Genesis 1: How Should We Interpret It? --Part 5 --An Excursus on Scholarship and Listening to Those With Whom We Disagree

Fifth in a series on In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood by Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden. Click here for the first post.

*****

Miller and Soden conclude Chapter 6 of In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood with the following:

If the original edition of Genesis was presented to Israel after their exodus from Egypt, and if it was written in an early form of the Hebrew language to people who lived hundreds of years in Egyptian culture, then we should expect it to reflect a concept of the universe and a worldview different from ours. We should not assume, without examining the cultural context, that we understand figures of speech or allusions to common motifs, beliefs, and theological positions of their day. (p. 73)

Oh, boy! You know where this is going, don't you?

Miller and Soden are scholars. And when you hear scholars begin to talk about figures of speech, allusions, motifs, and theological positions, you just know they are going to reference some kinds of knowledge they believe they possess and from which they believe you can gain benefit . . . if only you will listen to them.

Genesis 1: How Should We Interpret It? --Part 3

Third in a series on In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood by Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden. Click here for the first post.

*****

Miller and Soden provide a wonderful, gentle "on-ramp" to their discussion of Genesis 1. They address a whole range of troublesome issues that have bothered many of us who have either participated in or, at least, observed the old-earth/young-earth debate. I commend their book to you. Don't rely on my summary of those portions of the book that most moved me! I am leaving out some significant treasures!

I want to get to the meat of their presentation, however. So I am skipping over a whole bunch of wonderful, thoughtful, well-expressed material that I expect you are likely to find helpful either in your own thinking or when talking with friends of almost any persuasion about creationism and/or the age of the earth.

First item at the heart of the Miller-Soden presentation (at least from my perspective): the distinction between literal and figurative speech and how difficult it is for us in the 21st century to distinguish literal from figurative and vice versa.

If we interpret literally passages that are not meant to be taken literally, then we are as inaccurate as if we interpreted figuratively a passage not meant to be taken figuratively. (p. 43)

The authors illustrate their reason for concern via a number of Old Testament references. But I would like to pick up their mode of "argument" in their discussion of Joshua 10:12-14.

It is clear that the event is miraculous and that God is fighting for Israel (v. 14),but the connection between the sun and moon and the hailstorm is not as clear. . . . One way of understanding the text is to interpret the references to the sun and moon as figurative in themselves, as representatives of the cosmic battle taking place, similar to what is recorded in Judges 5:20: "From the heaven the stars fought, from their courses they fought against Sisera." Or Habakkuk 3:11: "The sun and moon stood still in their place at the light of your arrows as they sped, at the flash of your glittering spear." If the references in Joshua 10 are figurative, understanding the text may be as simple as recognizing that the sun and moon were Canaanite deities, yet were under the command of Joshua. In Joshua 10:11 Baal is spectacularly shown to be impotent when Yahweh uses Baal's own weapons (the storm and the hail) to destroy more Canaanites than the Israelites' swords did. (pp. 45-46)

Obviously, none of this kind of interpretation comes naturally to those of us brought up in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. We aren't used to thinking of heavenly (or, should I say, astrophysical) objects (as we might describe them) as being deities. For us, they are, first and foremost and always, physical objects. Yet those who are familiar with biblical language will recognize that Miller and Soden are engaging in no manipulation of the text to suggest these rather "new" understandings. And despite our--i.e., modern Christians'--tendency to focus solely on the monotheistic declarations of the Bible (see for example,

• Isaiah 43:10, 12--"'[Y]ou are my witnesses, O Israel!' says the LORD. . . . 'You have been chosen to know me, believe in me, and understand that I alone am God. There is no other God--there never has been, and there never will be. . . . I am the only God.'";
   
• Isaiah 45:14--"He is the only God. There is no other.";
   
• Isaiah 44:13, 15, 17-18, 24--"'[T]he wood-carver measures a block of wood and draws a pattern on it. He works with chisel and plane and carves it into a human figure. He gives it human beauty and puts it in a little shrine. . . . Then he uses part of the wood to make a fire. With it he warms himself and bakes his bread. Then . . . he takes the rest of it and makes himself a god to worship! He makes an idol and bows down in front of it! . . . He falls down in front of it, worshiping and praying to it. . . . Such stupidity and ignorance! Their eyes are closed, and they cannot see. Their minds are shut, and they cannot think.' . . . This is what the LORD says--your Redeemer and Creator: 'I am the LORD, who made all things. I alone stretched out the heavens'";
   
• and so forth),

the Bible itself recognizes that there are other gods and that the people of Israel--not to mention the members of other nations--could easily decide to follow those other gods (see, for example,

• Exodus 20:3--"You shall have no other gods before me";
   
• Deuteronomy 6:13-14--"Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. Do not follow other gods";
   
• Isaiah 43:10, 12--"'[Y]ou are my witnesses, O Israel!' says the LORD. . . . I predicted your rescue, then I saved you and proclaimed it to the world. No foreign god has ever done this.'";
   
• etc.).

