Questions if Genesis is not Literal

From Reconciling understandings of Scripture and Science
Jump to navigationJump to search

Questions

The following is from an email by one of our members. The recipient did not respond, but others may do so here. Please preface your contributions with your username.

Hi Bro ______,

You mentioned tonight in the class that you didn’t consider the early chapters of Genesis were literal. This poses problems that you may or may not realise. This may be the case too with those at the class, so I have copied them into this email.

Please explain to us, perhaps in your next class, answers to the following questions that arise if Genesis is not literal:

1. Did creation as set out in Genesis 1 really occur, when the overwhelming evidence of other passages of the Bible confirm that was the case? (discussion)
2. Did God create Adam from the dust of the ground, in the image and likeness of the elohim (God), or not? (discussion)
3. Was Adam not literal, when in fact the Scriptures teach us he was, as seen from at least 1 Chronicles 1:1 and Luke 3:38, Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Corinthians 15:45? (discussion)
4. For that matter, were Abel and Cain literal in light of Genesis 4:25; Hebrews 11:4; 1 John 3:12, or not? (discussion)
5. Was Shem really the son of Adam, in light of the same genealogies above, or not? (discussion)
6. What law was Adam to keep, and what would be the consequences if he didn’t obey it? (discussion)
7. Was the serpent that conversed with Eve literal, as confirmed by the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:3, or not? (discussion)
8. Did Adam break this law and did not mortality then become a law of his being, affecting him and all his descendants (Romans 5:12), or not? (discussion)
9. Did Eve, who was created from Adam, become the mother of all living as per Genesis 3:20, or not? (discussion)
10. Show from the Bible when, in your view, Genesis becomes literal, rather than non-literal. (discussion)
11. How is it that Jesus said, “ But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; “ (Mark 10:6-7) if it was not literal? Likewise, in appealing to the Scriptures, “ Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,” Matthew 19:4. Is Jesus to be believed? (discussion)
Christadelphians have long held the Biblically-supported literality of the early chapters of Genesis, as can be seen from their copious writings over decades. Moving from that position brings the whole plan of redemption into doubt, of which Jesus is central for man’s salvation, for he as Son of God overcame in himself the problem of sin and death. This is important. We need only look at our Statement of Faith to see how we believe the literality of Genesis forms a foundation of what the Bible teaches, and which we often use as a basis for our baptismal candidates, and which we have personally agreed to for our own baptisms. We should all get it out and read it again to see this is the case. (discussion)

Sincerely your brother in Christ,


Answers and Discussion

1. Did creation as set out in Genesis 1 really occur, when the overwhelming evidence of other passages of the Bible confirm that was the case?

Answer from BP —

Yes, creation did really occur and is continuing, as proclaimed (not “set out”) in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and taught elsewhere in Scripture.
Many passages of Scripture, correctly understood in context, combine to show how divine creation has been believed consistently by God's people as our understanding of the physical world has changed.
Firstly, as Psalm 19 says,
The heavens declare the glory of God;

and the firmament sheweth his handywork . . . 
 In them [the heavens] hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
 and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
 [The sun's] going forth is from the end of the heaven,
 and his circuit unto the ends of it:

and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
This confirms a literal reading of Genesis. The “firmament” is what it says: firm, solid. Sometimes it was believed to be a flat plate; sometimes a dome. In either case it holds back waters above it.
The sun is below it, making its daily circuit across the face of it, above the earth beneath.1
[1]The nonsensical claim that Hebrew רקיע meant “expanse”, making Genesis conform to the scientific discoveries of Copernicus's day, while making the Septuagint (LXX) and Vulgate translations incorrect, was first made by John Calvin. It is justified at length by brethren Mark Alfree and Matthew Davies in their work The Deception of Theistic Evolution. For a more informed view, see R. Nathan Slivkin, The Sun's Path at Night – The Revolution in Rabbinic Perspectives on the Ptolemaic Revolution and here.


The heaven has literal “ends” and the sun starts its daily circuit at one of them and ends it at the other.

We have believed this cosmology, more or less, for most of the time since Genesis was written, until approximately 1000AD, and naturally we understood those aspects of Genesis literally.

