Should the Genesis Account of Creation Be Taken Literally Or Figuratively?

Ever since the dawn of Darwinism and the subsequent rise of Evolutionism, theologians have tried to wrestle with objections posed by science to the Creation account. The enormous amount of fossil records and proven accuracy of dating methods that try to figure out dates of each fossil along with other scientific researches are seen as a real issue that intellectual Christianity cannot be blind to. Many of the modern theologians and apologists have given in to some form of accommodation of evolutionary thinking, though trying to keep God in picture as the Prime Cause of all things. Most of them prefer a mythical or figurative interpretation of the Genesis account.

The Catholic Church doesn't ignore the possibility of biological evolution; however, it makes it clear that the theory of biological evolution cannot explain the creation of the human spirit that distinguishes humans from beasts. In his Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Oct 22, 1996, Pope John Paul II said:

...the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.

Catholic.com explains the position:

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.

British New Testament scholar, N. T. Wright, has no interest in the literal interpretation of either Genesis 1-2 or a literal historical Adam. In his Surprise by Scripture (2014), he writes:

...just as God chose Israel from the rest of humankind for a special, strange, demanding vocation, so perhaps what Genesis is telling us is that God chose one pair from the rest of early hominids for a special, strange, demanding vocation. This pair (call them Adam and Eve if you like) were to be the representatives of the whole human race, the ones in whom God's purpose to make the whole world a place of delight and joy and order, eventually colonizing the whole creation, was to be taken forward.

Notable apologist William Lane Craig opts for Progressive Creationism. In his words:

It seems to me that so-called progressive creationism would provide a nice model that would fit both the scientific evidence as well as the biblical data. Progressive creationism suggests that God intervenes periodically to bring about miraculously new forms of life and then allows evolutionary change to take place with respect to those life forms. As for grand evolutionary change, this would not take place by the mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection if undirected by God. Rather, we would need miraculous creationist acts of God to intervene in the process of biological evolution to bring about grand evolutionary change. So we would have a kind of progressive creationism whereby God creates biological complexity over time.

...some sort of a progressive creationist view, I think, would explain the evidence quite well. It would allow you to affirm or deny if you wish the thesis of common ancestry and it would supplement the mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection with divine intervention. I find some sort of progressive creationism to be an attractive view.

However, Craig is not dogmatic on this stance which he qualifies by saying, "I want to reiterate that on these issues I am like many of you a scientific layperson.... So these opinions are held tentatively and lightly and are subject to revision."

Irish theologian Alister McGrath also favors the non-literal interpretation, not just because of the scientific challenge but because he finds that the literal interpretation was not so popular in early church history. He finds, especially, Augustine's view quite liberating:

What I noticed in the earlier period of the Christian church is that people didn’t read Genesis in that way. I think we have more freedom about how we interpret these passages than some might think. There is no doubt [the Scriptures] teach God made all things. I don’t think they necessarily teach that God made all things instantaneously at one moment in time so that what we now see is the way things always have been. I think it’s more complex than that. Augustine of Hippo gives us a useful theological framework, which means we can begin to engage questions of evolution. You can’t simply say, “It’s the Bible or evolution.” Certainly, I would challenge certain interpretations of evolution—above all, Richard Dawkins’ idea, which is atheistic. I think we need to understand both evolution and Scripture rightly. (An Interview With Alister McGrath, DTS, Dec 2012)

Unsurprisingly, Augustine approaches the text with the culturally prevalent presupposition of the fixity of species and finds nothing in it to challenge his thinking on this point. Yet the ways in which he critiques contemporary authorities and his own experience suggest that, on this point at least, he would be open to correction in light of prevailing scientific opinion. ("Augustine's Origin of Species," CT, May 2009)

My Responses

The literal view of Genesis 1 and 2 may look quite embarrassing to theologians who wish to be or appear intellectually honest in face of surmounting scientific evidences that seem to favor anything but the literal biblical account of creation in Genesis. Some would better prefer to look at the two accounts as more poetic or figurative rather than factual narratives. Of course, the way the narrative is given does not give any hint of it being just a clever poem or illustrative myth.

I think the message of the cross is more foolish and scientifically impossible to the secular intellectual mind than the literal take of Genesis 1 and 2. What scientific mind can find the message of a Man (God Incarnate) being crucified for religious and political reasons on the cross as being the Sacrificial Atonement for the sins of all mankind?

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1Co 1:18)
...we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, (1Co 1:23)

But, the scientific understanding based on whatever dating technology (as accurate as these may be), and other discoveries, is not "necessarily" conclusive, given its inductive nature and the open possibilities of exceptions. We may laugh at Young Earth Creationists for trying to find evidences for a young earth, but do we know what we are actually doing by questioning the literal historicity of the Genesis account? You cannot sit on the outward end of a branch that you are actually sawing off.

