having trouble putting my thoughts into words at the moment, but I’m going to comment anyway.
I didn’t say that science and faith are dualistic, but that the phrases and words you were using played into our culture’s dualistic view of faith and science.
Also, knowledge comes from God, not just in general revelation, but in specific revelation as well. In fact, Scripture repeatedly points us to greater knowledge, not just faith.
Then you are a disciple of Zwingli and should return at once to Mother Church where salvation can be rightly found. And bring cookies.
OK – I’ve reconsidered my view. I now say that Scripture IS science and that all secular physics is anti-christ.
I feel so spiritual!
Joe: Coming in a little late here, but I had Chad back in less than 5. This place is like a train wreck…you just CAN’T look away!!!! (Same reason people go to a fight hoping a hockey game will break out)
And maybe that’s not completely a bad thing…
…because the first step in many a fruitful conversation I’ve had with fellow scientists/engineers on this topic have often begun with a mutual admission that the original cause of life and the universe – accidental or causal – cannot be proven by science and is a matter of belief.
Christians, not scientists, have been the primary culprits in creating this ‘duality’, and I’m not sure why many have made this a hill to die on. What has it got to do with the gospel? Anything?
Apart from certain systematic theologians who argue that all of their theology depends on the YEC view (NOTE: maybe it’d be a good thing if the house of cards they’ve built for themselves falls down), I do not see how the gospel hinges on any one of the 5 Christian views of Creation. In fact, it has been my experience that this creates a wedge issue that prevents unbelievers from seriously approaching the gospel, because they have come to believe that they have to jettison the evidence of Creation in order to accept its Creator.
I remember when I was in high school and even in college, I used to subscribe to the view that all scientists who believed in evolution at all were obviously God-haters and couldn’t be trusted. My view has actually softened quite a bit over the years. While there are certainly people like Richard Dawkins who are pushing an atheistic agenda, most scientists I know do not fit this mold.
Right now I would probably lean to the old-earth, theistic evolution model, but it’s really not something I’ll fight that much over. Although, there is some irony in me saying that because it was probably this issue that planted the seed in my wife and cutting ties with the church we were part of for fourteen years last summer.
The way it started was from a comment that I left on the lead pastor’s blog that I really didn’t see as provocative at all. A commenter on his blog was basically attacking Hugh Ross and I countered by saying that from what I could tell, Ross was a committed Christian, and was actually helping fellow Christians. I said the point of Genesis was not the “how” of creation, but rather the “who” and the “why”. Well essentially an influential member of the church saw that and went near-ballistic. So the pastor deleted my comment, and basically cowered to the over-reactive member.
It was the refusal of the pastor to defend his staff even a small instance like that eventually led to almost a complete breakdown of any relationship we had. Basically, the pastor would rather appease people in the congregation than risk supporting his staff. The sad thing is that in private conversations the pastor basically said he agreed with me. He just didn’t have the balls to admit to it.
I don’t have time for people who operate out of the fear of man.
I’m sooo glad all the political talk is something of the past! (I’m hopeful that it will stay that way – for a while at least)
Great post Chris.
Have any of you read this post at Emergent Village?
http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/eternity-evolution-and-emergence
One of the very interesting points Nic Paton touches on is the notion of eternity and how we think of it as everlasting, unchanging and removed from our current experience of time and space (dualistic) which might not be the original intent of the authors of Scripture. He writes:
I think our modernised minds are so used to think in this dualistic way that we hardly realise it. It leads us also to think of creation as a finished worked done by God with man playing no roll in the process apart from being on the receiving end of it. He continues:
Humanity played a roll in the fall of creation shouldn’t we open our eyes to the roll we have to play in the restoration of creation (and continued creation) as well? I’m thinking of Romans 8:20&21 here…
I hope I’m making sense. My words don’t seem to convey my thoughts very well today.
I’m kind of tight on time, so I can’t make this too long, but I find the whole young earth-old earth, literal or scientific interpretations totally fascinating.
