Before getting into more books, I thought it might be helpful to step back and consider some conclusions I’ve drawn. At this point, we’ve talked about how to read Genesis well, how ancient cosmology affects interpretation, how the church fathers read Genesis 1, and how Genesis 1-2 have been read through the ages.
Next week, I want to get into John Walton’s Lost World series for a bit, but after that it is a kind of pivot toward scientific considerations. Which is why I thought it would be good to pause and consider reading the early chapters of Genesis without any scientific considerations in mind.
As I think I already recounted, my own evolution of thought on reading Genesis owes more to Hebrew and ancient Near Eastern literature than pressure from scientific data. In light of the way Hebrew narrative normally works, and in light of ancient near Eastern parallels, it seemed to me incredibly unlikely that a standard young earth creationist reading of Genesis 1-2 was correct.
Now, I think there’s a case one could make that it is still an acceptable interpretation, however unlikely. But, that is different than arguing that one would have to take the text in that way. If it ends up being the best case for its reading of Genesis, then I might want to read it that way. But. what I realized in studying Hebrew and ancient Near Eastern literature is that you can be faithful to Scripture and believe it is inspired, true, authoritative, etc., but not read Genesis 1 in a woodenly literal way.
Reading the text in this way often entails misinterpreting cues that you’re dealing with a poetic account. As an example, in Genesis 1, it is certainly problematic to have light on day 1, but no Sun until day 4. This wouldn’t actually work in a literal sense, but is part of the literary patterning where days 1-3 setup and organize domains, while days 4-6 fill those domains. There is also a progression moving from heavens, to sky, to earth in both sets of three. The climax then is the ultimate moving from heaven to earth in day 7 where God makes his resting place in the newly established and ordered earth.
It is clear, upon reading Genesis 1 in light of other Hebrew narrative and other ancient Near Eastern creation accounts that is not meant to be taken scientifically. It is however meant to be taken theologically, and at a perhaps deeper level than is often appreciated. Genesis 1 wasn’t meant to explain to modern 21st century people how the universe as created so much as who created it and how that God relates to his creation. He transcends it, yet chooses to dwell among it.
Unlike other ancient Near Eastern accounts, we see a God in Genesis 1 who has no rival, and has no need to defeat chaos in order to establish order. Instead, he merely speaks it everything, beings and order, into existence. This God and his Word and Spirit are the most powerful forces in the universe, setting in motion processes that are meant to fill the earth with his glory as the waters cover the sea. He chooses to create humans that bear his image and extend his rule, setting the agenda for how we should relate to the world God intends for us to steward.
These truths are drawn from reading Genesis 1 in a truly literal way. It is literally true that God is the creator of heaven and earth and there are no other gods before him. That is clearly taught by Genesis 1, regardless of whether you think the earth was made in 6 consecutive days 6000 years ago. You can think that as well, but that is clearly not the main point or message of the text.
I could go on, but I think the main point is that reading Genesis 1 literally doesn’t mean “plain sense of a 21st century reader.” Rather, it means taking it according to its intended sense, which is most likely more poetic than prosaic, and should be read more theologically than scientifically. Especially so since the latter category was not around during the initial writing of Genesis, and creation accounts wouldn’t have fit into it anyway.
We should read Genesis 1 in light of what it teaches us about God primarily, and not use the text for something it wasn’t intended to do: tell us how God created the heavens and earth. This is actually the more natural way of reading this text Christianly, as we’ve seen in the surveys of early Christian readings, and readings through church history. The first question can’t be “how does this reconcile with modern science,” but should be “how does this text lead me to see Christ more clearly and worship him more dearly.” Reading Genesis 1 that way gets closer to the heart of the matter, and from there we can start thinking about scientific considerations.