We come to the question of Authority now. The enamor with intellectualism is somehow tied up with universities, professor quotes, appeal to authority fallacies, and various other forms of "authorities" that seem to stand against the authority of Scripture. It is not surprising that such enamor may lead to either seminaries becoming engulfed by universities (through affiliation or absorption) or becoming emptied by universities because they cannot any more retain students who they have educated to favor the universities. But, when it comes to intellectual honesty with faith, I do not think it is really honest to favor some parts of scripture as literal and others as probably figurative based on contemporary scientific understandings on the same theme. If you allow the camel to put his feet inside the tent, obviously, he is going to kick you out of the tent before dawn.

The literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 may look foolish and dumb to many. To many it does not. It makes better sense than the all the various theories of evolution put together. And the latter are certainly not unintelligent and dumb believers. They find it more consistent to believe in Scripture as inerrant and absolutely authoritative for all deductive interpretation and understanding of faith than allow the unstable darts of human wisdom to trouble them with ideas that are perpetually in a flux.

1. If Scriptural inerrancy is superfluous, then biblical faith has lost its basis. The same Scripture that gives an account of creation in six days states the event as the historical basis for the law of the sabbath or rest for the Israelites:

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. (Exo 20:11)

2. If it is scientifically unacceptable that God created Adam out of the dust literally, it should also be scientifically unacceptable that God incarnated as Man in Jesus.

The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. (1Co 15:47)

3. If Genesis 1-2 is taken figuratively only, it would follow that most of the book, if not at least till Genesis 11, cannot be taken literally anymore.

4. The non-literal view challenges the New Testament Gospel of Christ as our Saviour:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. (1Co 15:22)

For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous. (Rom 5:17-19)

5. If the authority of Scriptures is subjected to the authority of "science" or intellectual elitism, God becomes subject to the imagination and formulations of the human mind; in short, idolatry.
6. Jesus didn't talk of the Genesis account as merely figurative but as historical and foundational to human values:

"But from the beginning of the creation, God`made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.' "Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mar 10:6-9)

See Also
Evolutionism & Living Reality
Problems of Evolutionism
A. E. Wildersmith - Media Library on Science & Bible
Australopithecus Deyiremeda: Strong Argument for Evolutionism?
Chesterton on Darwin's Missing Link
On Church and On Evolution - G K Chesterton
Creation & Evolution
The Anthropic Principle and Epistemic Issues

The Original Division of Light From Darkness (Genesis 1:4)

And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. (Gen 1:4)

The usual way has been to look at this along with the statement that "God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." (Gen.1:5). So Barnes notes:

God then separates light and darkness, by assigning to each its relative position in time and space. This no doubt refers to the vicissitudes of day and night, as we learn from the following verse: Gen 1:5 Called to the light, day, ... - After separating the light and the darkness, he gives them the new names of day and night, according to the limitations under which they were now placed.

But John Gill saw this division as original division of light and dark particles: "and God divided the light from the darkness: by which it should seem that they were mixed together, the particles of light and darkness"

Of course, the scientific views in the 17th century were quite different from the views now. Today, scientists hypothetically talk also of something called dark matter and dark energy. According to NASA,

We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the universe.
.....
By fitting a theoretical model of the composition of the universe to the combined set of cosmological observations, scientists have come up with the composition that we described above, ~68% dark energy, ~27% dark matter, ~5% normal matter. What is dark matter?

We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see. Observations show that there is far too little visible matter in the universe to make up the 27% required by the observations. Second, it is not in the form of dark clouds of normal matter, matter made up of particles called baryons. We know this because we would be able to detect baryonic clouds by their absorption of radiation passing through them. Third, dark matter is not antimatter, because we do not see the unique gamma rays that are produced when antimatter annihilates with matter. Finally, we can rule out large galaxy-sized black holes on the basis of how many gravitational lenses we see. High concentrations of matter bend light passing near them from objects further away, but we do not see enough lensing events to suggest that such objects to make up the required 25% dark matter contribution.

Is Genesis 1:4 talking about the division of light and normal matter from dark matter and energy? I am not in a position to immediately draw any conclusions now. But, I find the very statement of God dividing light from darkness quite stunning.

I think it was Emil Brunner who emphatically noted that God not only created light but also created darkness, based on the Biblical declaration in Isaiah 45:7 - "I form the light, and create darkness."

Obviously, if God didn't create darkness, where would it come from?

