SYNOPSIS OF CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATIONS OF CREATION

Dr. Mark D. McLean

(used by permission)

I. Christian interpretations or theories of creation can be divided into two main groups each with two subdivisions:

 A. Literal and Literary

 B. Young Earth and Old Earth

 The key question is as follows: How does a Christian who understands that "all truth is God's truth" integrate the Scripture that speaks of God’s creation of the universe with the geological and fossil record found in that very creation?

 One must remember that each of these theories is a statement of faith based on the biblical and extra-biblical evidence of the creation. The content of that statement of faith is that "in the beginning God created all things."

II. We shall look at the various theories as they fit into two basic categories as listed above.

 A. Literal/Young Earth: These theories hold to a literal understanding of Genesis 1 as speaking of six, twenty-four hour days in which God created the universe.

 1. Literal Theory: This theory holds that the days of Genesis 1 were six, twenty-four hour days in which the whole of creation was accomplished. Bishop Ussher, c. A.D. 1654, determined the date of Adam's creation to be 4004 B.C. by adding together all of the dates given in the genealogies found in the Old Testament. Bishop Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University pegged the date to 23 October 4004 B.C., 9:00 A.M. 45th Meridian Time.

 a. Strengths of the theory: It accepts Genesis 1 at face value as a literal historical and scientifically sound account of God's specific actions in creation.

 b. Weaknesses of the theory:

 1). It treats Gen 1 as the only or at least as the single "determinative" creation account and simply ignores the other creation accounts.

 2). It uses the genealogies of the Bible in a manner that is unfaithful to the use of the genealogies by the biblical writers. William Henry Green, writing on "Primeval Chronology," in BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 1890:285-303, has made the following observations:

 Ussher's computation of biblical chronology depends entirely upon his use of the genealogies. Is it possible that these pre-Abrahamic genealogies have been CONDENSED, as have later genealogies because their purpose was to show relationship, whether physical or theological, rather than to list every generation? Consider the following use of genealogies in the Bible:

 In Matthew 1:8 THREE NAMES have been omitted between Joram and Ozias (Uzziah), namely Ahaziah (2 Kgs 8:25), Joash (2 Kgs 12:1) and Amaziah (2 Kgs 23:34).

 According to 1 Chr 26:24, David appointed a grandson of Moses as his treasurer if we demand that the genealogy lists every generation, yet there are between 200 to 400 years between Moses and David. According to 1 Chr 26:31, the great grandson of Levi held a prominent office during David's reign if we insist on the genealogies being complete, yet there are around 800 years between Levi and David.

 Six generations are omitted from a list in Ezra 7:1-5 when compared with a list in 1 Chr 6:3-14.

 There is no problem, however, if we accept the testimony of the biblical genealogies as they appear and realize that the Hebrew term "son of" cannot only be used of a direct father and son relationship, but also of even more distant relatives, be they physical or theological relatives. For instance, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that Gentiles who have accepted Jesus as the Messiah have been grafted into the people of Israel and are now "theologically" the children of Abraham.

 If we insist that the genealogies of Genesis are complete and continuous, we are forced to accept the following conclusions:

 Noah was for 58 years a contemporary of Abraham.

 Shem, Noah's son, lived 35 years longer than Abraham did.

 Methuselah, died the same year as the Flood, or as a result of the Flood.

 Green concludes, ". . . the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world."

2. Flood Geology Theory: In the 17th Century, Ussher and Lightfoot did not need to worry about the question of geological strata and fossil remains. However, in the 20th Century, one must deal with these issues. A number of writers, several from the Nazarene Church, have championed this theory. Basically, this theory follows Ussher's dating of creation, and explains the "apparent old age" of the Earth found in the geological and fossil record as a result of the violent mixing of the Flood waters in Noah's day, and the subsequent layering of different materials and remains by weight, mass, etc.

 a. Strengths: Same as for Literal Theory above.

 b. Weaknesses:

1). Same as for Literal Theory above.

2). Same as for Literal Theory above.

3). Despite much ingenuity, these writers simply cannot adequately explain the apparent age of the Earth seen in the geological strata and fossil record by their theories.

