Briefly explain which view of creation you hold and why. Then, reflect on what the article has contributed to your understanding of the debate over Creation.
Historical creationism asserts that God created the universe, which lasted for an indeterminate amount of time, prior to God preparing the land for habitation in six days.[1] Historical creationism appears to be the most appropriate interpretation of the Creation account for three reasons. First, John Sailhamer explains that a proper interpretation of the word reshit, which is the Hebrew word for “beginning,” supports historical creationism.[2] In the Bible, the term reshit “always refers to an extended, yet indeterminate duration of time – not a specific moment…which precedes an extended series of time periods.”[3] In other words, the phrase in Genesis 1:1, “in the beginning,” may represent billions of years of the universe’s existence prior to the six days of activity in Genesis 1:2-31, which aligns with current scientific data.[4] Second, historical creationism supports God’s ex nihilo creation, meaning that God created “without the use of preexisting materials.”[5] Third, historical creationism views Genesis 1 and 2 as a literal explanation of God’s creative work, as opposed to interpreting the Creation account as myth or metaphor.[6] Finally, historical creationism overcomes a number of problems facing other Creation theories, including the lack of biblical support for the gap theory and theistic evolution; the absence of literal interpretation of the literary framework view and day-age view; and lack of scientific support by young-earth creationism.[7]
Mark Driscoll’s article contributes to an understanding of the debate over Creation in three significant ways. First, the introduction to Sailhamer and his work is invaluable as a resource not only for Creation, but also for additional Pentateuch studies. Second, the article prompted an enhanced understanding of historical creationism. Third, Driscoll’s article aids in synthesizing the concepts of Creation, the age of the earth, and evolution.
After reading Genesis 1 – 3, what details in these chapters influence you the most in trying to decide how literally you should read these chapters? Explain why your approach is either more literal or more figurative.
Four specific details in Genesis 1-3 support a literal rather than a figurative reading of the Creation account. First, the Hebrew word for “day” used in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 21, and 31 that refers to each of the six days is yom. Walter Bradley and Roger Olsen explain, “Outside of the Genesis 1 case in question, the two-hundred plus occurrences of yom preceded by ordinals all refer to a normal twenty-four hour day.”[8] Accordingly, the authors assert the days in Genesis refer to six literal twenty-four hour days. Second, beyond the qualification of ordinal numbers, Robert McCabe notes that the language of evening and morning, which further qualifies the word yom in Genesis 1, also consistently refers to literal twenty-four hour days throughout Scripture.[9] Next, two parallel passages may illuminate the meaning of yom in Genesis 1. First, McCabe explains that Exodus 20:8-11, which connects creation with the Sabbath, suggests that God’s literal pattern of creation in twenty-four hour cycles is an example for humanity to follow.[10] Second, Exodus 31:14-17 repeats the Sabbath parallel once again as the author links the Sabbath with a literal context of the creation week.[11] The final support for a literal rather than figurative reading is the sequence of events in Genesis 1. For example, Genesis 1:11-12 states that God created vegetation on the third day, and Genesis 1:24-25 states that God created living creatures on the sixth day. McCabe recognizes that if the days were not literal, but instead a much longer period, then it seems unlikely the vegetation requiring pollination by insects could survive.[12] Accordingly, literal days also appear to support the symbiotic relationship between the created events. Based on the hermeneutical evidence of syntax and context, it appears a literal reading of the creation account in Genesis prevails.
What is your view of the age of the universe, and do you believe that the data in Genesis 1 – 11 can be reconciled with an old-earth view? Why or why not?
I hold the historical creationist perspective, thus it is not difficult to reconcile the data in Genesis 1-11 with an old-earth view. Mark Driscoll provides five reasons that support a historical creationist perspective: (1) it views Genesis 1 through the lens of a literal interpretive perspective; (2) it avoids characterizing terms scientifically; (3) it suggests humans are a relatively recent creation; (4) it was prevalent among the Church Fathers; and (5) it aligns with scientific research.[13] More specifically, historical creationism interprets the Hebrew word reshit as an extended period as opposed to a moment in time.[14] This allows the assimilation of an old-earth view into historical creationism. Accordingly, it appears the date in Genesis 1-11 can be reconciled with an old-earth view.
