Kenneth Turner provides insightful advice gift-wrapped in wisdom for those who may easily lose sight of the broader landscape of non-negotiables of the creation account. Turner presents seven ways to maintain balance between emphasis and priority, or, more informally, keeping the main thing the main thing. Numerous initiatives assist the student in avoiding the pitfalls of emphasizing secondary issues above the primary issues regarding the biblical creation account.

First, biblical inerrancy is non-negotiable. Some contend that inerrancy is the doctrine by which evangelicalism stands or falls.^[1] Since evangelical scholars cannot agree on whether Genesis 1-2 is literal or literary, at least evangelical scholars can agree on the basic tenet of inerrancy. Unfortunately, that is also not true. Even evangelical views of inerrancy are hotly debated.^[2] Accordingly, before throwing out the heretic label, it is necessary to deeply understand the nuances of the perspective, regardless of whether the discussion centers on inerrancy, creation, or other topics of biblical theology. For the purpose of this brief analysis, the assumption is that inerrancy is the “doctrine that the Bible is fully truthful in all of its teachings.”^[3]

Reading Genesis 1-2_ An Evangelical Conversation

Without question, the doctrine of inerrancy must be a primary focus when engaging the text of Genesis 1-2.

Second, Yahweh as creator is non-negotiable. Turner explains that Genesis 1 is about glorifying God, challenging pagan views of the ancient Near East, and celebrating the creation of humanity.^[4] Regardless whether Genesis 1 is literary or literalistic, functional or material, or compared and contrasted to the ancient Near East, one thing is certain: Yahweh created it all. Accordingly, worship must follow. Although asserting that Genesis 1-2 is solely a polemic against the ancient Near Eastern worldview takes the argument too far, it would be difficult to believe that the author did not intend to tell the story in a way that an ancient Israelite would understand. Accordingly, comparing and contrasting the biblical account of creation with the ancient cognitive environment provides an opportunity to read the account in its ancient context, which may enhance understanding.

Third, Genesis 1-2 is not a scientific essay, which is another non-negotiable. Granted, engaging the scientific community, and exploring those potential relationships is not off limits. However, reading science back into the creation account is not only anachronistic, but completely misses the purpose of the first two chapters of Scripture. Accordingly, Turner suggests that more involvement of Old Testament scholars is necessary to seek authorial intent as well as the literary, historical, and theological context of the text.^[5] Furthermore, Bruce Waltke contends that, rather than a scientific exposition, the purpose of the creation account is to ground the “covenant people’s worship and life in the Creator.”^[6]

Fourth, humility is non-negotiable. The magisterial account of creation alongside the stunning display of the universe must cause even the most ardent scientist to pause. To suggest that humanity even has a glimpse into what it really takes to create, whether ex nihilo or functionally, vastly overstates the capacity of humanity. Accordingly, Turner correctly explains that interpretive differences may arise, and it is uncharitable “to insist that anyone else who disagrees with one’s own position is dubious or duplicitous in motive.”^[7] A patient and humble attitude is non-negotiable when interpreting Genesis 1-2.

In light of the soliloquy chronicled in the previous paragraph, great care must be taken in either affirming or refuting the traditional view. Several concepts identified by Jud Davis would support a continued affirmation of the traditional view of Genesis 1-2. However, the handling of the biblical creation account by the New Testament authors may be the most important. Two examples will suffice. First, in Mark 10:6, Jesus states, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’” ^[8] Without digging too deeply into the details in this brief essay, it is sufficient to simply point out that there is no reason to believe that Jesus’s statement was referring to a literary device or something other than two real individuals. Second, Paul’s language in Romans, which asserts that death spread to all man through one man, certainly appears to suggest a real, rather than a literary or figurative man. Tom Schreiner concurs by stating, “There is little doubt that Paul believed he [Adam] was historical.”^[9]

Although refuting the traditional view certainly has its risks, with the non-negotiables firmly in place, attempts to resolve the seven obstacles identified by Davis may be at least partially possible without undermining the tenets of evangelicalism. First, although it does appear that Mark 10:6 and other New Testament passages affirm the Genesis account with very similar language, the agreement does not necessarily preclude a non-literal reading. For example, if the first two books of Genesis were literary, one would not expect the New Testament writers to utilize language different than Genesis to move its meaning to a more literal reading. Instead one would expect the New Testament writers to authentically represent the Genesis account as it stands.

Second, some scholars use the argument that no evidence exists in the ancient, medieval, or modern commentaries to support a non-literal view of Genesis. It is ironic that the Reformers were so adamantly opposed to tradition, yet evangelicals find their own traditions to hold onto tightly. Granted, the traditional approach does not rise to the authority of a papal bull, but the analogy is relevant. Furthermore, in areas of texts that are not scientific, but may be interpreted scientifically, the church tradition has a less than stellar track record. At this juncture, simply pointing to, without rehashing, Galileo’s proofs of Copernicus’s heliocentric model of the universe is sufficient.

Third, regarding the need for the importance of numbers and timelines, it would seem that if the creation account were deeply concerned about getting the chronology exactly correct, the Bible could have clearly documented the arithmetic. Fourth, regarding the need for clarification on inerrancy, according to Article 12 of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, it appears that inerrancy covers science in Scripture, but if Genesis 1-2 is not a scientific essay, then attempting to provide a inerrant scientific explanation appears tenuous. Fifth, scholars continue spending hours attempting to clarify the definition of the phrase יוֹם אֶחָד, but it is likely to literally mean one twenty-four-hour day. However, the literal meaning of the word will simply not mean the same as a contextually based literary meaning, regardless how many times the ancient texts use the phrase literally. Finally, it is certainly true that more discussions with Christians within the discipline of science is valuable. However, if Genesis 1-2 is not a scientific essay, using science to prove the reality of inerrant Scripture that is already true seems unnecessary.

In sum, it appears that focusing on the non-negotiables is key when interpreting Genesis 1-2 with well-meaning, intelligent laymen and scholars. The Bible is inerrant, Yahweh is the creator of everything, Genesis 1-2 is not a scientific essay, and humility is an absolute must. With these non-negotiables in hand, I can honestly assert that I do not have the answers to how to interpret Genesis 1-2, but I stand in awe of the Creator of the universe who somehow in all His majesty deeply loves His creation.

____________________________________

[1] R. Albert Mohler et al., Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. J. Merrick, Stephen M. Garrett, and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2013), 9.

[2] Ibid., 11–12. See the contentious discussion regarding the calling for Robert Gundry’s resignation from the Evangelical Theological Society in 1983 by Norman Geisler.

[3] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 188.

[4] Richard Averbeck et al., Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation, ed. J. Daryl Charles (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2013), 191–192.

[5] Ibid., 200–201.

[6] Bruce K. Waltke, “The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One,” Crux 27, no. 4 (December 1991): 9.

[7] Averbeck et al., Reading Genesis 1-2, 194.

[8] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).

[9] Thomas R. Schreiner, Robert Yarbrough, and Joshua Jipp, Romans, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 277.

Bibliography

• Averbeck, Richard, Todd S. Beall, C. John Collins, Jud Davis, and Victor P. Hamilton. Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation. Edited by J. Daryl Charles. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2013.
• Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
• Mohler, R. Albert, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Michael F. Bird, Peter Enns, and John R. Franke. Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. Edited by J. Merrick, Stephen M. Garrett, and Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2013.
• Schreiner, Thomas R., Robert Yarbrough, and Joshua Jipp. Romans. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018.
• Waltke, Bruce K. “The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One.” Crux 27, no. 4 (December 1991): 2–10.