Interpretations of the creation account

From Theopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

In modern times, many different interpretations of the creation account have been proposed. However, this is not purely a modern concern: indeed, since the early church, the opening chapter of Genesis has ignited controversy.[1] Therefore, this article first considers the passage adopting no particular viewpoint with respect to the disputes, and then presents the distinctives of some of the major view-points.

Almost all views of the opening of Genesis consider the natural division of the text to come to an end at 2:3 or 2:4a; for this reason, when referring to the creation account of Genesis 1, the discussion in fact has in view the entire passage of Genesis 1:1-2:3 or 4a.

Multimedia

Contents


[edit] Genesis 1 in outline

The account of creation in Genesis 1 contains several truths on which all sould agree, summarized as follows:

Firstly, that God pre-exists everything in the universe, and even the universe itself. We see that "in the beginning, God"; in context, this refers to everything to follow. But everything to follow is, precisely, every physical thing.

Secondly, that it is God who created everything. The opening words, indeed, tell us that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".

Thirdly, that God created everything. The term for "to create" is a Hebrew word which, in this context, means "to fashion something new, from nothing". The phrase "the heavens and the earth" is a Hebrew short-hand for "everything," since anything can be categorized as belonging to the heavens, or to the earth.

Fourthly, that God's creation was exactly as he wanted it to be. God declared each day's work to be "very good", meaning that nothing was lacking. Everything he had made fulfilled its purpose completely.

The views considered in this article are those which deal specifically with the text of Genesis 1 and 2. It is not the aim of this article to handle concerns dealing with scientific issues, see for instance evolution and intelligent design.

[edit] Consecutive 24-hour days

An interpretation of Genesis 1:1 to 2:3, taking the plain sense of the passage, as a historical narrative account of creation or beginnings, leads to what may be called the Consecutive 24-hour day view.

While all evangelical interpretations claim to take a "literal" approach to this text, this view tends to use the word "literal" in a stronger sense -- specifically, that the actual acts of creation take place in "literal" 24-hour days, which are presented in their sequential chronological order. However, within this "Consecutive 24-hour day" category one will find both the Young Earth and Gap theories as summarized below:

[edit] Six days of creation

The Hebrew word yom for "day" in the creation account, can mean many different things depending on the context that it is used, just like any word in any language.

  1. It can mean a 24-hour period of time
  2. the bright part of it (as in "day and night")
  3. an extended period of time (Gen 2:4)

This principle is true even in the English language, as in "In my father's day (period of time) it took three days (24 hour-days) to drive across the state during the day (bright part of a 24-hr.day)".

The creation account defines a "day" as morning and evening, as in v. 8: "...and there was evening and there was morning, a second day." Outside the book of Genesis, whenever "day" is accompanied by a number or by the terms "evening" or "morning", it always refers to a 24-hour day. Additionally, the fourth commandment of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:8-11) makes reference to the Genesis creation account and instructs the Israelites to imitate God's pattern of work and rest:

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; ... For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."

They were commanded to work "six days" (that is, six 24-hour days) because God made the heavens and the earth in "six days". Prima facie, it is natural to interpret Genesis 1:1-2:3 as teaching that God created everything in six, 24-hour days. The biggest obstruction to this argument is that Hebrews 4 suggests that the seventh day is not in fact a simple 24-hour day, but rather began after God's six days of creating and continues unto the consummation (Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prologue). Additionally, the genre of the creation account has bearing on how it and its component parts should be understood.

[edit] Issues with origins science

A literal 6 day interpretation does not fit with the popular current-day origins science models such as evolution and the big bang. If God created in six, essentially 24-hour days, then the earth (the universe for that matter), would be relatively young. Knowledgeable proponents of this view generally argue that the fossil record is a result of Noah's flood, and that other observable phenomena have natural scientific explanations that do not require "billions of years".

[edit] Gap theory

The gap theory maintains that an indefinite span of time exists between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. This time span is usually considered to be quite large (millions of years) and is also supposed to encompass the so-called “geologic ages.” Proponents of the gap theory also suggest that a cataclysmic judgment came upon the earth during this gap period resulting from the fall of Lucifer (Satan). Therefore, they would say, the ensuing verses of Genesis chapter 1 describe a re-creation or reforming of the earth from a chaotic state and not an initial creative effort on the part of God.

Most proponents of the Gap theory claim a "Consecutive 24-hour day" creation (or re-creation), but place this after the Gap. This then may be termed an Old Earth view as opposed to the Young Earth view. This often leads to interpretational gymnastics to explain the creative events within each of the six days.

