We've Been Debating This for How Long?

Is the creation story in Genesis to be interpreted in a straight, literal manner ( six 24 hour days of creation) or was it meant as allegory? Some think the debate over this question arose out of Darwinism, modern geology and the secularization of Western society. They could not be more wrong. The debate is as old a Christianity, and probably Judaism, itself.

I have set forth below a number of quotes from church fathers and Christian scholars about this issue.

Augustine (354-430 AD) said "The Spirit of God who spoke through them did not choose to teach about the heavens to men, as it was of no use for salvation." He also wrote the following in On the Literal Meaning of Genesis:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars
and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of
the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of
animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being
certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

Bruce Walke is a current Christian Hebrew Scholar. He writes in his commentary on Genesis:

One of  the ways in which the text distances itself from a bare facts retelling of the events of creation is its metaphorical language. As soon as we talk about God in heaven, we are in a realm that can only be represented by earthly figures. The narrator must use metaphor and anthropomorphic language so that the reader can comprehend. When the text says that God said, commanded, called, and saw, are we to understand that God has vocal cords, lips, and eyes? Obviously this language is anthropomorphic, representational of the truth that God creates. If the narrator's descriptions of God are anthropomorphic, might not the days and other aspects also be anthropomorphic? The anthropomorphic allows us to enter into and identify with the creation account. The time of creation is presented in the anthropomorphic language of days so that humankind might mime the Creator. Since we cannot participate in vast stretches of time, how else could we imitate the creator, except with finite terms such as a week?

John Calvin took the position that God performed creation in six 24 hour days.  In his commentary on Genesis he wrote:

Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment.  For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction.  Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men.

If the great minds of the faith can not resolve this issue, it seems to be reckless on our part to think that scripture requires one reading or the other.  It is best to consider the issue with humility and agree that Bible believing Christians may, in good faith and conscience, disagree on how to interpret this portion of scripture while being true to a literal interpretation of scripture.

You may ask, how could one interpret a portion of scripture as allegory and still be a Bible literalist?  To take the Bible literally means to take it in the author intended.  See Report of the Creation Study Committee  of the Presbyterian Church of America here.  If the author meant it as allegory, then a literalist reads it as such.  Jesus' parable are an example of this.  When Jesus told the parable of the seeds falling on the good ground and the bad, nobody asserts that Jesus was telling a story of something that was really happening.  He was telling a story to illustrate a point.  It would a violation of Biblical literalism to suggest otherwise.

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church does not take a position on the interpretation of the days of Genesis.  The Presbyterian Church of America, another conservative denomination, produced an 84 page report in 2000 to say that it was not taking a position on the issue.  See the link to the report above.  

I humbly suggest that the answer to this question is not an essential of the faith.  If it is not an essential, then there is liberty to hold different views and no one should be dogmatic in their assertion of their own view.

In the Beginning, God...

"In the beginning, God..." The Bible begins with those simple, yet awe inspiring words. In the first two chapters of the book, Moses gives us a peek at the beginning of time and the universe itself. With the possible exception of Revelations, no other book in the Bible even approaches the amazing scope of Genesis or has the power to capture our imagination.

When we think of the book of Genesis, we think stories. By using the word "story" I do not mean to imply in any way that they are not true. It can appear to be a collection of stories thrown together and unrelated. Nothing could be further from the truth. While it includes stories (creation, the garden, the fall, Noah and the flood to name a few) it is not really about them or the characters described in them. Genesis is about God. He is the primary character in each story and Genesis is an introduction of Him to His people. Even in the first eleven chapters of Genesis, we learn about some of the most fundamental aspects of God's nature and character. He is the eternal creator of all. He is and remains all powerful over nature and his creations. Although He judges sin, He is always ready to extend grace.

Understanding Genesis can be a challenge to believers. With the creation/evolution debate raging in our culture, it is easy to think that challenges to the proper interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis have only come about since Darwin wrote The Origin of Species in 1859. In fact, Christians have debated how to interpret the first three chapters of Genesis since the earliest times. By way of example, Church fathers Origen and Augustine argued in favor of reading the creation story as allegory rather than literal history. Others have demanded a strict, literal interpretation of the six days of creation. Sound familar?

In scripture, as in life itself, context is crucial to understanding. What motivated Moses to write the story of creation and the fall? We know and believe that he did so under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit, but that does not take away the importance of trying to know what purpose he was trying to acheive in doing so.

In his commentary on the book of Genesis, Bruce Walke argues that Moses wrote the creation story as a polemic against the cosmology of the Egyptians. The people of Israel were leaving 400 years of slavery in Egypt and had been influenced in their thinking about God by the religion of the Egyptians. Moses wanted to set the record straight so that the people of God would know Him better.

Genesis is not the first account of creation ever told or written. The Egyptians and Mesopotamians had creation stories. The Egyptians believed that (1) there were many gods, (2) the world pre-existed the gods, (3) the gods were powerful but not all powerful, and (4) that the gods were often out to get mankind. In Genesis, Moses clearly distinguishes the true God from the gods of Egypt. We see in Genesis that (1) there is only one God, (2) nothing existed prior to Him and that he created everything, (3) He is all powerful and in control of everything and (4) He loves man and seeks relationship with him.

To further his arguments, Moses wrote about historical events. Genesis is theology through history in the form of poetry and prose. What do I mean by that? Genesis was not written to be a history of the world. It certainly contains much history, but that is not the purpose for which it was written. It was written as theology, to tell us things about God and what we should believe about Him. It uses historical accounts to do so. It describes those accounts in various poetic and prosaic forms used in the Hebrew language. However, if we ever lose sight of the fact that it is theology and often in poetic form, we will not be able to understand its full import.

Therefore, any study of Genesis must focus on one central question: What does this passage, this story, tell me about God? The answer to that question, in creation, the fall or any other story, is the only truly important thing. This study of Genesis will attempt to answer that question.

Genesis

This fall I am teaching an adult Sunday school class at Central Presbyterian Church. Genesis chapters 1 through 11 is the subject matter for the class. I have and will rely on two commentaries on the book of Genesis. The first was written by Bruce Walke and the second by John Calvin.

Each week I plan to post a summary of the lesson here for review by anyone who is interested. I encourage you to make any appropriate comments.