And many of these other gods were, indeed, what we now recognize as physical objects: the heavenly beings--sun, moon and stars; and things in the earthly realm. For example: most of the very things (in our mental matrix) that God used against the Egyptians as we read in Exodus 7ff--the Nile River, frogs, flies, and so forth--were gods, in their minds.

"Regardless of how we understand Joshua 10:12-14," Miller and Soden conclude,

it is not a scientific account. It may describe a miracle of nature or it may refer to a spiritual battle in which the gods of the Canaanites stand by and watch Yahweh win. . . . Regardless, we must see the figurative and theological aspects of this narrative (namely, God using the storm and fighting against the Canaanites with their own deities) or we will miss the point. The main issue of this passage emphasizes that God listened to the voice of man and fought for Israel, using the Canaanites' gods against them. (p. 46)

 . . . And so Miller and Soden turn to Genesis 1.

Genesis . . . was written more than 3,000 years ago, and it was written in Hebrew. To understand it fully, one must read it first in its original language and try to understand it in relation to its original author (Moses), in relation to its original readers (Israel recently released from slavery in Egypt), and in relation to the culture, worldview, and literary genre of the text. This is an issue in the debate on origins that is often--perhaps usually--ignored by Christians. For those who would ignore it, the meaning of the text is self-evident: "The real question involved in this debate is, Do we accept the plainest meaning of the Bible, or do we insist on a reinterpretation in light of the prevailing opinion of scientists?" The plainest meaning . . . is indeed what we want to find, but the issue is, the plainest meaning to whom? We must start with the plainest meaning to the original recipients. (p. 48)

Miller and Soden say there are a number of indicators in the text of Genesis 1-3 that "suggest it was meant to be understood by its original readers in a broadly figurative way" (p. 49).

Evidence?

• That "the Hebrew text lacks the [definite] article 'the' on days 1 through 5. . . . It is only when we come to day 6 that the definite article is used" (p. 49). --If your English text speaks of "the first day," "the second day," "the third day," etc., it has added the definite object. The NASB, RSV and ASV are correct when they translate these as "one day," "a second day," "a third day," and so forth. Only when you hit the sixth day do you have the Hebrew speaking of the sixth day. (Interesting: NASB and ASV get that right. But RSV chooses to pretend that there is no definite object even then!)
   
• "[H]aving evening and morning before the creation of the sun generates a problem for a strictly linear chronology. . . . In our scientific mind-set, the presence of darkness and light suggests that the earth was rotating on its axis. 'Evening and morning' are . . . clearly a function of the earth's rotation in relationship to the sun. The fact that Genesis 1 presents 'evening and morning' three days before the sun suggests that Genesis 1 may not be about literal days and literal stages of creation" (p. 52).
   
• That "there is no stated end to the seventh day, God's Sabbath" (p. 52).
   
• "Exodus 31:17 . . . is often cited as proof that the creation week was a literal seven-day week . . . "[for] in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed" (Exod. 31:16-17). The argument is that the human week is to reflect God's week. If it is a literal, seven-day week for people, it must have been a literal, seven-day week for God.
  
  "However, . . . [i]f all is to be taken literally, then it must be literally true that God became tired and was refreshed after his rest. . . . But was God literally weary? Had he become spent during the week of creation? No, . . . God is drawing an analogy here rather than an equation. If we do not understand God's 'rest' and 'refereshment' to be the same as man's should we expect God's 'days' to be the same?" (pp. 53-54).
   
• That if we interpret Genesis 2 in its most natural (chronological) sense, then
  
  
  • "[I]t contradicts the order of creation in chapter 1." And,
     
  • "Furthermore, chapter 2 implies only one creative day. There is no reference to any other days and, in fact, the chapter begins with reference to a single day (Gen. 2:4 literally states, 'in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens')." (p. 55)
  
  The point is, Miller and Soden conclude,
  

  everyone who assumes the two accounts [in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2] are not contradictory but complementary will also argue that the author intended to give a non-chronological order in chapter 2 in order to make a theological point. . . . If chapter 2 is out of order for theological reasons, why must chapter 1 be in order chronologically? The only reason for this assumption is because it makes sense to us and because we have assumed that the enumerating of the days [in chapter 1] requires it. . . .
  