This does not mean, however, that we have ever understood all aspects of the Genesis creation texts in a literal way, or that we should apply them nowadays to the physical world as we did in ancient times. Nevertheless as a spiritual exercise it is valuable for modern truth-seekers to imagine that they accept that ancient frame of reference.

Basil of Caesarea (330-379) understood the words רקיע and στερέωμα to refer to something solid, (and doubtless would have approved of Jerome's neologism “firmament” which correctly calqued their meaning into Latin) but he is a solitary exception with respect to the ancient understanding of Biblical cosmology: he believed that the firmament was rushing air, blowing so hard that it held up the waters above — thus for him the “firm” words were not to be read literally! The mistranslation “expanse” is from John Calvin (1509-1564) and is not attested earlier.

Other Scriptures that need to be considered include Job 26, from which we learn that the heaven has pillars (v.11) and that during the creation God struck down Rahab and pierced Leviathan:
By his power he stilled the Sea;

by his understanding he struck down Rahab.
 By his wind the heavens were made fair;

his hand pierced the fleeing serpent. (NRSV)
Others give more detail about the unmoving earth, and the windows of heaven:
Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: (Psalm 102:25 KJV)

[God] laid the foundations of the earth,
 that it should not be removed for ever. (Psalm 104:5 KJV)

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
(Ecclesiastes 1:5 KJV)

the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake. (Isaiah 24:18 KJV)

My hand laid the foundation of the earth,
 and my right hand spread out the heavens (Isaiah 48:13 KJV)

For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s,

and on them he has set the world. (1 Samuel 2:8, KJV)
See also Psalm 74:12-17, in which God is praised for establishing the day, night, sun, seasons, rivers etc as well as battling the forces of chaos and smashing the heads of Leviathan.
This Scriptural view of creation is not a scientific description, or a historical account, or a “record”, as propagandists of hyper-literalism like to say.2 It accords with ancient aspects of knowledge of the world, some of which have been overturned by more recent discoveries, but all of which can be understood as belonging to a coherent worldview within which a community could live a holy life. The apparent realities of the world around us do not dictate how we should walk with God in the way of the Lord Jesus Christ; the same was true in ancient times. We must learn to read ancient texts through ancient eyes, both theirs and ours enlightened by faith.
[2] The Bible does have historical records, called chronicles. They are quite different.
See Use of the word "Record".


In short, God did make the world. The Bible begins with a fitting celebration of it, which is complemented by other Scripture.

2. Did God create Adam from the dust of the ground, in the image and likeness of the elohim (God), or not?

Answer from BP —

Two independent clarifications are needed here.
1. “Elohim” in Genesis 1:27 is correctly translated “God”, not “the elohim”;
2. The question conflates the two Genesis accounts of creation. The individual אדם (adam, man) created in 2:7 was “formed from the dust of the ground”. He was taken to Eden and at first called simply the man, but by chapter 5 the proper noun Adam is used. In 1:26-27, however, the same word adam is correctly translated humankind, or man in the sense of humanity or humankind, as in KJV – it refers to the people, male and female, who replenished the earth (v.28, “And it was so”, v.30), not to Adam, the individual adam of 2:7.
It is true that humankind is created from the dust of the ground by God's hands, as confirmed by overwhelming evidence of other passages of the Bible, for example:
Thine hands have made me and fashioned me

together round about; yet thou dost destroy me.
 Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay;
 and wilt thou bring me into dust again? (Job 10:8-9 KJV)

[The Lord] knoweth our frame;
 he remembereth that we are dust. (Psalm 103:14, KJV)

Thy hands have made me and fashioned me: give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments. (Psalm 119:73, KJV)
 

The first man is [not “was”] of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:47, KJV, q.v.)

3. Was Adam not literal, when in fact the Scriptures teach us he was, as seen from at least 1 Chronicles 1:1 and Luke 3:38, Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Corinthians 15:45?