3. Pro-Chronic Theory: This theory also accepts Ussher's dating and use of the genealogies. However, it explains the "apparent old age" of the Earth by asserting age was built into creation. Adam had a navel, trees had rings, and rocks had fossils. Two mutually exclusive explanations have been advanced to explain this theory: One, God created this as a test of the faithful; two, the Devil, as prince of this world, formed this false evidence as a trap to destroy the faithful.

 a. Strengths: Same as for Literal Theory.

 b. Weaknesses:

 1). Same as for Literal Theory.

 2). Same as for Literal Theory.

 3). Whether a test by God or a trap by Satan, it is only since the late 19th and early 20th Century that the geological and fossil records were known well enough to become of concern for biblical interpretation. One would have to judge this test or trap as a literal "time bomb."

 4). Most important, there is no way to verify or refute the claims of the Pro-Chronic Theory. I could just as well claim that creation took place at the beginning of your reading this sentence and that anything that appears antecedent to that is merely "built-in apparent age."

 B. Literal/Old Earth:

 1. The Gap Theory is the only Christian interpretation in this category. It follows the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 as six, twenty-four hour days and accepts Ussher's use of the genealogies for dating the creation described in Genesis 1:2ff. However, the Gap Theory claims this is a recreation after an original creation and subsequent judgement in the "gap" between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. Those who hold to the Gap Theory believe the other three "Literal Theories" cannot adequately account for the "age" of the Earth suggested by the geological and fossil record. Using various verses throughout the Bible (Isa. 14; Ezek. 28; Jer. 4; and 2 Pet 3) and key words from Gen 1, the proponents of this theory construct the hypothesis of a Pre-Adamite world ruled by Lucifer and destroyed when he rebelled against God. Thus great age seen in the geological and fossil record is represented as the remains of the uncountable millenniums of the Pre-Adamite world. The current creation, however, is affirmed to have taken place in 4004 B.C.

 1. Strengths:

 a. It accepts Gen 1:2ff as literal.

 b. It seems able to account for the geological and fossil record in a way that can allow a 20th Century Christian to integrate biblical and extra-biblical evidence of creation without glaring contradictions.

 2. Weaknesses:

 a. Same as for Literal Theory.

 b. Same as for Literal Theory.

 c. It does not truly accept Gen 1 as literal, but rather tries to create a "gap" between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 that requires some interpretive approaches to Scripture which are unfaithful to Scripture.

 1). This theory takes powerful poetic and figurative language used to describe the pride and sin of arrogant, but totally human men, the King of Tyre and King of Babylon (Ezek 28 and Isa 14), and reads the language literally and declares that the true subject of these passages is Satan, thus creating or explaining the hypothesis of a Pre-Adamite world.

 2). This theory takes individual words (replenish, create, earth) and using incomplete English definitions without reference to Hebrew as well as other linguistically questionable practices, attempts to further support the Pre-Adamite hypothesis.

 3). Most devastating of all is the fact that the translation of Gen 1:2 as "became," simply violates the clear and consistent use of Hebrew grammar in this regard. There is simply no other example of this syntactical formation meaning "became" in the Bible. To refute this, one will need to provide a biblical citation of this particular syntactical formation being used to mean, "became." One cannot simply take some writer's word for it.

 3. A related Jewish tradition found among a few Rabbis is Serial Creation. This speculation suggests that this is not the first, or second or whatever number of creations by God. But this is the first one worth keeping. (Considering the problem of evil we must address, one could only wonder at what the earlier "defective" creations must have been like.)

C. Literary/Old Earth: The literary interpretations of the biblical creation accounts attempt to integrate the biblical and extra-biblical evidence of creation by showing how God had not intended for Gen 1 to be taken as six, twenty-four hour days, even if many Old and New Testament believers down to our very own day have done so. Rather, these theories would say that the timeless, eternally true revelation of God in creation is that God is the creator of all things. The cultural or linguistic form in which God revealed this truth has been understood in various ways according to the culture of each generation, but the message and the original intention of God and the human author has remained unchanged: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

1. Double Revelation Theory: This is basically a negative term invented by those who disagree with the Literary Theories. It would also include the Gap Theory. This view has been defined as holding that there are two revelations by God, one in Scripture, the other in nature. Whenever the Scriptural revelation seems to be in conflict with the natural revelation, the Scripture must be reinterpreted to agree with the natural revelation. The accusation is made that those who hold to Double Revelation theories are constantly reinterpreting the Bible to fit current scientific theories.

 a. Strengths: Even though the term has been invented and defined by those who disagree with this theory, the basic theory of "double revelation" has the strength of at least beginning to deal with the fact that "all truth is God's truth."

