Unraveling Interpretation Challenges of Genesis 1-11: Insights for Christian Readers

Problems in Methods of Interpretation—Genesis 1–11: Part 2

Introduction

One of the fundamental beliefs of evangelical Christianity is that "the Bible is its own interpreter." However, when it comes to interpreting the early chapters of Genesis in light of evolutionary biology and uniformitarian geology, some Christians try to justify their approach by claiming that the Bible is teaching religion and not science or that we must interpret Genesis using general revelation (i.e., science). These arguments, however, require interpreting the Bible according to ideas drawn from outside the Bible, which means the Bible is no longer its own interpreter.

The Explicit Teaching of the Bible

Is there any explicit teaching within the Bible itself that suggests its details are not to be pressed in matters of physical creation? There is no such teaching. When the original creation is referenced in the Bible, the creation narrative is treated as fact without reservation. For example, Peter's argument in 2 Peter 3:5–7 relies on specific details from the Genesis narrative. Other passages like Exodus 20:11, Matthew 19:4, Romans 5:12-19, and 1 Timothy 2:13-14 also refer back to Genesis with a similar reliance on specific details.

This should dismiss the frequent statement that we may not press the details of the account. The Bible treats the creation narrative as literal history. Most people may want to interpret scripture based on Kantian philosophy, but this philosophy itself is not sanctioned by Scripture. The Bible does not make a clear distinction between statements concerning physical creation and theological statements. They are interconnected, and one influences and determines the other.

The Literary Character of Genesis 1

When appealing to the literary nature of Genesis 1, it is important not to impose an outside standard. Even if Genesis 1 were poetry, we would still need to inquire about the truth it conveys in terms of the rest of Scripture. The argument that Genesis 1 is poetic does not resolve the problem, as it relies on defining Genesis 1 as poetry using external standards. Furthermore, the criteria used to call Genesis 1 poetic, such as the parallelism of days 1–3 to 4–6, are different from the parallelism found in Hebrew poetry. The structure of Genesis 1 does not negate its literal interpretation.

Structured History

There is a tendency to dismiss structured history by claiming that its presence in a passage means it should not be taken literally. However, this idea lacks logical reasoning. The patriarchal narratives, like the earlier chapters of Genesis, exhibit structured history. If parallelism of structure proves that a passage is not historical, then the patriarchal narratives would also not be considered historical. But this would be inconsistent for evangelicals who accept the historicity of the patriarchal narratives while rejecting structured history in other parts of Scripture.

The structured histories in Genesis 1–11 and the patriarchal narratives have theological significance. For example, Abraham and Isaac's experiences parallel each other because both face the trial of faith in believing God's promise against their physical circumstances. The structure in Genesis 1 also follows a covenant vassal and suzerain pattern, where God creates the environment on days 1–3 and the creatures who will live and rule on days 4–6. This covenant framework also underlies the story of the Fall and structures the entire history into old and new covenants.

Scriptural Interpretations of Genesis

Rather than relying on arguments outside of Scripture, it is important to interpret Scripture by Scripture itself. There are several passages that reflect upon the original creation and treat it as literal history. Exodus 20:8–11 addresses the debated question of whether the "days" in Genesis should be taken literally. The commandment loses its significance if the days are not taken literally. Additionally, this passage emphasizes that the Hebrews were to observe a seven-day week because that is the pattern set by God, not the other way around.

Psalm 104 also deserves consideration in this question. The psalm follows the order of the creation days and integrates the account of Genesis 1 with the creation of springs in Genesis 2:4–6. This challenges the claim of the documentary hypothesis that Genesis 1 and 2 are independent accounts of creation. Several passages that refer to the creation of man and woman and their relationship, such as Matthew 19:4, 1 Corinthians 11:8–9, and 1 Timothy 2:13–14, take the account literally and use it as the basis for teaching on gender relations. These passages show that the rest of Scripture treats the early chapters of Genesis as literal history.

Conclusion

This article has aimed to shift the focus of discussion away from pre-exegetical arguments and towards how the rest of Scripture interprets Genesis. The Bible consistently supports a literal interpretation of Genesis, and attempts to impose external standards or dismiss structured history are methodologically faulty. The real problem lies in Christians losing their historical perspective and succumbing to the pressure to conform with human philosophies. It is important to remember that scholarship is not religiously neutral, and true scholarship should align with the truth revealed in Scripture. By faithfully interpreting Scripture within its own context, we can engage with creationist ideas and confront the philosophical premises of our culture.

Why This Matters: The interpretation of Genesis has implications for our understanding of origins and our worldview. It affects how we view science, history, theology, and our role in God's creation. As Christians, it is crucial to approach Genesis with integrity and faithfulness to Scripture while engaging with scientific discoveries in a way that aligns with biblical truth.

Think About It: How does your understanding of the early chapters of Genesis shape your view of science and history? Are you willing to stand firm in your interpretation of Scripture, even when it conflicts with popular cultural beliefs? How can you engage with scientific discoveries while remaining faithful to biblical truth?