The Augustinian view of darkness as the absence of light emphasizes the significance of light as the reality and darkness as mere absence of that reality. By definition, this dualism appears certain as it is. Where there is no light, darkness is; where there is light, darkness cannot be. But, this doesn't explain how God could divide light from darkness.

Of course, we are not trying to depend on scientific hypotheses to help us understand this. But, isn't it remarkable that scientists are talking of dark matter and dark energy in opposition to the phenomenon of light?

Interestingly, the Scripture tells us that in the new creation and in the City of God, there will not be night anymore:

And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever (Rev.22:5)

What Was the Light On Day 1 Of Creation And How Come There Was Night When The Sun Was Created On Day 4?

Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. (Gen 1:3-5)

Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Gen 1:14-19)

On Day 1, pure physical light was created. The earth was covered with waters and deep darkness. The only movement was the movement of the Spirit over the face of the waters.

When God created light on Day 1, darkness was still there. Light was divided from the darkness in the sense that where light shines, darkness cannot be - light travels, darkness can't. Light is energy. The creation of Light signified the beginning of the Time-Clock. The time run down begins here. This is when the clocks begin to first tick. This is when the ancient symbols of time run - night and day - take charge. It doesn't mean that day is day because of the sun and night is night because of the moon. It signifies the beginning of physical time in the universe with the first act of God.

Of course, there are many opinions and suggestions given regarding the identity of this light. For examples, Dr. Rabbi Zev Farber documents a few rabbinic views such as the buried light view (that the original light got buried and withheld from sinful men), the unfixed lights view (that the lights on day 1 and 4 are identical but not fixed yet on day 1), and the placed in the sun view (that the light was placed in the sun to limit its radiance and heat on day 4). But, these are mere opinions and conjectures.

The fact stated is clearly that God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. It doesn't say "lights", but "light" signifying the creation of the generic light.

Circumstantial Guidance

'When Jacob saw that there was grain in Egypt, Jacob said to his sons, "Why do you look at one another?.... Indeed I have heard that there is grain in Egypt; go down to that place and buy for us there..." (Gen.42:1,2)

Oftentimes, God uses circumstances to guide us. But, He always guides to only the good, never into evil. In this incident, Jacob is being constrained towards the only logical and practical option left. But, this constraint was what God actually used to get them to Egypt according to His plan. When we trust in divine sovereignty, we can give thanks to God in everything. If we feel confused about some decision, we can ask, "What is the good, practical and God-pleasing final option or solution to this issue?" We don't need to just stand looking for some answer or for someone to do something. Just take a decision.

Acrostic of CREATION Week (Gen 1)

GOD C R E A T E S . . .

Sun	C	Commencement Day	FIRST DAY	Shining Light
Mon	R	Rift Day (Divide)	FIRMAMENT DAY	Sky
Tue	E	Earth Day	FRUITS AND FLOWERS DAY	Seed
Wed	A	Astronomical Day	FIREBALLS DAY (Sun is a Fireball)	Stars
Thur	T	Take Off Day	FISH AND FLIGHT DAY (Birds Take Off)	Sea
Fri	E	Eve's  & Adam's Day	FAMILY DAY (Animals and Humans)	Society (Adam and Eve)
Sat	S	Sabbath Day	FREE TIME DAY	Sabbath

Isaac Had An Eleazar, But Jacob Had None

"Arise, go to Padan Aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother's father; and take yourself a wife from there of the daughters of Laban your mother's brother. (Gen 28:2 NKJ)

Isaac had an Eleazar, but Jacob had none; he was to find a wife by himself, and that was done.

The marriage of Isaac and Rebekah have often been quoted as the ideal one. Of course, the entire episode is quite dramatic, and involves strong themes of obedience, faith, excitement, and wisdom. Jacob's story is also dramatic, and romantic as well, filled with episodes of heroism, love, deception, tragedy, patience, sly, escape, brokenness, surprise, mourning, and indefatigable faith.

We know it already that Isaac was very old when he sent Jacob away. Abraham was also very old when he had sent Eleazar away to find for Isaac a wife. But, though Abraham had an Eleazar to fetch a wife for Isaac, Isaac had none for Jacob; perhaps, he didn't think it was necessary. However, Isaac did have some instructions for his son, and Jacob followed them.

Isaac got married at 40 and had these twin sons at 60 (Gen.25:20,26). Certainly, it wouldn't have been difficult for Isaac to have married earlier; but, his problem was like looking for some drinkable water in the midst of a salty ocean; let's say, he could only marry a "believer". And, the only way that could be possible was to get out of this foreign place (where there was no believer girl around) and go to his father's land to find one. However, perhaps, either Isaac was unwilling to do that or Abraham wasn't willing to send his son. Whatever, Abraham had an Eleazar, and Eleazar, guided by divine providence, fetched Isaac a wife.