How would you biblically respond to the possibility that God created the universe through an evolutionary process? What key issues should a discussion on this topic address? How important is this possibility to the issue of biblical authority?
A number of Creation theories purport that God created the universe through an evolutionary process. Karl Payne identifies four theories that attempt to harmonize God’s revelation with evolution: (1) theistic evolution, (2) the gap theory, (3) the day-age theory, and (4) progressive creationism.[15] First, theistic evolution teaches that creation originated with God, but God then allowed natural selection to complete the creation process.[16] In other words, the struggle of the evolutionary process eventually culminated in a man after millions of years. The biblical response is that the Bible clearly states that sin entered the world through one man, Adam (see Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). However, if life and death evolved into Adam over millions of years, then death did not enter the world through a single man, but instead entered millions of years before Adam.[17] Second, the gap theory proposes that a large gap of time occurs between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, but opposed to historical creationism, it assumes a primordial creation in verse one and then a recreation in verse two.[18] From a biblical perspective, no evidence of a second recreated Earth exists.[19] Next, the day-age theory asserts that God guided the evolutionary process over a period of billions of years by intervening when necessary.[20] In order to accommodate the evolutionary process, day-age theorists redefine the Hebrew word for day as a period much longer than twenty-four hours.[21] However, as explained above, the biblical evidence suggests that the Hebrew word yom means a twenty-four hour day. Finally, progressive creationism suggests that God created different forms of life in stages during a long evolutionary process.[22] However, from a biblical perspective, progressive creationism cannot align with the order of creation in Genesis 1.[23]
The key issues needing discussed when addressing the topic of God and macroevolution is whether the theory is biblically accurate, scientifically logical, and intellectually reasonable. Although all forms of evolution face challenges regarding science and reason, theories asserting that God created the universe through an evolutionary process face an additional challenge. Payne recognizes that each of the four theories that attempt to blend God’s creative efforts with macroevolution teaches that Genesis 1 “must not be interpreted literally.”[24] Accordingly, the four theories all risk undermining the authority of the Bible by questioning its authenticity and reliability. Unfortunately, by raising uncertainty around God’s Word with little or no concrete proof to support the accuracy of the theory, a message of hope may be lost and eternal lives may be at stake.
[1] Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 89.
[2] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound, 2nd ed. (Colorado Springs: Dawson Media, 2011), 38.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Unless Otherwise Noted, All Biblical Passages Referenced Are in the New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: Lockman Foundation, 1995).
[5] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 396.
[6] Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound, 45.
[7] Driscoll and Breshears, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe, 90–92.
[8] Walter L. Bradley and Roger Olsen, “The Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 299.
[9] Robert V. McCabe, “A Defense of Literal Days in the Creation Week,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 5 (September 2000): 106.
[10] Ibid., 110.
[11] Ibid., 111.
[12] Ibid., 112.
[13] Driscoll and Breshears, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe, 96.
[14] Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound, 38.
[15] Karl Payne, “Theories of Creation,” in The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, ed. Ed Hindson and Ergun Caner (Eugene: Harvest House, 2008), 154–57.
[16] Ibid., 154.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid., 155.
[19] Ibid., 156.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid., 157.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid., 154.
Bibliography
Bradley, Walter L., and Roger Olsen. “The Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science.” In Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, 283–317. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
Driscoll, Mark, and Gerry Breshears. Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
McCabe, Robert V. “A Defense of Literal Days in the Creation Week.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 5 (September 2000): 97–123.
Payne, Karl. “Theories of Creation.” In The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, edited by Ed Hindson and Ergun Caner, 154–57. Eugene: Harvest House, 2008.
Sailhamer, John H. Genesis Unbound. 2nd ed. Colorado Springs: Dawson Media, 2011.
Unless Otherwise Noted, All Biblical Passages Referenced Are in the New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: Lockman Foundation, 1995).