You are on page 1of 24

The Inerrancy and Historicity of Genesis 1-3

January 2014 | JOHN YEO | http://theologicalmatters.com

1. What is Biblical Inerrancy?


2. What is the Literary Genre of Genesis 1-3?
3. How Should I Interpret Genesis 1-3?
4. Is Genesis 1-3 Historically True?

1. What is Biblical Inerrancy?

Websters Dictionary defines Inerrancy as: exception from error. It defines infallible as 1: incapable of
error. 2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint. 3. Incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith
or morals. In addition, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy notes in Article 12: WE AFFIRM that
Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. According to the same
document, divine inspiration pertains only to the original autographs of Scripture (Article 10) and that the
Bibles inerrancy is directly related to its divine inspiration (Article 15).

In Genesis 3:1, the serpent asked Eve, Did God really say ? The devil from the outset of creation has
attempted to deceive Gods people and to twist His Holy Word. The doctrine of inerrancyalthough the
word itself is not found in the Bible has been understood to be an orthodox biblical teaching due to the
Scriptures self-attestation concerning its own veracity. Biblical inerrancy, therefore, is an important doctrine
because it safeguards the canonical Scriptures from those who would say that the Bible is only a human
product that is like any other book full of errors and mythological elements. In contradistinction, the Bible
affirms its own truthfulness. The well-respected Lion of Old Princeton, B.B. Warfield, was accurate when
he pointed out, [What] Scripture says, God says. How is this so? Key passages in the Bible reveal this vital
truth:

I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth,
and he shall speak to them all that I command him. It shall come about that whoever will not listen
to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. (Deuteronomy 18:18-
19 NASB)

Note that God says that He would raise a prophet and put His words in his mouth. The words that
the prophet speaks carry the full weight and authority as if God had spoken them Himself. This
description regarding the office of the prophet reveals that the prophet was to be the depository
of divine revelation. In other words, if the prophet sent by God spoke or wrote, that authoritative
word would be binding upon the consciences of its hearers and equivalent to canonical Scripture.

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may
keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2 NASB)

1
The words God inspired Moses, the Prophet, to speak and write were considered covenantal words,
i.e., canonical. As a result, they were not to be tampered with because they had their origin from the
very mouth of God.

Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words
or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6 NASB)

Notice that the word translated tested by the NASB is actually the word meaning to refine in the
Hebrew MT text just as a goldsmith or silversmith would burn off the dross only to reveal the pure
nature of the precious metal. The verse may be translated, Every word of God is pure (e.g., see the
NKJV and Tanakh [Jewish Publication Society] translations). Notice that the warning to add to the
canonical Word of God is also reiterated as in Deuteronomy 4:2.

The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting. (Psalm
119:160 NASB)

Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. (John 17:17 NASB)

These two verses declare the veracity of Scripture because they come from God. Note that Jesus
Himself in John 17:17 equates the Word of God to truth itself.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training
in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2
Timothy 3:16-17 NASB)

There is a clear cause and effect relationship in these two very important verses. The cause is
what weve already pointed out: Scripture is divinely inspired by God. The effect is seen in the way
the Scriptures may be applied: profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in
righteousness. In sum, it is clear that the Apostle Paul affirmed the God breathed-out quality of
all Scripture in order that it might serve as the source of all our Christian faith and practice.

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation, for
no prophecy was ever made b y an act of human will, but men moved b y the Holy Spirit spoke from
God. (2 Peter 1:20-21 NASB)

The Apostle Peter could not have been any clearer: Scripture did not originate in the mind of man,
but in God. The Holy Spirit moved the writers of Scripture to communicate exactly what He wanted
and preserved them from error at the same time (e.g., Proverbs 30:5: Every Word of God is pure.).
2
The force of the biblical passages above proves the logic and validity of the doctrine of inerrancy. In other
words, if God had truly inspired the Prophet, Moses, to write on a scroll (as it says in Exodus 24:4;
Deuteronomy 31:9, 22) then it would be more than rational to believe that He could have and would have
prevented Moses from mixing error into His Word and to provide exactly what He wanted Moses to record.
Thus, the doctrine of inerrancy is not simply a teaching that has been foisted onto the Bible in order to protect
it. The Bible declares its own inerrant and authoritative quality so that the people of God might place their
full trust in His Word and because His Word is the objective truth of God.

2. What is the Literary Genre of Genesis 1-3?

Like the other topics chosen for this series, this is a much-debated question. Scholarly opinions about the
genre of Genesis 1-3 vary. Here are some of the more popular options:

1. epic myth (i.e., the biblical writer borrowed from the ancient Near Eastern [hereafter ANE] creation
myths in order to invent Israels account)
2. exalted prose (i.e., prose-like, but more ideological in perspective than strict narrative)
3. semi-poetic (i.e., there are alleged poetic elements contained in the first creation account of
Genesis 1)
4. polemical theology (i.e., an apology for monotheism with aspects of ANE thought [or the absence
of such] in order to disprove the pantheistic cosmogonic myths of Israels neighbors)
5. historical narrative (i.e., a non-fictional prose account of creation that is sensitive to the texts
phenomenological-descriptive language)

All of the given categories are not mutually exclusive; some scholars often hold to a combination of them.
E.g., one may believe that Genesis 1 is historical narrative and polemical theology. Additionally, exalted
prose and semi-poetic practically belong to the same category, i.e., both are claiming that the text is not
strictly prose.