Maybe its because of the mental gymnastics needed to think that the earth is a mere 6 thousand years old.
I’m neither a scientist, archiologist, or a biblical scholar, so I’m no authority on any level.
Here’s the bottom line. If the bible is accurate from a timeline standpoint, that’s fine. So be it.
But if science, and scientific methods of dating the earth are closer to accurate, then that’s the way it is, and no amount of wishing it was otherwise will make it so. Do you really want to live in a world where science needs to alter or modify it’s quest for answers because it doesn’t dare bump up against a book?
I find the young earth believers to be painfully sincere. I find the young earth theory as absurd. If God created the stars with a light beam already intact that reached 5 billion light years, that would be curious but possible.
But why would God create a light event that suggested a supernova explosion when it never took place? Why do we see a supernova explosion from a star that is 2 billion light years away if that event never took place because God just made the light event within the light stream that would reach us in 5000 years?
I now believe God made that light event apart from the material event to see who would love Him enough to still believe in His young earth plan, which is similar to the young frankenstein plan.
These discussions may be entertaining, but this young earth stuff is what makes many people dismiss Christianity in its entirety. Even if it were true who cares?
I think the other thing to be very careful of is the way scientific data is presented and lauded as canon by many people. A scientist says something and we immediately call it truth without checking the methods or the bias of the scientist in interpreting the data. Science’s understanding of the world has changed drastically in the last 100 years, however, the word of God has not.
I think it is always important to look at scientific findings and fit them into the context of the Bible, not adjust the Bible to fit the newest scientific break through. I am reminded of several examples in archaeology, but I have to start working in 15 minutes, so I’ll sign off for now.
Have a great day
I agree with that pretty much. For example, I’ve always found the shows on the History Channel or whatnot where people try to explain certain miracles described in the Bible by ways of natural phenomena quite stupid. For example, I find it much easier to believe that God parted the Red Sea than that very strong wind blew just at the right time for the Israelites to cross.
On the other hand, though, I believe we have to be careful to not try to make the Bible speak about things beyond its scope. It seems to me that the author of Genesis didn’t care that much about describing the actual process of creation. It was enough to say that God did it, there was a purpose in it, and that it was good.
Personally, I don’t see a problem with coming up with different models that try to explain the process of creation. Models live and die on whether or not the hypotheses that they are based on conform to existing conditions as well as experimental data. So it seems to me that Christians shouldn’t be that dogmatic about the different models that all agree God was at the beginning. The only things I would say is out-of-bounds from a historic, orthodox Christian perspective are, as Chris L. noted in the article, atheistic models.
I’m really late to the party, but here goes…
Science is a method. We can mess up badly when we take it to be the method.
As the OP suggests, within the boundaries of Gen. 1:1 there are a number ways you can work out the specfics to your own understanding, but the fact is none of us were there to see exactly what happened. I don’t think it’s to anyone’s benefit to scoff at those who hold to a more literal interpretation any more than it is to hold up a belief in a strictly literal interpretation as a hurdle for someone coming to Christ.
Believing in whatever story of origins you choose is an act of faith.
There is far more evidence for creation than evolution, therefore it takes far more faith to believe in evolution. However, creation also takes faith. Why? None of us were there.
Neither is provable by the scientific method either, for we cannot repeat it.
Well, the thing that’s tricky is that when most scientists speak of evolution, they aren’t really making a statement about origins. They speaking about evolutionary processes most of the time, and contrary to what some young-earthers say, these processes can be observed in a lab a lot of times, at least at some level.
So I think it would behoove Christians to be a little bit more careful when they simply denounce evolution altogether. It’s not an all or nothing proposition.
But when you talk about evolution, you have to be sure to clarify if you’re talking about macroevolution and microevolution.
Well, the only people who I’ve ever really make that distinction are Christians. I don’t necessarily think that macroevolution, to use that terminology, is unorthodox.
In The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis describes it as follows:
I guess I just prefer to stick with each producing after its own kind.