According to Tom Carpenter, there are many different versions of the gap theory but they all include these four concepts: (1) a literal view of Genesis, (2) a belief in an old age of the earth, (3) an opposition to evolution, and (4) a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 which is necessary to accommodate the geologic strata which, they believe, proves an old earth. [1]

[edit] Young Earth position

Some maintain that a natural reading of the Genesis creation account and genealogies implies that the earth is relatively young (6-10,000 years). They claim that this interpretation is a proper exegesis of the passage, as it attempts to interpret it just as the original readers would. The most natural way the original readers would have understood Gen 1:1-2:3 was that God created all of creation in 6, 24-hour days. Rather than trying to align scriptural interpretation with popular evolutionism and it's accompanying scientific assumptions, proponents of a Young Earth assume that the biblical text can be understood naturally, and expect alternative scientific explanations that do not require billions of years. They propose that the bulk of the fossil record, and coal and oil deposits around the globe can be explained by the mechanics of Noah's worldwide flood. Many important contributions to modern science have come from people with this viewpoint, even though it is not popularly accepted. Such scientists point out that the scientific evidence for the Young Earth position is at least as strong as that for billions of years, if not stronger. There are difficulties with both views, some of which are even shared: One common question asked of young-earthers is how light from distant galaxies can be seen if the universe is only several thousand years old. However, the big bang theory has the same problem: even based on that theory, we should not be able to see distant galaxies - yet we do.

This interpretation is very important because right hermeneutics, epistemology and the doctrine of the inspiration of scripture, says that what the original author is teaching his original readers is true, and is God's very own words to the believer even today. And that God's Word is the final source of truth, not current theories of origins science (1 Tim 6:20). When there is a contradiction between the two, God's Word should be trusted over the other (Job 38:4).

[edit] Framework interpretation

The framework view, advanced by Meredith Kline, Henri Blocher, Bruce Waltke, and others, takes the authorial intent of Genesis 1 to be theological rather than scientific and his organization of the material to be thematic rather than chronological. That is, the author's interests do not lie with providing an ordered, chronological account of the creation so much as the drawing out of themes and the development of theology. It agrees with the literal interpretation that what is pictured here are 24-hour solar days, but it takes the complete account as figurative (much as the parable of the sower is made of literal elements, but the story as a whole means something other than simply what is pictured).

Within this passage, we can count key phrases occurring significant numbers of times: for instance, the phrase "God said" occurs ten times (three in the context of humans and seven in other contexts), while the phrases "and it was so" and "and God saw that it was good" occur seven times. The phrase "he created" occurs at three points in the text, a point we shall discuss in a little more detail later. The ancient Hebrews are known to be a people for whom the numbers three, seven and ten were significant and who would work these numbers into their poetic texts for the purpose of teaching through the text. That these structures occur is unsurprising in a text which is constructed with an eye towards literary device and framework.

Looking at the week of Genesis 1, it divides into two triads with natural pairings between the days. Thus, we see that on day 1, God creates light and darkness; on day 4, he creates the sun, moon and stars. On day 2, he creates the waters above and beneath the expanse; on day 5, he creates the fish and birds to inhabit the spaces of day 2. On day 3, he creates the dry land and crowns it with vegetation; on day 6, he creates the animals and crowns creation with mankind.

The creation of mankind functions as a peak in creation, but there is also another. In a sequence of seven days, the fourth is the central, and indeed, there is a centrality to its events. Day seven marks the beginning of God's rest, a rest which is seen as continuing due to the absence of the formula "and there was evening and there was morning—the seventh day." This point is important in answering the question "how long is a Genesis 1 day?" but is even more important in understanding the theology of the Sabbath being presented here. The fourth day sees the creation of the sun, moon and stars, given to serve as "signs to mark seasons and days and years". The word used for seasons is in fact the Hebrew term for festivals; these luminaries will function as markers for the religious festivals, which include the Sabbath.

The description of the creation of mankind reminds us that we are the pinnacle of God's creation; days four and seven pointedly remind us that we are subject to God and his guidance, a subjection which is critical to the events of chapters 2 and 3.

Moreover, Genesis 1 teaches us of the Creator God. Firstly and most plainly, he is the God who gives life. However, there is more we can say. The Hebrew word bara, translated "to create" as opposed to "to make", occurs three times in the first six days, the third time thrice. Clearly, that God "made" things is not so different from the fact that he "created" them; nevertheless, the use of the stronger term is significant, for: creation is linked to "the heavens and the earth", so that our Creator God is the creator of all that there is; it is linked to the "great creatures of the sea", which were greatly feared among the Jews and thought by the cultures around to have been merely tamed by the gods; it is linked three times with mankind, that we are ever to remember that we are all created by him. We see God as the Creator of all: the incomprehensible, the uncontrollable, the unfathomable.