Jacob's twin elder brother Esau was not a very patient guy. He was governed by present need and could neither appreciate the universal absolutes nor sustain an eternal perspective. That is evident from the way he despised his birthright and traded it for a pot of stew. It is also evident from the way he went and got himself not one but two Hittite wives from the surrounding area (Why wait for a girl from Padan Aram when there were plenty beautiful ones around!). Of course, perhaps Isaac is to blame - we shouldn't say; Esau was already 40 and unmarried, and so did the thing which he thought was more immediately rational. But, Jacob was 40 too. However, there is one mark of Jacob that stands out through his entire story; unlike Esau, he was a patient boy, and he knew how to hold on to what he believed to be most valuable.

It's not very right to build a doctrine on speculation. However, perhaps we can safely assume that Isaac and Rebekah could be certain of at least one fact: their boy didn't need an Eleazar; he had the eyesight to find the pearl of great price and was determined enough to give away his all in order to get what he believed to be truly precious and invaluable.

Esau went a hunting and found no game.
He returned and settled instead for a pot of stew.
Jacob went a searching with a determined aim.
He got what he searched for, and returned not with few.

© Domenic Marbaniang, 2014

The Abrahamic Covenant (Gen.12:1-3)

When Abraham lived with his family in Ur of Chaldees, God called him out of that land with the following promise:

Now the LORD had said to Abram:
"Get out of your country,
From your family
And from your father's house,
To a land that I will show you.
I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen.12:1-3)

This was God's Covenant with Abraham, which takes a ritual in chapter 15, and is composed of five promises: the promise of a land, the promise of a nation, the promise of making his name great, the promise of making him a blessing, and the promise that all the families of the earth shall be blessed in him. History has seen its fulfillment.

1. A Land
When Abraham went to Palestine, he sojourned there in tents all his life. His son Isaac, and grandson Jacob also lived in tents. That land was never theirs - they were strangers in it. The only possession that Abraham had was the tomb that he bought to bury his wife Sarah. But, God gave a prophetic word with a promise in Chapter 15:

Then He said to Abram: "Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions. Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." (Gen 15:13-16)

Accordingly, under Moses, the people returned to Canaan land and, later, under Joshua's leadership took the land. Historically, since the land belonged to the Israelites. God also prophesied that if the people rebel against God's Covenant (made through Moses), He would take them out of the land. That did happen when Assyria invaded Israel and Babylon took Judah into captivity.

The law of the Sabbath had a special relation to the land, and there were several laws related to the land that made sure that the Jews were not landless, but everyone had a share in the Promised Land. When the people broke the Sabbatical laws, God prophesied that He would uproot them out of the land so that the land would get its sabbatical rest (2Chr 36:21).

However, He also promised that He'll gather them back to their land. So, when Israel was formed again in 1948, the world knew that this prophecy was fulfilled for a people who wandered through the nations for several years; but, now had come home.

2. A Nation
This refers to the people's ethnicity. They were Abraham's offspring. That's one reason why genealogies were important among the Jews. Anyone not found in the family tree could not be considered to be a Jew.

In the New Testament, the Christians are called offspring of Abraham according to his faith. However, according to the flesh, it is the Jews who are the children of Abraham.

Interestingly, Esau was not considered into this line of the promise. It was because he chose to give up his birthright and name in the family. He excommunicated himself for a morsel of food, and that was taken seriously, because what he sold was the substance that bought his food. He had no more chance for repentance.

So, the children of Jacob or the children of Israel (as Jacob was also called after his experience at Peniel) became known as the Jews.

The New Testament records that God didn't forsake this nation. They have a place in God's plan which will unwind at the end of times. Of course, the Anti-Christ will make a covenant with them according to Daniel 9 and, perhaps, also assist in building the temple that he'll defile; but, the Messiah will return to destroy the demonic ruler and to establish the Kingdom of righteousness.

3. A Great Name
Though Abraham became great in his own time, it was through the nation that he gave birth to that his name was known to the entire world. The Jews call him "Father Abraham". The Hebrews or the Jews have had a significant name in the rolls of history.

4. A Reciprocal Blessing
God called Abraham to make him a blessing to the world. And, indeed, he became. The promise stated that those who bless him will be blessed and those that cursed him will be cursed. In the past, we've witnessed what evil anti-semitism had caused against this people. But, those who blessed Abraham, were blessed indeed.

5. A Messianic Blessing
This refers to the blessing of Abraham through the Messiah. This is the spiritual dimension of the promise and is not according to flesh (the believers are not circumcised Jews) but is according to faith. They are children of God, born by the Word of God. So, inheritors of the promises of God.


© Domenic Marbaniang, 2010