  [To summarize our point in another way,] one cannot take both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 "literally" without creating contradictions between the creation accounts. This is a final clue from the passage itself that it is not meant to be taken literally, or as if it is [intended to convey] scientific information. (p. 56)

Here I have completely ignored the significant textual evidence and thoughtful discussion Miller and Soden bring concerning the points I have summarized above. Again, I urge you to read their book for the evidence. But I wanted to summarize their presentation. And I believe I have done that.

As Miller and Soden conclude chapter 4 in their book, they promise, "as we dig deeper, we will discover much more data showing us that the original audience would have heard [Genesis 1 and 2] much differently than we do and leading us in [a very different] direction [than most modern readers want to take it]" (p. 57).

I can assure you: They keep their promise!

Next post in this series found here.

Genesis 1: How Should We Interpret It? --Part 2

Second in a series on In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood by Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden. Click here for the first post.

*****

Miller and Soden begin their book with personal statements of "where they are coming from." Both confess long time commitments to literalistic, young-earth creationist perspectives. As Miller put it, he was raised in fundamentalist churches "where the Bible reigned supreme--that is, our interpretation of the Bible reigned supreme. To question our interpretation of the Bible was equal to doubting God and proving you weren't really a Christian" (p. 18).

He struggled with his faith, but eventually gave his life to Jesus. Shortly after making this commitment, he ran into Henry Morris' and John Whitcomb's The Genesis Flood and he "began to believe that if you take Genesis one literally, then you also must take Genesis 2-5 literally, and putting these chapters together with a tight genealogy demands a young earth" (p. 19).

And so he believed and so he taught for many years. But then . . .

One day he came to the conclusion that "all my life I had been reading Genesis from the perspective of a modern person. I had read it through the lens of a historically sophisticated, scientifically influenced individual. I assumed that Genesis was written to answer the questions of origins that people are asking today" (pp. 20-21). Put another way, he had failed to ask--as most authors who debate the meaning of Genesis 1 fail to ask-- "What did Genesis mean to the original author and original readers?" (p. 21).

And that is the primary question that Miller and Soden both seek to answer: What is Genesis 1 intended to teach us? "Only after we see Genesis 1 . . . from the perspective of both its author (in this case, Moses) and its original readers will we have the right to apply it to modern discussions . . . about the age of the earth and the meaning of the days of creation" (p. 23).

You know--you just know--a shoe is about to drop. They're "setting us up" for something. Right? It's obvious.

But for what?

And whatever they are about to say--and you know (since their title, itself, tells you) the authors are going to offer less than gushing approval of their (obviously former) young-earth perspective: If "the perspective of a modern person" isn't good enough to understand what Genesis 1 is about, then what will the perspective of a person from three thousand years ago or more add to our understanding? And, perhaps more important: How can Miller and Soden possibly suggest they could discover what a person of three thousand years ago believed or thought?

Happily, the authors offer answers to these questions--gently, carefully, tentatively, with humility and grace.

Next post in this series found here.

Genesis 1: How Should We Interpret It? --Part 1

I have been looking forward to writing this post for some time. I can't remember how I discovered this book, but I find its "solution" to the question of how to interpret Genesis 1 extremely gratifying.

The book's title: In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood . . . by Johnny V. Miller (former president of Colombia Bible College [which became Colombia International University during his tenure as president]) and John M. Soden (professor of Old Testament at Lancaster Bible College and Graduate School).

I have urged my acquaintances at Sonlight to incorporate this book into the Sonlight high school curriculum—and at least some of its basic insights and perspectives into earlier grades’ teaching notes. Hint: Miller and Soden take a strongly non-concordist view of Genesis 1-3.

As I wrote on this blog two years ago:

The concordist interpretations seek to show how modern scientific teaching is well in line with what the Bible teaches about creation and the early history of the world. ("See, if we reinterpret this word as meaning _______, and if we recognize that this word means _______ [etc.], then there is no conflict at all between science and Scripture!")

The non-concordist interpretations, by contrast, say, in essence, "Look, the biblical record in Genesis 1-11 has no relation to modern science or history. Don't even look for evidence that tries to tie the Bible's teachings in Genesis 1-11 to modern science or history. It doesn't. It 'teaches' everything obnoxious to modern science and history that the young-earthers claim . . . and more. Except . . ." . . . 

The non-concordists suggest various ways by which evangelicals ought to understand Genesis 1-11--ways that, they say, honor the Bible as God's inerrant, infallible Word (as per the standard evangelical statements of faith) while also containing statements or teachings that don't even come close to according with the truth of history and science as we know it. 