Answer from BP —

These scriptures do not teach that Adam was “literal” any more than 1 John 3:8-13 teaches that Cain was literally the child of the Devil. There is no doubt that Adam is real – and numbered in billions – and it may well be true that the literal modern adam of Genesis 1:26-27 has a universal ancestor specially created or raised up by God. This would be consistent with the various possible readings of Genesis and the scriptures cited in this question.

4. For that matter, were Abel and Cain literal in light of Genesis 4:25; Hebrews 11:4; 1 John 3:12, or not?

Answer from BP —

See above: Cain was the child of the Devil. There is no end of literal interpretation: for example if Eve was the mother of all living, including the serpent, this makes her Cain's grandmother. The man called Cain who was afraid of being killed by other people in the land of his exile may well have been a historical person. He is not mentioned by name elsewhere in the Bible.

5. Was Shem really the son of Adam, in light of the same genealogies above, or not?

Answer from BP —

Yes, in the same way.

6. What law was Adam to keep, and what would be the consequences if he didn’t obey it?

Answer from BP —

He was told that he could eat freely of every tree of the garden except of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. [a]  The consequence, he was told, was that as soon as he[b] ate of it, he would die.
[a] Note that in biblical Hebrew, "good and bad" can mean either "weal and woe" or "moral good and moral evil." (Jewish Study Bible Notes, ad loc)
[b] In 2:17 “you” is singular, and Eve has not yet been created; the LXX, however, translated this “you” as plural. (Why? See "Thou shalt not eat thereof...")

7. Was the serpent that conversed with Eve literal, as confirmed by the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:3, or not?

Answer from BP —

If this is to be the standard of our Bible reading, that same literal “old serpent” that spoke to Eve became a dragon in Revelation 12:7-9, which deceiveth the whole world, and in John 8:42-45 Jesus confirmed that the Devil was literally true.
In Matthew 13:37-39 the Lord mentions the Son of Man, the children of the Kingdom, the children of the evil one, the devil, and the angels. Mention is not necessarily confirmation of literal existence.
In 2 Corinthians 11:3 Paul did not confirm to the Corinthians that the serpent that conversed with Eve was literal, nor did he teach it to them or even suggest it to them. On the contrary, in the same context he writes of false apostles as “ministers of Satan” without needing to explain that it was not literally true: “For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness. Their end will match their deeds.” (11:13-15, NRSV)

8. Did Adam break this law and did not mortality then become a law of his being, affecting him and all his descendants (Romans 5:12), or not?

Answer from BP —

Adam did break that law, but did not die in accordance with it on the day that he broke it. Eve also understood herself to be subject to it, and broke it. She was cursed but not explicitly punished for breaking the law. Adam's punishment for breaking it was explicit but indirect: the ground was cursed for his sake, and he would have to labour all his natural life. This is according to Genesis.
In Romans 5:12, as I understand it, Paul understands אדם to be “the figure of him that was to come” and is conscious of his archetypal significance as Humankind. It is true that death then became inevitable for all who are in Adam.

9. Did Eve, who was created from Adam, become the mother of all living as per Genesis 3:20, or not?

Answer from BP —

No, she did not! Eve was the mother of all living. Genesis 3:20 does not say that Eve became the mother of all living: that would diminish her archetypal status and reduce her to nothing more than an ancestor. This "became" is one of the fundamentalist mistranslations of the NIV. Reputable English translations have “because she was the mother of all living”. It is perfectly possible that she did become the ancestor of all who are in Adam today, though not of all living things, but that is not the primary meaning of Genesis.
See at Genesis 3:20. Also "father of all . . .", "mother of all . . ." and Adam and Eve as archetypal Man and Woman.

10. Show from the Bible when, in your view, Genesis becomes literal, rather than non-literal.

Answer from BP —

In my view, Genesis becomes literal from the moment before the first letter of the first word בראשית, which cannot be spoken without first putting the lips together. There is a literal, practical lesson in that.

11a. How is it that Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;“ (Mark 10:6-7) if it was not literal?

Answer from BP —

In the same way that he called mustard the smallest of all seeds, if it is not literally true. In fact he was not teaching that mustard is the smallest seed in the world, or “endorsing” some nonsense about microscopic mustard.