 b. Weaknesses: The greatest weakness of this overall theory and its variations listed below is the tendency to tie biblical interpretation too closely to current "scientific" theories. The problem which Copernicus ran into was that the Medieval Christian Church had bought into the current "scientific theory of the day" which was the "Ptolemaic Universe." The Medieval Church was comfortable with this "scientific theory" and how it fit their interpretation of the Bible. When Copernicus showed the Ptolemaic Universe was an inaccurate theory, the Church took it as an attack against the Bible. Of course, it was not. Now we know Copernicus was right, and never even think that the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun, which is part of a solar system on the periphery of a vast galaxy which is simply one of an uncountable number of galaxies could in any way conflict with God's revelation of creation in Scripture. Therefore, any attempt to tie one's interpretation of creation to any particular "scientific model or theory" tends to lock one's theology into a theory or theories which are soon modified or scrapped altogether as new "scientific" evidence becomes available.

 2. Concordism (Day/Age Theory): This theory argues that the days of Genesis are actually geological periods with no set amount of time determinable. The six "days" or "ages" listed in Genesis summarize the activity of God during these various periods.

 a. Strengths:

 1). This theory holds to the fact of God's creation of the universe and to the basic outline of Genesis 1.

 2). The translation of "day" as "age" is theoretically possible as both meanings are in the semantic range of yom.

 b. Weaknesses:

 1). The translation of yom as "age" rather than "day" does violate the context of the passage and the phrase "and it was evening and it was morning, day #."

 2). There is little or no correspondence between the "geological periods" suggested by this interpretation of Genesis 1 and the geological periods suggested by current scientific models. Again it seems to be an attempt to interpret the Bible in terms of "scientific models" rather than terms of the Bible itself.

3. Theistic Evolution Theories: The contention of theistic evolutionists is that God in His sovereignty chose to use the evolutionary process for the creation of the world and humanity. Two different schools must be distinguished in this category:

 (1). The evolution of humanity is directed by God toward what Pere Teilhard de Chardin, Jesuit Priest and paleontologist, has described as the OMEGA-POINT or UNION WITH GOD; (2). The possibility of evolution is accepted with the understanding that God created all things and that it is He who directs evolution.

 a. Strengths: These theories allow some Christians with scientific training in the biological and geological sciences to integrate their understanding of the geological and fossil record with their belief and faith in Christ. Some even claim that Genesis 1 follows a rough evolutionary scheme.

 b. Weaknesses:

 1). The major weakness of theistic evolution is that it is once again an attempt to make the Bible "relevant" by showing how it is in accord with current scientific models.

 2). The main problem with Teilhard de Chardin's theory is that evolution seems to become the source of ultimate salvation for the SPECIES, leaving little or nothing in terms of salvation for the INDIVIDUALS caught up in the process.

 3). This ties in with a major philosophical problem many Christians have with accepting either theistic evolution theory: The whole geological and fossil record contains evidence of violence, extinction of species, predators, and climatic catastrophe. How does such a scheme involving so much animal and human suffering fit into God's purposes? How do we explain such suffering prior to the Fall? Thus the question centers more on THEODICY, the problem of evil, than on the question of evolution. Many would find evolution simply too cruel a process to be used by God.

4. Religious-only Theory: This theory of creation accounts holds that Gen 1 and the other accounts are the religiously sensitive reflections of the Israelites and the Christians to the world around them and are statements of faith and praise that the God they worship is the God who created all things. The creation accounts are seen as having nothing to do with the historical or scientific facts of the origin of the universe. Anyone holding this view has no problem in accepting the current scientific models of the origins of the universe and humanity.

a. Strengths: This theory takes into account all of the passages on creation not just Gen 1.

 b. Weaknesses: For any one professing to be an Orthodox believer, there is a deadly weakness hidden in this theory. The basic assumptions behind it are those of liberal theology and modern secularism:

 1). There is no observable divine activity in the universe, just natural cause and effect and human relationships.

 2). All religious truth is simply human interpretation of natural cause and effect and human relationships.

 3). Religious truth is equally accessible to every culture and/or religion and is not revealed nor the sole property of any one religion.

 Thus the Religious-only Theory finally equates Jewish and Christian theories of creation with those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc.

