Doctrine of Creation: Excursus on Creation and Evolution Part 2

last week we started a new section of the doctrine of creation dealing with the creation of life and biological complexity and we began to look at the key text in the scripture concerning this Genesis chapter 1 and I suggested that before we look at various alternative interpretations of Genesis one we need to keep in mind a couple of very important hermeneutical principles so as to not be led astray one of these was that we always need to interpret a piece of literature according to the literary genre to which it belongs otherwise we will be led

into misunderstanding and misinterpretation if we interpret it according to standards belonging to another genre secondly I suggested that we need to try to understand the original text in the way that the author intended it to be understood we try to put ourselves within the author's horizon and the horizon of his original audience and ask how would that original author in his audience have understood this text rather than trying to read modern science back into the text and interpret it in ways that would be quite foreign to the original author in his audience now there are

many different interpretations of the opening chapter of Genesis the first that we want to talk about is the literal interpretation the most straightforward interpretation of Genesis chapter one is what might be called the literal interpretation sometimes this is called the 24-hour day interpretation so for example my doctoral supervisor wolfhard Pallenberg was fond of quoting from the German Old Testament scholar gearheart phone not that the account that we find in Genesis 1 was intended to be a scientific account primitive though it might be nevertheless it was intended to give a scientific account of the origin of

the world and of life in the terms of the science of the ancient world so for example for not writes this account of creation is of course completely bound to the cosmological knowledge of its time but it is a bad thing for the Christian expositor completely to disregard this latter as obsolete as if the theologian has only to deal with the faith expressed in Genesis 1 and not with its view of nature for there can be no doubt that the creation story in the priestly document that is to say in Genesis 1 seeks to convey

not merely theological but also scientific knowledge it is characterized by the fact which is difficult for us to understand that here theological and scientific knowledge are in accord with no tension between them the two sets of statements are not only parallel but are interwoven in such a way that one cannot really say of any part of Genesis 1 that this particular statement is purely scientific and therefore without importance for us while that one is purely theological in the scientific ideas of the time theology had found an instrument which suited it perfectly and it could make

use of for the appropriate unfolding of certain subjects in this case the doctrine of creation end quote that's from von Groff's Old Testament Theology volume 1 page 148 now Pollan Berg thinks that this primitive science which is reflected in Genesis 1 has been obviously overtaken by modern science and so it needs to be corrected but he finds motivation in the biblical authors approach for theologies trying to integrate theology with a scientific view of the world we may not be committed any longer to the author's primitive and outmoded science of his day but nevertheless Pallenberg thinks

we should still follow the author's example in trying to integrate theology with the science of our day so that science and theology become conversation partners in a dialogue for getting at truth now similarly so-called young Earth Creationism takes the aim of Genesis 1 to communicate scientific information about creation so young earth creationists agree in essence with fun God's view of that however the difference between young Earth Creationism and fun rot and pollen bar is that they take the account to be accurate not to be obsolete anymore God created the world in six consecutive 24-hour days

about ten to twenty thousand years ago so this interpretation takes the text in a prima Fosse way it takes it that is to say at face value it takes the text literally in what it says or at least as far as they can even young earth creationists are not totally literalists for example some aspects of the narrative are not taken literally such as the creation of the Sun on the fourth day in Genesis 1 very typically young earthers will not embrace the view that that there was plant life and life on earth prior to God's

creation of the Sun rather the creation of the Sun on the fourth day is interpreted to mean something like the Sun appeared on that day that it came out from behind the thick cloud canopy that had been enveloping the earth so the question then is whether the text before us is of a type that the author intends the reader to take it literally now it's interesting to me that fun Rock gives absolutely no evidence for this he just asserts it he just says that this is meant to be an account that is a primitive scientific

account integrated with theology but he doesn't give any evidence for thinking so now clearly Genesis one two three are intended to be historical at some level for example Adam and Eve are presented as the first human couple the origins of the human race and they are treated as historical individuals who actually live there not just symbols of mankind they're actual people who are connected to other people in Genesis like Abraham and his descendants by genealogies that link Adam and Eve to indisputably historical persons so it's clear that Adam and Eve are not just symbolic figures

in this narrative the author does think of them as real historical persons who have descendants that eventually lead to Abraham and the people of Israel and moreover we mustn't miss the forest for the trees here either don't forget about the central figure of the passage in Genesis 1 namely God God Himself God is clearly not intent to be just a symbol or a mythological figure in this narrative he is intended to be a real personal agent who created the world and humanity and who goes on to call forth the nation of Israel to be his

special people so the central figure of this narrative is a literal personal individual who is the creator of the world and the God of Israel so as I say at some level at least these events are taken to be historical on the other hand the genesis narrative is also undoubtedly I think meant to be symbolic and metaphorical in certain respects for example the name Adam in Hebrew just means man in the beginning God created man and Eve means the mother of all living so Adam and Eve are not just historical individuals like Janis and Jim

this is man and and the mother of all living human beings they represent humanity before God they are symbolic I think in metaphorical for Humanity and in the creation story as it continues in Genesis chapter 2 we have clearly metaphorical or perhaps anthropomorphic descriptions of God God depicted in human terms for example God is depicted as walking in the garden and looking for Adam and Eve Adam and Eve are hiding from God and God calls out where are you and he's looking for them in the garden or again when God creates man it says that

he fashions him out of the dust of the earth and breathes into his nostrils the breath of life now clearly this isn't intended to mean that God literally bent down and performed CPR on Adam through his nose rather this is using literary and metaphorical devices for describing his creation of humanity and in fact the whole narrative in Genesis 1 is an incredibly carefully crafted piece of Hebrew literature it really is unique there is nothing like this in Hebrew literature elsewhere scholars are generally agreed it is not poetry it's not a Hebrew poem nor is it

a hymn exactly though it seems to have strophe or or verses but it's not just straightforward prose either this chapter is a highly stylized piece of writing that is constructed with certain parallels running all through it for example and God said and God made and it was so you find this structure repeated over and over again through the chapter it is a very carefully stylistically constructed passage that exhibits an enormous amount of literary polish even the number of the Hebrew letters in the chapter is carefully chosen the very number of the characters is significant in

Genesis 1 so this isn't just a scientific report or a police report or a historical narrative of what happened to think that is to have a very naive view of the kind of literature the Genesis one is so most evangelical exegetes today that is to say most evangelical scripture scholars we'll say that these narratives are meant to be taken in some sort of figurative historical sense the underlying historical events actually happened but nevertheless the narrative is told in poetic imagery and figurative speech that shouldn't be pressed for literal precision so if Genesis one two three

is a kind of historical figurative genre of writing that is to say it's covering historical events but it's using poetic or figurative language to describe them then it would be making unwarranted demands upon this text to interpret it literally in particular I think it would be unwarranted to press the Hebrew word yom or day to mean a literal 24-hour period of time the fact is that yom exhibits the same sort of latitude that the english word day does it can be used to describe a 24-hour period of time but it can use more broadly as

well as when we say in Lincoln's day there were no automobiles yet and obviously there you're not referring to a 24-hour period yom in hebrew exhibits exactly that same sort of latitude also the very phrase that is used in Genesis 1 for the first day Yom Akkad or day 1 is also used elsewhere in Scripture in a non literal sense for example this phrase is used in Zechariah chapter 14 and verse 7 to refer to the day of the Lord Zechariah after 14 and verse 7 refers to the day of the Lord that is to

say God's judgment upon Israel which is clearly not meant to be just a 24-hour period of time so the language in Genesis 1 shouldn't be pressed to indicate literal 24-hour days now on behalf of those who do interpret it literally I think one of the best proof texts for interpreting yom as literal in Genesis 1 actually isn't in the book of Genesis it's in the book of Exodus if you look at Exodus chapter 20 verses 9 to 11 the author is reflecting back on the Genesis narrative he's looking back on this seven-day creation week and

reflecting on it and in Genesis chapter a rather Exodus chapter 20 verses 9 to 11 he says this 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 in it you shall not do any work you or your son or your daughter your male or female servant or your cattle or your Sojourner who stays with you for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth the sea and all that in them is and

rested on the seventh day therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy end quote so here the passage says that in six days board made the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is in them and so defenders of the literal interpretation will say that this shows the Genesis one is intended to refer to a literal week of six consecutive 24-hour days but I think that this interpretation may be pressing the passage in Exodus Exodus a little too hard what the exodus passage is talking about clearly is the pattern that

is set down in Genesis namely the pattern of God's laboring for six days creating the world and then resting on the seventh day and that pattern is the same that Israel should observe in its literal workweek Israel should work for six literal days and then rest on the seventh day but that doesn't mean to say that because the pattern is the same that therefore the the periods of time or the days described in Genesis 1 are there for exactly the same length as our ordinary calendar days look at how the Sabbath commandment is repeated in

Exodus chapter 31 verses 12 to 17 exodus 31 12 to 17 and compare that to the passage we just read Exodus 31 12 to 17 it says the Lord spoke to Moses saying but as for you speak to the sons of Israel saying you shall surely observe my Sabbath's for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations that you may know that I am the lord who sanctifies you therefore you are to observe the Sabbath for it is holy to you every one who profanes it shall surely be put to death for

whoever does any work on it that person shall be cut off from among his people for six days work may be done but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest holy to the Lord whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall surely be put to death so the sons of Israel shall observe the Sabbath to celebrate the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual it is a sign between me and the sons of Israel forever for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth but on the seventh day he

ceased from labor and was refreshed now notice it in this passage it refers to the seventh day as the day of God's Sabbath rest it says on the seventh day God ceased from labor and was refreshed by this day but when you read Genesis chapter one the seventh day is clearly not a 24-hour period of time it unlike the other days does not come to an end with evening and morning God is still in the day of his Sabbath rest God is still in the period of no longer being active in creating new things so

if the seventh day though it's referred to as a day and is the model for Israel's literal Sabbath day isn't to be taken literally as we know then why should the other days also be taken literally as 24-hour periods of time it seems to me that it's more plausible to think that what is being emphasized here is the pattern of six days of labor followed by one day of rest and there isn't any sort of intention to say that the length of God stays is exactly the same length as our 24-hour calendar days we know

that's not true on the seventh day in particular now sometimes those who defend the literal interpretation of six consecutive 24-hour days will point out that when the ordinal number is used with the word Yom as in second day third day fourth day then it always refers to a literal for our day when you use an ordinal number second third fourth fifth with Yom then it's always referring to a literal 24-hour day I forgot to make one other point if I could and that is that uh well no I'll skip that for now so they will

say that the the use of the ordinal number with Yom indicates that it's a 24-hour period of time however I don't find this to be a convincing argument at all first of all there's no grammatical rule in Hebrew that says that Yom followed by an ordinal number has to refer to a 24-hour period of time even if it were the case that nowhere else in Hebrew literature that we have extant do we do we find Yom followed by an ordinal number not referring to a 24-hour day that could just be an accident of the Hebrew

literature that happens to have survived there's no grammatical rule that would require yom followed by an ordinal number to refer to a 24-hour period of time so this fact if it were true could just be a reflection of the relatively rare sources for ancient Hebrew literature that we have today and doesn't really make a valid grammatical point it's just an accident of history and what literature we have today but secondly in any case the claim is simply false it is false we do have passages where Yom is used with an ordinal number to refer to

a non-literal day and one such passage would be Hosea 6-2 in Hosea 6-2 it says he will revive us after two days he will raise us up on the third day that we may live before him end quote and here the days are not meant to twenty-four hour periods of time it's talking about God's judgment upon Israel he's rent Israel he is judged Israel but on the third day he will raise us up the third day is symbolic of the day of God's deliverance and healing and restoration of Israel after its having been wounded and

rent by the Lord's judgment so it simply faults that yom used with an ordinal number always refers to a 24-hour period of time in Hosea 6 - it's clearly not referring to a literal 24-hour period of time but thirdly Third Point is I think the claim here on the part of the literal interpretation is really missing the point entirely the point is that a 24-hour day can be used as a literary metaphor for a longer period of time or something else even if Yom means a 24-hour day that doesn't even begin to address the question

of whether a 24-hour day might not be used metaphorically let me give you an analogy to make this clear take the English word arm the English word arm has multiple meanings one meaning would be a limb or an appendage are connected to your shoulder and terminating in your hand that would be your arm but an arm can also be used to indicate a weapon as when somebody is carrying a concealed arm or somebody's described as an armed man in that case we don't mean that he's got arms or that he's carrying an arm under his

suit jacket we mean he's carrying a weapon with him and these are both English meanings of the word armed now very often the scripture will use the word arm in a metaphorical way it will say something like this the arm of the Lord with the people of Israel and now clearly it when it is saying the arm of the Lord it means arm in the sense of a limb not a weapon right it means a literal appendage the arm of the Lord was with the nation of Israel so it's using the word to mean a

