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?
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment