I have hesitated to get into a discussion of my view of creation, lest I be sidetracked and lose sight of the focus of this series, an examination and defense of the God of the Old Testament. But upon reflection, I think I should spend some time on my interpretation of Genesis 1-3, since I am going to be drawing lessons concerning God and man from it.
Before I share my understanding of Genesis, let me say a few things about the interpretations that have historically been offered by both Christians and Jews for these chapters. I do this become many atheists, particularly new atheists; try to put us believers in a box by forcing us to defend one particular interpretation of Genesis. They seem to think that if we take the Biblical account of creation seriously then we have to defend a strictly literal, young earth creationism. If we offer a more nuanced view then we are accused of retrofitting, or trying to make the Biblical data fit with the findings of modern science.
But the fact is, Genesis 1-3, like many other portions of scripture lends itself to a number of interpretations. According to the Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, the late Pinchas Lapide, there is a rabbinic axiom that states, “In each Bible word there are 70 interpretations.” [i] All one has to do to confirm this maxim is to look at the many ways the Genesis account of creation has been interpreted down through the ages.
When it comes to the first chapter of Genesis and the seven days of creation, it is interesting to note that an insistence on a strictly literal reading of the text is of relatively recent origins. Many of the early church fathers held views that included literal and allegorical interpretations of Genesis. Origen (180-254 AD), not one of my favorite theologians, held that the physical world was literally the creation of God, but as with most things, he did not take the days of creation literally. More importantly, Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) believed that the point of Genesis one is that God created the physical realm, but he did not take the seven days literally, instead he believed that the days of creation should be understood as categories. he Wikipedia article on creationism (which actually does a very good job of explaining the history of creationism) says this about Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): “Like Augustine, [Aquinas] asserted the need to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering while cautioning “that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”[ii]
What was true in Christianity was also true in Judaism. For example, Philo (20 BC - 50 AD) believed that creation happened in a single moment, and that the six days of creation meets a need for order that accords with the perfect number, seven. Abraham ibn (Ezra 1092-1167 AD) was a creationist, and yet he did not believe in taking an overly literal view of Genesis, and the great Rabi, (Moses Maimonides 1135-1204 AD) explicitly states that “parts of Genesis 1-3 cannot be taken literally,” and all these things were said in a pre-scientific age.
So there have been many different interpretations of Genesis, but in spite of the diversity of thought, there is unanimity on two issues: (1) The universe had a beginning and (2) God created it.
Once again referring to the Wikipedia article, “Creationism covers a spectrum of beliefs…most people labeled “creationists” are those who object to specific parts of science for religious reasons; however many (if not most) people who believe in a divine act of creation do not categorically reject those parts of science.”[iv] I would word this differently. I am one of those whom the author(s) of this article would say “objects to specific parts of science.” I have no problem at all with science. However, I do reject certain unproven scientific theories.
To help you visualize the wide range of creationist views held by Bible Believing Christian (and Jews), the look at the following chart. Wikipedia is very helpful:
As the chart reflects, these are the major creationist views. The chart is not completey accurate in every respect, and there are other views not shown on this chart. But the reader can see there are a variety of opinions, and each of them is consistent with a high view of scripture.
I am an Old Earth creationist. In addition, I am what the maker of this chart would refer to as the gap creationist (I prefer to my position as the Summary Statement theory, but The Gap theory works fine). I also am firmly committed to intelligent design. The former explains my interpretation of Genesis one, the latter explains my view of the universe (I question whether intelligent design should even be called creationism since it is agnostic on the identity of the designer. In other words, ID is not necessarily a defense of Biblical creationism). .
The description of Gap creationism provided by the Wikipedia chart is fairly accurate. The definition of intelligent design is, in my estimation, remarkably simplistic and inadequate. I think every view of creation would in some measure hold to intelligent design. But to go into any further analysis would head this discussion in a direction that is far removed from where I want it to go. But so that you will know where I am coming from, let me give you a brief explanation of my view.
When I read the first chapter of Genesis I note that there are no time indicators in the text. In other words, we are told that the universe had a beginning but we are not told when it was. Nor are we told how long it was between the creation of all things in the beginning and God’s specific creative work with regard to this planet. So since the text is not specific, there may be a significant amount of time between the creation of the universe and God’s specific creative work described in the rest of the chapter. I believe there was. Also, note that the text tells us only what the world looked like at the point when God began His creative work; it does not tell us how long it existed in that state before God went to work. Moreover, it does not tell us if chaos was its original condition or whether something happened to put it in that state. Importantly, there are many things that Moses does not tell us.
I take the days of creation literally, but to me they can only be reconciled with other things we know to be true if we determine the point from which the action is being viewed. I believe there is good textual proof for believing that we are viewing the action from the surface of the earth. Viewed from this angle the creative work of God, though miraculous, makes sense, at least to me. It is particularly helpful in explaining the two big problems in chapter one; plants without sunlight, and the “creation” of the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day of creation.
If I am correct, and the creative work of God is being viewed from the surface of the earth, then this is how I would understand the scene unfolding; the darkness spoken of in verse two was not a universal darkness, but the condition of the earth’s atmosphere at the time God began His special work on this planet. I envision an atmosphere so full of particulate matter that the light of the sun, stars and the reflected light from the moon, could not penetrate it. Then, on the first day of creation, at the command of God, the atmosphere began to clear so that the light of the sun could be seen on the surface of the earth. That the Sun was already created seems obvious to me because the text says that the morning and even were the first day. This suggests that the earth is rotating on its axis toward some light source. The sun would seem to be the leading candidate.
During the next few days as God brought other things quickly into being, the atmosphere continued to clear. On day four the atmosphere was clear enough to see the sun, moon and stars. Hebrew scholar and theologian, Gleason Archer, believes that the days of creation represent stages of creation rather than literal days, but he does agree that our English texts, which say that God created the stars, is actually referring to a prior act of creation:
“Genesis 1:14-19 reveals that in the fourth creative stage God parted the cloud cover enough for direct sunlight to fall on earth and for accurate observation of the movements of the sun, moon and stars to take place. Verse 16 should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day; rather it inform us that the sun, moon and stars created on Day one as the source of light had been placed in their appointed places by God with a view to their eventually functioning as indicators of time to terrestrial observers. The Hebrew verb wayya’aś in v. 16 should better be rendered “Now [God] had made the two great luminaries, etc.”[v]
So there you have a summary of my understanding of Genesis one. But for my purposes in this series the important thing is going to be that God created the human race in His image and likeness because in talking about the doings of the God of the Old Testament, and whether they are right or wrong, we must not only consider who the God of the Old Testament is, but who we are. How else can we determine whether or not His dealings with the human race are right or not?
[i] Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, p. 57
[ii] Wikipedia, Creationism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism (Note, I have not always found Wikipedia a good source. This article contains some things I disagree with, but overall it is a very good article.)
[iii] Ibid
[iv] ibid
[v] Gleason L. Archer Jr., The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 61
Posted in Uncategorized