5. Pictorial Day Theory: This theory states that creation was revealed in six days rather than accomplished in six days.

 a. Strengths: This theory holds to the belief that God did indeed create all things and does not tie Gen 1 to any specific scientific theory.

 b. Weaknesses: There is nothing in Gen 1 nor in any of the other creation accounts that suggests or justifies such a theory.

6. Historical Fact/Statement of Faith Theory: This theory holds that all of the creation accounts are passages of praise and faith that show that the God of salvation is the God of creation. He who saves us is He who created all things. Therefore, our salvation is secure. It states that these passages are referring to a literal once-for-all historical fact that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but that the accounts tell us only what God did, not the details of "when" or "how" He did it. It further states that an examination of all the creation accounts makes an interpretation of Gen 1 and 2 as simple literal "scientific" accounts impossible.

 a. Strengths:

 1). This theory takes into account all the passages dealing with creation and looks at the biblical revelation of creation as a whole rather than basing its interpretation on Gen 1 alone and then forcing all the other passages to fit that initial interpretation.

 2). It does not try to tie the Bible or the creation account to any particular "scientific" model.

 3). It fully affirms the literal message of God as the Creator in history as revealed by God through literal, literary and figurative language.

 b. Weaknesses:

 1). One problem with this theory is that if it is misunderstood or misused it can be confused with the Religious-only Theory, even though the two views are mutually exclusive.

 2). Another problem is not recognizing what holding such a theory might ultimately mean for one's hermeneutical principles. This weakness applies to all the Literary Theories. If one interprets Gen 1 and 2 and the other creation accounts as primarily literary passages of praise, faith and religious truth pertaining to the literal historical fact of God's creative activity, but not as simple literal and scientific historical accounts of the "facts of the process" of the activity, that brings into question the interpretation of many other passages that traditionally have been taken very literally by orthodox Jews and Christians. It may require that some of these passages in order to be correctly understood may also have to be interpreted as statements of religious truth, something like the parables of Jesus, cast in literary and figurative form rather than as simple literal science or history.

III. A brief synopsis of Genesis 1

 A. The six days of creation have the following common format:

 1. Announcement: And God said . . .

 2. A command: Let there be . . .

 3. A report: And it was so . . .

 4. Evaluation: God saw it was good . . .

 5. Time reference: And there was evening and there was morning, the # day.

The COMMAND tells WHAT God decreed. The REPORT tells us that it was done. But Genesis does not tell us HOW God's command was fulfilled.

*Adapted from Clause Westermann, THE GENESIS ACCOUNTS OF CREATION, (Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1964).

B. Cosmological View of a Fifteenth Century B.C. Believer: Moses looks at the Universe.

Important words from Genesis 1.

1. Gen 1:2 TEHOM: The primeval deep, salt-water ocean. In the Mesopotamian creation account, TIAMAT, is the chasm monster slain by MARDUK, god of Babylon. Her corpse is divided in half to form the firmament and the earth. The Hebrew word TEHOM comes from a root cognate with TIAMAT, but in Genesis there is NO chaos monster, simply a salt water ocean God has created.

 2. Gen 1:2 MERAHEPET: "to flutter or hover, i.e. like an eagle over its young in the nest." The SPIRIT OF GOD fluttered (hovered) over the face of the waters. This should NOT be translated as a "WIND rushing" over the waters.

 3. Gen 1:6 RAQIA: "extended surface, (solid) expanse." This word comes from the root RQ ` and means to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out. Every passage in which RAQIA occurs indicates a solid expanse (Gen 1:6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 20; Ps 19:2; 150:1; Ezek 1:22, 23, 25, 26; 10:1; Dan 12:3). Thus the Hebrews saw the firmament as a solid expanse. This solid firmament supports the waters which were held above it (cf. Ps 29:10). The firmament itself was believed to rest upon the mountains. The idea of a solid firmament is not part of the revelation of God concerning creation. It was simply the common "cosmological or scientific" model of the day that was held from Egypt to Mesopotamia. One may argue that God could have revealed to Moses the facts of the different layers of the atmosphere, the vacuum of the Space beyond, and all the proven scientific knowledge which we now hold as part of our common "cosmological and scientific" model as 20th Century Christians, but even if Moses accepted this revelation on faith, the Israelites would have laughed him out of camp at best, or stoned him as a crazy fool. They would have told Moses he was crazy, just as an uninformed and misled Medieval Christian Church tried to tell Copernicus he was crazy in the 16th Century A.D.