This Creator God delights in diversity, as can be seen from his creation from days 4 to 6. He creates the plants, trees, shrubs, flowers and fruit, he creates the stars, which differ one from the other in splendour, and he creates all forms of life in earth or sea or sky. He fills the earth with life and diversity, so that there is never a dull moment in exploring the universe he has created.

This Creator God also delights, in seeming tension with our previous observation, in order. The highly structured account of Genesis 1, together with God's instructions to his creation, leave us with no doubt: God loves order. Indeed, one of the major themes of Genesis 1 is how God, starting with a mass of formless-and-void (1:2), finishes with a veritable army (2:1).

[edit] Concordism

Concordism, formulated in the 19th century, is the view that the biblical account of creation, when properly understood, will be in concord (agreement) with the correct scientific cosmology.

In other words, Concordists see Genesis 1 as ultimately compatible with geology. Typically, concordists have used two approaches. They either squeeze geological time between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis 1 (the gap theory), or interpret the days of Genesis as a pictorial representations of geological ages (the day-age theory).

Concordism proposes "that the conflict arises from imperfect interpretation of factual geology and paleontology on the one hand, and imperfect interpretation of the Bible on the other. Get them both right and, for the first time, a symphony of thrilling music will resound in the halls of intellectual investigation - comprised of researchers under rigid, scientific protocol and Bible lovers with a sound understanding. Today, sadly, a dissonance prevails instead, coming from a multitude of views from both sides of the orchestra." [2]

There has been little consistency in the various ways of reconciling Genesis 1 with geological history; and concordism still attempts to find scientific data in a passage that is pre-scientific. Critics contend it is still asking the wrong questions, and getting the wrong answers. In concordism, the tendency is to reinterpret Scripture consistent with the very latest scientific theorizing. But according to the grammatico-historical method, you interpret Scripture consistent with original intent.

The concordist position received a classic exposition in The Christian View of Science & Scripture, by Bernard Ramm. For an in depth development of this view and its reconciliation with the standard modern cosmology theory see Hugh Ross', The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress, 1993.

[edit] Parallels with science

Although it is difficult to harmonize Genesis 1 with current scientific models for the accidental development of cosmos, such as the various Big Bang theories, attempts at harmonization take inspiration from a number of evocative parallels, such as:

  • the initial creation of "light" in day one, out of which dark matter condensed
  • the existence of "waters above the sky" and "waters below the sky" suggesting, for some readers, a completely clouded-over planet like Venus in Day 2.
  • the appearance of plant life before animal life in Day 3. Note that plants in the absence of animals fix carbon from the atmosphere, fall down, but do not rot. A world populated exclusively with plants would thus form deep layers of carbon-rich deposits which could later become coal and oil. Such a world would also have less and less CO2 in the atmosphere, which would reduce greenhouse gases and lead to cooling trends;
  • the emergence of a clear sky in Day 4, perhaps as a result of the reduction in greenhouse gases;
  • the creation of fish and "birds" on the fifth day. Scientists agree with the primacy of fish, and in accordance with current thinking that birds are what remains of the dinosaurs, the biblical reference to "birds" might include dinosaurs;
  • the development on Day 6 of mammals, including man. This is completely in accord with scientific beliefs that mammals evolved last.

Although none of this "proves" the biblical account to be scientific account, it illustrates that the biblical writers, with no training in science as we know it, reached some similar conclusions.

Others reject these parallels for a number of reasons, including the following;

  • Big Bang theory suggests that the Sun and stars appeared before the Earth. Genesis 1 teaches that the Earth was made first, with Sun, Moon and stars only being made on Day 4.
  • Evolution suggests that land animals evolved from fish, and that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Genesis 1 teaches that sea creatures and birds were made on Day Five, but land animals, including dinosaurs, were not created until Day Six.

[edit] Resources

[edit] Consecutive 24-hour day

[edit] Framework interpretation

[edit] Concordist

  • Bernard Ramm, Christian View of Science and Scripture, William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1954.
  • Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress, 1993. Ross' view has been termed progressive creationism.

[edit] References & Notes

  1. ↑ "In the second century the understanding of the world and creation became a battleground. Aided by those works that depicted the alienation of the world from God (esp. Paul, the Gospel and epistles of John and Revelation) and recognizing the chaos of life and the breakdown of values in the Roman Empire, the Jewish and Christian teaching about creation was challenged by Marcion and the early gnostic teachers such as Valentinus." - "Creation, Cosmology", Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Development, p. 255

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Literalist

[edit] Concordist

Retrieved from "http://www.theopedia.com/Interpretations_of_the_creation_account"
Personal tools