My view: In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood is the first book on a generally POPULAR level that seeks to address the topic of Genesis 1-3 in a way that honors the legitimate intentions and concerns of both old- and young-earth creationists while also--and more importantly and fundamentally--seeking truly to honor the text of the Bible as written and the context in and for which it was written.

As  Miller and Soden note, the concordists on both side—the Ken Hams of the world on the young-earth side and the Hugh Rosses of the world on the old-earth side—all read into the text modern scientific “insights” that were never there in the first place . . . and, therefore, they try to make it say what it obviously doesn't say.

Meanwhile, however, all of the non-concordists I have read prior to Miller and Soden tend to note the problems with concordist interpretations [“so,” they conclude “therefore, we must adopt a non-concordist interpretation”], but/and, then, they immediately “get on” with “the science” of the age of the earth . . . and jettison any concern with or attempt, properly, to interpret the biblical text. I.e., they leave us with an open question as to what was the Bible meant to say? How should we interpret it?

Miller and Soden provide what I find to be a rather satisfying answer.

It is an answer that will shake up most fundamentalists’ and/or evangelicals’ perspectives on the Bible. But I believe Miller and Soden have gotten to the deepest roots of my discomfort with both the old- and young-earthers’ claims. . . . I sense they honor the text as written, the Bible as God's inerrant Word. They also leave modern science to do whatever it will do.

And in case you are wondering: they say, YES, the Bible--"even" Genesis 1-3--is authoritative. But/and it is authoritative and speaks authoritatively in a way that doesn't happen to have anything to do with the age of the earth or scientific evidence concerning the age of the earth.

--More in my next post . . . found here.

Answering a concern about claims of Scripture being broken: A New Faith Paradigm -- Part V

Fifth in a series inspired by Kenton L. Sparks’ Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority & the Dark Side of Scripture.

First post here.

*****

I wanted to reply to something my brother Pete wrote in response to my last post. I could "hide" my reply in the give-and-take of the Comments section. But I thought his comments--and my (though I perceive it to be Sparks') reply--were worthy of greater visibility.

Pete wrote,

Ummm... Sparks seems to be starting from a very arrogant position, that I find increasingly common: the arrogance of assuming he is more moral than God. Or that he would do it differently than God.

Specifically, when I read

Thus, says Sparks, when we read passages like Deuteronomy 20:16-18 where the Israelites are commanded by God to annihilate the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites without mercy, in fact what we ought to understand is that God--the God we read about in Matthew 5:43-45, the God who commands us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us....

Who says that annihilating these ancient peoples was somehow in opposition to the command to love your enemies?

I relate what God asked them to do... to the single-person act of executing a murderer. Killing the murderer is not murder; the death is "on the head" of the criminal. So too, these ancient (very evil) peoples were -- by God's reckoning -- worthy of death. That He chose people to dispense justice is God's choice. Sometimes He used the Israelites, sometimes He used others like the Babylonians etc.

I suspect that we today don't have a problem with the Bible as much as we have a problem with God's purity and holiness. We water down God to make Him "nice." And by doing so we also water down the value of His loving act of sending His son to earth to die in our place.

And my reply:

Interesting hypothesis. And particularly interesting because Sparks himself attempts to address the charge.

Your concerns arise because of things he says most pointedly in Chapter 5.

Chapter 6 consists of Sparks' discussion of six questions. The last question is this: “If we admit that Scripture is as I have described ["broken"], does this not open up the door to an 'anything goes' theology that interprets Scripture so that it says nice things that we like? Will we simply pick and choose as 'final' those texts that suit our fancies?” (p. 64).

Short answer: Yes. Absolutely. Such a view does open up the door to an "anything goes" theology. And to abuse by arrogant human beings.

But.

Sparks writes:

all Christians succumb in some way or other to this threat. To see how true this is, one only needs to notice that, even among Fundamentalists who deny the human error in Scripture, one finds a wide variety of conflicting "inerrantist" readings. Some inerrantists claim that the Bible clearly teaches "predestination," others that it clearly teaches "free will." Some inerrantists argue that Scripture strongly supports "infant baptism," while others believe that it obviously teaches "believer's baptism." Some inerrantists are "pacifists," while others advocate "just war" theory.

No approach to Scripture, whether hermeneutical or theological, will prevent us from badly misreading it at points. But this much is certain: in the end, the success of biblical interpretation depends a great deal on whether we want to listen to God or merely tell him what he ought to say (pp. 64-65; emphasis mine).

This last comment reminds me of a question that meant much to me back when I was in college and during my years as a minister of evangelism. I asked skeptics who appeared, to me, to be using questions as a kind of diversionary tactic (and I often asked myself--because I, myself, am often so skeptical): "So. Suppose I answered all of your questions: Would you be willing to follow Jesus and do what He says?"

