In understanding the Bible rightly, it is paramount that we understand the first three chapters of Genesis as God’s literal story of creation. Many, even within the church, have claimed that the first three chapters of Genesis are poetic or even mythical. In response to that, the late James Montgomery Boice replies:
The starting point for answering whether Genesis is fact or fiction-though it does not settle everything-is that Genesis is a part of Holy Scripture and has therefore been given to us by God and speaks with his authority. We think here of 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” When Paul wrote those words he had Genesis in mind as much as any other portion of Scripture. So if we accept his teaching, as all Christians should and must, this will have bearing on how we view Genesis.[1]
Others, especially at the turn of the last century, tried to modify the Creation account in light of the false, changing theories of evolution. We must not make the same mistake! Douglas Kelly, in his outstanding volume on the Creation, Creation and Change, states the point very bluntly.
Simply stated, the writer of Genesis meant to say what the historic Christian Church (until the mid-nineteenth century) believed he said. That is, he intended to speak factually of what happened at the beginning, with no less historical reality than the Chronicler speaks of Hezekiah or Luke speaks of the Virgin Birth of Christ.[2]
If we cannot believe the first three chapters of Genesis, then how are we supposed to believe the rest of the Bible? If we cannot take Moses’ account of God’s Creation literally, then how can we take the rest of the Bible literally? As Henry Morris points out so aptly, if the other writers of Scripture took the first few chapters of Genesis literally, then we must take it literally as well:
The New Testament is, if anything, even more dependent on Genesis than the Old. There are at least 165 passages in Genesis that are either directly quoted or clearly referred to in the New Testament. Many of them are alluded to more than once, so that there are at least two hundred quotations or allusions to Genesis in the New Testament.
It is significant that the portion of Genesis which has been the object of the greatest attacks of skepticism and unbelief, the first eleven chapters, is the portion which had the greatest influence on the New Testament. Yet there exist over one hundred quotations or direct references to Genesis 1-11 in the New Testament. Furthermore, every one of these eleven chapters is alluded to somewhere in the New Testament, and every one of the New Testament authors refers somewhere in his writings to Genesis 1-11. On at least six different occasions, Jesus Christ Himself quoted from or referred to something or someone in one of these chapters, including specific reference to each of the first seven chapters.[3]
There is also much debate among evangelicals about the interpretation of the word ‘day’ in the first two chapters of Genesis. Many have tried to interpret the Hebrew word, yom (Hebrew for day), to mean something other than a twenty-four hour period of time in order to try to bring Scripture into compliance with scientific theory. This is a dangerous exegesis because ultimately, it is holding a theory developed by man as more reliable than Holy Scripture. There is abounding evidence that the days of Creation are twenty-four hour periods of time. The first, and most obvious, is that when each of the first six days of Creation is completed in the first chapter of Genesis, the author says, “And there was evening and there was morning.” To understand this expression of something other than twenty-four hours is stretching the text. Probably one of the most compelling arguments for a literal twenty-four hour day is found in Exodus 20:11 when God said to Moses, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and 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.” When God created the universe, He did it in such a way to model for us how to live our lives. He modeled how to Sabbath for us as an example! Clearly to understand the word ‘day’ in this verse as something other than twenty-four hours is to distort the meaning of the text.
When God created the universe, He created it with the appearance of age. Adam and Eve were not children when they were created; they were mature adults. Likewise, when the stars were created on Day Four, they were created so that their light was already reaching our planet. Everything was originally created like this. Genesis 1:22 points to this fact, “And God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” For birds and fish to be able to multiply, they must be mature adults that are able to reproduce.
Some evangelicals argue that the days in Genesis could have been longer than twenty-four hours based on 2 Peter 3:8, “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” They argue that this verse allows that the days in Genesis could be interpreted as longer periods of time. Of course it is true that God is outside of time, and time is something He created and is not confined by. A thousand years to Him is like a day and vice-versa, but to read 2 Peter 3:8 into the first two chapters of Genesis is unallowable because there is too much Scriptural evidence (as seen earlier) that points to the days of Creation as being twenty-four hour periods. Another argument is made for the first three days being extended periods of time because the Sun and stars were not created until Day Four. This theory can be negated based on the fact that the completion of the first six days of Creation is described the same way. Only on Day Seven, does the writer not say, “And there was evening and there was morning.” Some have tried to find a loophole in this omission by claiming that Day Seven is an indefinite period of time, and since that is the case, the other days of Creation can also be seen as indefinite periods of time. This, like the other theories, seems like an extremely difficult stretch that is based on a very small thread of Scripture. The last theory that I will mention is the ‘Framework’ theory. The theory has gained ground recently in some Reformed circles. Its basic hypothesis is that the days of Creation should be seen as figurative and not literal. The days are simply figurative boundaries separating God’s order in creating. This hermeneutic is dangerous because it immediately starts to interpret the Bible figuratively from the very start. This sets up a disastrous hermeneutic for the reading and understanding of the rest of Scripture. It is a shame that evangelicals have adopted the ‘Framework’ theory because it is a serious compromise of Scripture.
The last distortion that I will mention, that is made by more liberal theologians, in the first two chapters of Genesis is much more severe. The theory is that chapter one and chapter two are completely different Creation accounts. They base this on the literary shift that takes place in Genesis 2:4, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day and the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” This exegesis wreaks havoc on the Creation account and really is an attack on Biblical inerrancy. Chapter two is simply the commentary and details of the Creation account that describe what happened in chapter one. It is given to focus our attention our God’s magnificent plan of redemption that is unveiled in Genesis 3:15!
Ultimately, anything less than a literal understanding of the first few chapters of Genesis account will derail our understanding of the important truths that God wants us to glean from its pages. As the church today, we must not compromise our understanding of God’s Word to fit new, “scientific” claims. On the contrary, the Bible should be our guide to interpreting everything around us, including scientific theory.
2 comments:
I agree.
The pattern I see is this in a denomination/church/Christian: Compromise on Genesis 1-11, then a slipping of belief in an eternal hell, the the authority (or sufficiency) of scripture, then most other unbelief.
It appears a minor thing to hold different views of the length of a 'day' in Genesis. But behind that view is holding a higher authority of truth than the Bible, and it's so dangerous.
Grant - loved it. Gregg Matte is preaching Genesis along these exact lines. Is this part of your term paper?
Post a Comment