Problems in Interpreting Genesis: Part 1

Introduction

Interpreting the early chapters of Genesis is not a new challenge for Christians. Throughout history, whenever the church has been influenced by human philosophical systems, conflicts have arisen between the biblical view of origins and prevailing philosophical ideas. In modern times, the challenge comes primarily from the theory of biological evolution. Many Christians attempt to reconcile the theory of evolution with the biblical account of creation by seeking principles within Scripture that allow for an interpretation compatible with evolution. However, this approach raises deeper problems regarding the authority and interpretation of Scripture.

Interpreting Scripture from Outside

When attempting to interpret Genesis, we must be mindful of our historical context. We are not alone in facing the challenge of reconciling the teachings of Genesis with prevailing ideas. Augustine, for example, had to defend his beliefs against the influence of Plato, while later Christians found themselves in conflict with the teachings of Aristotle. It is essential to recognize that our problem with Genesis is primarily generated by the challenge posed by biological evolution and related theories.

To address this challenge, some evangelicals have sought principles within Scripture itself that would allow for an interpretation of Genesis consistent with evolution. By doing so, they aim to avoid subjecting Scripture to evolutionary theory. However, it is crucial to consider whether such principles can truly be found within Scripture or if they are imposed from outside sources. We must ensure that our interpretation of Scripture is not determined by external theories but remains faithful to its unique and authoritative nature.

Religion and Science

One approach to reconciling the teachings of Genesis with scientific theories is to argue that religious and scientific explanations exist on separate levels and are therefore complementary rather than conflicting. However, this argument does not solve the fundamental problem; it merely shifts it. Before interpreting Genesis in terms of a religious/scientific distinction, we must establish whether such a distinction is warranted by Scripture itself. If we approach Scripture already influenced by external philosophical categories, we have already decided the question of whether it is a book of religious truths or a textbook of geology. It is essential to avoid posing the question in a way that excludes the possibility that Scripture lays down basic principles relevant to geology.

Moreover, appealing to general revelation as a means of reconciling Scripture with science does not solve the problem either. While creation reveals the nature of God, there is no indication in the Bible that it reveals scientific theories or the means by which God created the earth and life upon it. In fact, Scripture teaches that sinful humans distort and suppress the revelation of creation. Therefore, using science to determine the interpretation of Genesis goes against the biblical teaching on general revelation.

"The Thought-forms of the Day"

Another attempt to reconcile Genesis with scientific theories suggests that God expressed Himself using the thought-forms prevalent in ancient cultures. This argument posits that the categories and concepts used in Genesis are not authoritative for our scientifically sophisticated age. However, this assertion must be justified by Scripture itself.

It is important to note that this argument is similar to Bultmann's appeal for demythologizing the resurrection narratives. Evangelicals often accept this argument when applied to the Old Testament but reject it when applied to the New Testament. To apply this argument consistently, we must distinguish between the cosmology implied by the terms used in Genesis and the theological truth conveyed by those terms. However, making such a distinction assumes a Kantian noumena/phenomena distinction and does not necessarily solve the problem.

Furthermore, there is a need for more specific evidence to support the claim that Genesis employed concepts common to its era. While some similarities may exist between Mesopotamian and Biblical accounts, they could be based on a shared historical event rather than direct influence. Additionally, much work in ancient Near Eastern studies excludes God's activity, which undermines the uniqueness of Biblical thought. It is crucial to carefully examine the thought of the ancient Near East to determine if the same concepts are used in the Biblical text.

"Naive Cosmology"

The argument that Genesis uses a naive cosmology, not bothering to correct prevalent ideas, is often used to dismiss scientific inconsistencies within the text. However, even if we assume this argument is valid, it only applies to cosmology and does not negate other elements of the account, such as the creation of animals and humans. Moreover, the assumption that there was a pure "three-story universe" idea in antiquity is questionable. Ancient cosmology was inherently theological, with the heavens expressing and being controlled by various divinities. Projecting a late idea back into biblical times to explain the text is misguided.

Additionally, there is nothing inherently wrong with a "naive cosmology." In fact, it may be closer to the ultimate truth than modern cosmology. By accepting modern scientific dogma as unquestionable, we risk adopting a structure of thought that clashes with a biblical worldview. We must consider whether our interpretation of the Bible should be determined by the Bible itself or by external authorities. All too often, scientific authority has been set up as autonomous and has influenced our interpretation of Scripture.

Why This Matters

The interpretation of Genesis has significant implications for our understanding of Scripture and its authority. If we allow external theories to shape our interpretation, we risk compromising the unique and total authority of Scripture. It is essential to approach the interpretation of Genesis with care and fidelity to biblical teaching.

Think About It

• How can we reconcile scientific theories with the biblical account of creation without compromising the authority of Scripture?
• What are some potential dangers of allowing external authorities or theories to shape our interpretation of the Bible?
• How does our understanding of general revelation impact our interpretation of Genesis?
• What does it mean for Scripture to have unique and total authority?