Sadly, the honest answer, too often, was (or is), "No. No way!"

So this honest answer points to the real problem. Ultimately, the real problem isn't honest doubts; the real problem is a matter of the will: "I am not willing to follow Jesus. I am not willing to obey God."

(By the way, this question of mine really came from Jesus in John 7:17: "Anyone who is willing to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own.")

But Sparks says more than this on the subject. And I think I would be unfair to you, my reader, as well as to Sparks, if I were not to point out at least some of the general hermeneutical principles he discusses in Chapter 10, "Listening to the Diversity and Unity of Scripture," where he responds a bit more directly to Pete's question.

Sparks calls the hermeneutical principles he discusses in Chapter 10 factors in theological interpretation of Scripture.

The fifth factor, he says, is that

we must distinguish those points where God uses [the human writers'] discourse to direct us explicitly in appropriate and redemptive directions ("love your neighbor as yourself"; "do not kill") from those points where the text, more warped by human sinfulness, implicitly witnesses to a broken human situation ("kill the Canaanites"; "buy foreign slaves"). (p. 110)

Isn't that beautiful? (Tongue in cheek. Sarcastic.)

So. How do we know that "love your neighbor" is sound and healthy and "kill the Canaanites" is warped and broken? (Sparks asks the question. Just like that (p. 111): "How do we know that 'love your neighbor' is sound and healthy and 'kill the Canaanites' is warped and broken?") How do we know whether or not our resistance to the extermination of Canaanites in Joshua arises from spiritual arrogance and sinful flesh? (He asks that question, too. Like that (also p. 111): "Does our theological resistance to the extermination of Canaanites in Joshua arise from spiritual arrogance and sinful flesh--from an unwillingness to let God be God and to accept his wisdom in ordering their destruction?")

Sparks' answer: We know it does not arise from such motives because we have all these "other texts in the Old and New Testaments that teach us to take a strong stand with God against things like violence and genocide" (also quoted from Sacred Word, Broken Word, p. 111).

Our judgment concerning the command to kill the Canaanites arises because of Scriptures such as those I (quoting Sparks) have alluded to before in earlier posts: Matthew 5:43-45; Ezekiel 18:14 and 20; and so forth; and other Scriptures that, as Sparks describes them, offer "explicit biblical evidence that Scripture is in need of redemption and that God is working to redeem it" (p. 66)--Scriptures like Matthew 5:31-32, 38-39, 43-44; 19:7-8.

Or, to sum up (p. 68):

[The most] striking example of the redemption of Scripture is provided by the Gospel of Matthew as a whole. Like other early Christians, Matthew viewed Jesus as the "new Moses" prophesied in Deut[eronomy] 18:15.

Strange, I know. But take a moment to see where Sparks goes with this.

He summarizes the themes in Matthew's Gospel that seek, obviously, to show how Jesus was (or is) “like Moses.”

Ultimately, he ends his parallels in the way that Matthew ends his:

Readers will probably recall that, because of his sin, Moses was not able to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land. At the end of his life, he stood on a mountain overlooking the land and sent to the Israelites, "I cannot go with you, but God will be with you. . . . Go, and kill all the nations." [Footnote: "See LXX Deut[eronomy] 11:23; Josh[ua] 23:4; 24:18." --My take: I don't see the meaning Sparks wants to apply. Though I see a close enough meaning: "Go, and displace all the nations." Or, "Go, and take everything away from all the nations." --JAH] This parallels very closely what we find at the end of Matthew's Gospel. Jesus takes his disciples "to the mountain" and there speaks his own final words: "Go, make disciples of all the nations . . . and I will be with you."

It is quite clear that Matthew wished to portray Jesus as a better Moses, who, because he was sinless, could address his followers from within the land and could extend the promise to be with them in their mission. (p. 69)

Okay. So?

"So," Sparks concludes, "the Gospel of Matthew is a deliberate and sustained attempt to redeem the Old Testament law and make it serve the purposes of the Gospel of Jesus Christ" (p. 69).

Similarly, then, we ought not to be afraid to recognize those "laws that are not good" (Ezekiel 20:25) and that reflect our own human "hardness of heart" (Matthew 19:8). And as we recognize them, we ought, then, also, seek to redeem them and make them serve the purposes of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We ought not to think that there is "such [a] thing as Martin Luther's 'severe mercy,' which combined the violence of Deuteronomy and love of Jesus to justify the persecution of Jews 'for their own good'" (p. 55). Rather, through "Christ's message and work and the ministry of his Spirit[, we ought] redemptively [to be] putting this [kind of] brokenness behind us" (p. 64).