limb but that doesn't mean that therefore God has literal limbs as the Mormons think rather it's a metaphor when it's applied to God when the scripture speaks of the arm of the Lord it means something like the power of the Lord the arm of the Lord being with the means God was on their side his power was with them and he was fighting for them strengthening them giving them his strength and might so if somebody were to try to prove that the word arm always literally means limb it means limb that wouldn't even address the

question of whether or not a limb might be used as a metaphor for something else as it is in Scripture now similarly in the same way even if in Hebrew literature yom always has the meaning 24-hour day that doesn't even begin to address the question of whether or not an author might use 24-hour days as metaphors or symbols for something other than a calendar day so I don't think that these arguments in favor of the literal interpretation are compelling now what I've been talking about so far is the support that might be given for the

literal interpretation and some assessment of that before turning to a critique of this view let me ask if there are any questions about what I've said so far okay let's go over here to Brad I guess I'm wondering first of all I believed that God was the author of Genesis 1 it says that using the toll it off you're familiar with the Tola death theory of the authorship of Genesis that it wasn't Moses it was you know the days of that Adam was the author and and in Genesis 2:4 I think it is it is

the Tola death for the first chapter but here's what I wonder I how would it be written what in what way what words would they use and what phrases would they use to convince you that they were trying to tell you that it was a 25-day that's a very good question I haven't given any arguments yet for why I think that this passage may well be non literal all I've argued so far is that the evidence in favor of the literal interpretation isn't compelling but one could say still I'll take it at face value I'll

take it that way unless I'm given some reason to think otherwise and I haven't done that yet so all I'm saying here is that when you look at the support that's given for the literal interpretation it's not incumbent upon us in light of that evidence but it could be read that way that's true what whether or not we do read it that way will be dependent upon how you react to what follows next time when I look at a critique of this view and to answer your question more directly back Brad I suppose what it

would take would be if these elements that I'm going to talk about that look like earmarks or indications of non literality if those were absent from the narrative then I think the arguments for literality would be more convincing so we'll have to wait until I give the evidence on the other side yes Ted this is a question I had from last Sunday that you did not able to answer yet so I've got one if you don't mind back into just a minute in Genesis so 3 he says let there be light and in 14 he

says there - realizing the expense a great Latin smaller this first light that they're talking about what light is that that's not the Sun is not the moon that was my question from last week and I got one of that that that's part of the difficulty with the literal interpretation Ted is you seem to have 20 days are literal first one day second day third day these if these are literal 24-hour days how can they be that if there is no Sun if the Sun isn't created to the fourth day and that's why I said

even those who espouse a little literal interpretation typically back away at this point and say well the Sun wasn't literally created on the fourth day that light that you're talking about in in verse three that was really the Sun but it was eclipsed by the heavy cloud canopy and it was only on the fourth day that it became visible and and so this would be one of those indications I think bread that we're dealing here with something that shouldn't be pressed for literal precision or we get into this very difficult question that you've just had

that question arises precisely as a result of interpreting it literally I wanted to know what it could have been the what they call the Shekinah glory of God the light of the world Jesus Christ in his life you could imagine that certainly the the scripture talks about God being glorious and I think the author of Genesis wouldn't be unsympathetic to that but then doesn't that then evacuate all of the arguments the literal interpretation is giving us for thinking that Yom Akkad and first day or second day third day have to be literal 24-hour days the

Shekinah glory isn't going to give you 24-hour days I so unfortunately I am one of those guys that believes in 24 did it go okay I imagine how long it takes to make something out of nothing I mean he's God so how long does it take him to do some well that wouldn't take any time that's right okay there we go I mean so if it takes no time he said let it be poop there it is right Criollo lady says oh and he says the aging thing you know who create karate oh X and

elo doesn't take time but this narrative is one in which the creation of life and biological diversity is spread out over time not created just instantly boom all in one instant all right so what we've looked at now so far is the literal interpretation we've asked what evidence is there in favor of the little interpretation the best evidence I think would be the passage from Exodus but I don't think that's compelling so I don't think the case has been made very strongly for a literal interpretation next time we meet I'm going to share something on

the other side which has already been hinted at in some respects as to why we might think that the author doesn't intend us to take this as six consecutive literal 24-hour days