In the same way that he said to some pharisees “Ye are of your father the devil” in John 8, if it was not literal. He was not “endorsing” their literally true diabolical paternity.
In the same way that John said that Cain was the child of the devil, if it was not literal.
In the same way that Jesus said that he “beheld Satan falling from heaven like lightning” if it was not literal.
In the same way that Jesus cast out demons, if it was not literally true.

and so on. Jesus was well able to quote the Bible, and was not limited to quoting its literal parts.

Response from Colin (talk)

“Have you not read, that He which made them at the beginning (Mk 10/6-8 ‘from the beginning of creation’) made them male & female, and said For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

The Pharisees raised the question concerning the lawfulness of divorce, based on their reading of the Law of Moses, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”

Jesus does not answer them from the Law of Moses per se but directs them to the Scriptures describing what occurred before the law was given to Moses; at the beginning of creation, “have ye not read” and refers them to Gen 1/27, specifically, “male and female created he them.”

The “he which made them at the beginning” refers to what is written around that in Gen 1, viz., “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing upon the earth. So, God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;” then the above words specifically, “male and female created he them.” (vs 26-27). Adam was one by creation before they were two, then when they became one again by marriage-covenant, that oneness by divine appointment was closer and indissoluble.

In pointing the Pharisees to the beginning, he infers that while they had read the writings available to them, they had not properly read them. Therefore, correct reading is important, to avoid dire consequences, as was evident in their misunderstanding of the writings leading to their erroneous question, and consequently the then current Jewish practice. He answered the question, not from Hillel or Shammai, their teachers, but from Moses, and thus defeated their malice. What is the truth of its meaning? Matt 19/4 reveals how Jesus read and understood Genesis 1-2.

One single text: a "harmonised and historical" reading of Genesis 1:1 to 3:24


A harmonized historical reading is not just an alternatively valid reading to that of Evolutionary Creationists, who likewise accept the scriptures as an inspired revelation from God.

A different reading is not evidence that

  • A text’s meaning is uncertain, or that
  • We must avoid certainty in our belief about the scriptural meaning.

It’s a case of a right handling of the word of truth vs a tampering with the word of God.

Arguments are made for Gen 1-2 not being harmonious and non-historical in the Evolutionary creationist reading of them, but Jesus viewed Gen 1&2 as harmonious & historical.

Matt 19/4-5 cites

Gen 1/1 – “in the beginning”;
Gen 1/27 – "made them male & female";
Gen 2/24 – re: marriage, as pronounced by God

From these, we find:

  1. Beginning: God’s revelation of the beginning pre-dates the giving of the Law to Moses.
  2. Both Gen 1/27 & 2/24 occurred at the beginning and therefore during the same timeframe, and therefore share a harmonized chronology.
  3. In Mt 19, Jesus couples Gen 1/27 and 2/24 together by saying, “and said”, meaning God pronounced the words of Gen 2/24. This highlights Adam’s prophetic role with God speaking though him all the words uttered by Adam as His prophet. The move towards marriage was “by the order of God”, and Adam but related that order for all posterity.
  4. Adam could only know the woman was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh from God’s revelation to him, since the woman was made from his side while he was in a deep sleep and was brought to him (2/21-22).
  5. Paul highlights the prophetic nature of Gen 2/23 in Eph 5/28-29, which was a mystery referring to Christ and the ecclesia.
  6. Jesus read Gen 1-2 as coinciding chronologically, and therefore as a single story of God’s creation, not two accounts of creation.
  7. Jesus’ words “for this cause” a man leaves father and mother to marry, is a result of the purpose declared in Gen 1/27 (making them male and female), and what he declares in Gen 2/24 a man will do. The pronouncement in Gen 2/23 causes God’s declaration in v24 by commencing, “Therefore”. So, calling her ‘woman’ when brought to Adam – something arising from the manner of her creation from Adam’s side – is the reason why a man is to leave parents and marry a woman. He made them male and female, one female for one male; so that Adam could not divorce his wife, and take another, for there was no other for him to take.

Historical as well as harmonious

5 reasons from this discourse of Jesus with the Pharisees confirm Jesus’ understanding of early Genesis as historical:

  1. God’s revelation about creation & marriage predated Moses (Deuteronomy) and therefore has precedence, and Jesus rests on this chronological precedence, which in itself is a function of history.
  2. Jesus’ theological conclusion is based on Gen 2/24, “what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder”. Either God said these words “at (or from) the beginning”, and their historical truth is the foundation for Jesus’ conclusion, or his Father didn’t thus speak, and Jesus’ conclusion fails.
  3. Jesus handled Gen 1-2 as integral and the events as historical. So, every event in these chapters actually happened.
  4. Jesus’ specific references to Gen 1/1, 27; 2/24 show he regarded them as true. Evolutionary creationists insist they cannot accept Gen 1/26-27 & 2/22 (Eve’s formation) as historical, and they are therefore in conflict with Jesus’ teaching.
  5. Jesus adds his own testimony that this is what actually happened, quite separate from the texts themselves – Mk 10/5-6. It is Jesus who informs us in Mat 19/4-5 that it was God who said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and shall join himself to his wife and they shall become one flesh.” We do not see that from the text in Gen 2/24. Also, Jesus informs us that God’s reason for a man holding fast to his wife was that he created them male and female in the beginning. Jesus’ witness therefore sits alongside the Genesis record itself.

. . . and a further response from Bruce

I took the question too literally, and answered on the basis that "if Genesis is not literal" was a premise. My answer is correct, I think, for any case of "How is it that Jesus mentioned X if X is not literal."
People (adam in Genesis 1:26) have always been male and female. Bruce (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
. . . and more:
See scriptures listed at Composite References and discussion on their pages to test the reasoning that gets from a composite reference to "harmonised and historical". See also the various perspectives on the actual question of how to read the chapters at Comparing the two accounts of the Creation in Genesis. Bruce (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

11b. Likewise, in appealing to the Scriptures, “ Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,” Matthew 19:4. Is Jesus to be believed?

Answer from BP —

Jesus is certainly to be believed, and the question is insulting. It is not to be imagined, however, that he taught that his followers should read the Bible simplistically through literalist eyes according to the Fundamentalism of the early 20th Century. He understood and participated in respectful, well-informed Second Temple interpretation of God's word, and of Scripture.
Genesis chapter 1 says that "adam" (humankind) was made male and female, emphasising that both sexes were made in the image and likeness of God and both have the responsibility of stewardship of the creation In the context in Matthew's gospel, Jesus is presumably also alluding to the adam (man of earth) of Genesis ch 2 and the unique role of the partner that God sought for him.

Comment

Christadelphians have long held the Biblically-supported literality of the early chapters of Genesis, as can be seen from their copious writings over decades. Moving from that position brings the whole plan of redemption into doubt, of which Jesus is central for man’s salvation, for he as Son of God overcame in himself the problem of sin and death. This is important. We need only look at our Statement of Faith to see how we believe the literality of Genesis forms a foundation of what the Bible teaches, and which we often use as a basis for our baptismal candidates, and which we have personally agreed to for our own baptisms. We should all get it out and read it again to see this is the case.

Response from BP —

This is more comment than question, and calls for comment in reply rather than answer.

The early chapters of Genesis are indeed essential background to the Gospel. To understand them correctly we should follow the Bible's own methods, especially Jesus' own approach to them. He said nothing about “Biblically-supported literality” but he did assume something more than minimal literacy, as we know from his question Did ye never read in the scriptures …? (Matthew 21:42)

With respect to Genesis, the adoption by many Christadelphians of literalist Seventh Day Adventist teachings during the last third of the 20th Century has had a corrosive and debilitating effect.

With respect to the BASF: it does tend to relegate the Lord Jesus to a secondary, problem-solving role, and if used as a creed leaves open a diminished view of the work of the Saviour which has been criticised as “Adam-based atonement”, “Original Sin Lite”, etc. It does not have to be read that way, though, and it is perfectly adequate as a statement of the teachings (“doctrines”) that our community of faith aspires to teach to the wider world.
Retrieved from "https://bibsci.sutherlandchristadelphians.org/index.php?title=Questions_if_Genesis_is_not_Literal&oldid=20946"