In his book, Inspiration and Incarnation,[ref]Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2005.[/ref] Peter Enns maintains that the author of Genesis 1 was influenced b y the ancient Near
Eastern (ANE) cosmogonic myths of his day. Enns defines myth as an ancient, premodern, prescientific
way of addressing questions of ultimate origins, and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we? Where do
we come from?[ref]Ibid., 40, 50[/ref] Accordingly, Enns provocatively asks: If the ancient Near Eastern
stories are myth (defined in this way as prescientific stories of origins), and since the biblical stories are similar
enough to these stories to invite comparison, does this indicate that myth is the proper category for
understanding Genesis?[ref]Ibid., 41[/ref] Enns affirmatively answers: the opening chapters of Genesis
participate in a worldview that the earliest Israelites shared with their Mesopotamian neighbors.[ref]Ibid.,
55[/ref]

3
Consequently, Enns questions the Bibles uniqueness among the literature of the ANE: Is the Old Testament
really that unique? Does it not just reflect the ancient world in which it was produced? If the Bible is the word
of God, why does it fit so nicely in the ancient world?[ref]Ibid., 15-16[/ref] Enns main objective in writing
his book is clear. Because the Bible bears the marks of its humanity b y participating so thoroughly within
the ANE cultures and conventions in which it was written, Enns believes that the Bible should be interpreted
like any other book.

B y contrast, the traditional view of the Bible as sui generis (Latin phrase meaning of its own kind) is
nowhere found in Enns understanding of Scripture.

Genesis 1 as ANE Myth

Enns maintains that the Bible is a culturally-conditioned work. While Enns recognizes that the Genesis
account of creation is different in that it is not written from the perspective of polytheism of the ANE
context,[ref]Ibid., 55[/ref] his perspective that the Genesis account is merely a mythic one divorced from
historical reality is unacceptable and untrue. In fact, Enns draws the similarity between the creation account
of Genesis 1 and the ANE myths so tightly that he presupposes that the ANE worldview of the the world as
a flat disk with a [solid] dome above are the same in both cosmogonies. He states, Below the earth were
the waters threatening to gush up, and above the dome are the waters threatening to drop down (see Gen.
7:11). The biblical worldview described in Genesis is an ancient Near Eastern one.[ref]Ibid., 54[/ref]

While it is not debated that at the time Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he was a man of extraordinary learning
and knowledge; it is debatable, however, as to the amount of influence the ANE culture had on him during
the process of inscripturation. After all, God spoke directly, and at other times through Moses, telling His
people to forsake and destroy all idols because He alone was to be worshiped.

You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of
what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not
worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing
lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments (Exod. 20:3-6;
NASB).
You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; but you shall
utterly overthrow them and break their sacred pillars in pieces (Exod. 23:24; NASB).
But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and
hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire. For you are a holy people to the
LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all
the peoples who are on the face of the earth (Deut. 7:5-6; NASB).
The graven images of their gods you are to burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold
that is on them, nor take it for yourselves, or you will be snared b y it, for it is an abomination to the
LORD your God. You shall not bring an abomination into your house, and like it come under the ban;
you shall utterly detest it and you shall utterly abhor it, for it is something banned (Deut. 7:25-26;
NASB).
It shall come about if you ever forget the LORD your God and go after other gods and serve them
and worship them, I testify against you today that you will surely perish. Like the nations that the

4
LORD makes to perish before you, so you shall perish; because you would not listen to the voice of
the LORD your God (Deut. 8:19-20; NASB).
Beware that your hearts are not deceived, and that you do not turn away and serve other gods and
worship them (Deut. 11:16; NASB).
But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and
serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the
land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it (Deut. 30:17-18; NASB).

A relevant question that all these verses demand is: Why would Moses employ the worldview of the ANE if
God not only prohibited the gods from being worshiped, but also the very ANE worldview that the gods
inhabited and capriciously manipulated for their own evil purposes? In other words, the ANE worldview was
inherently faulty because it belonged to the myths in which the gods were worshipped and promulgated
throughout their patron nations.

B y contrast, Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. levels a devastating critique against the notion that Genesis 1 reflects the
ANE mythic worldview:

R. Laird Harris has shown that each step in this allegedly biblical diagram depends more on the
ingenuity of the modern scholars than it does on the assertions of the original writers of Scripture.
To begin with, nowhere does the Hebrew text state or imply that the raqia (often translated
firmament, but better translated as expanse) is solid or firm. It is simply an extended surface
or an expanse. The idea of firmness or solidity came more from the Latin Vulgate translation
of firmamentum and the Greek Septuagint translation steroma than it did from any Hebrew
conceptualizations. The expanse of the heavens did not imply or call for a sort of astrodome-like
structure. Raqia is used both in Genesis 1 and in Ezekiel 1 and 10. Certainly in Ezekiel it also means
an extended platform, or an expanse on which the throne of God is situated. Attempts to translate
the Hebrew terms as a strip of metal are as fruitless as those that have attempted to like some sort
of hardness to raqia in order to match this Hebrew concept with the upper half of Tiamats body
that became the sky in Bab ylonian mythology. On the contrary, if one needs a concrete picture of
the heavens, what about the poetic reference to the heavens being rolled up like a scroll (Is. 34:4;
40:22)? Neither is the case for a flat earth all that convincingat least no more convincing than
when modern newscasters claim that their news bureau has gone to the four corners of the earth
to gather their news. Rarely do moderns shout at their TV sets, Copernicus! These are legitimate
literary conventions to designate in most cases the four points of the compass. Other passages speak
just as openly of the circle of the earth (e.g., Is 40:22). The subterranean features, including the
pillars that allegedly support the earth, sheol and the waters under the earth, on close examination
also fail to uphold the triple-decked or three-storied concept of the universe. The waters under
the earth easily qualify as the waters below the shoreline where the fish dwell, for no sinkers exist
to send fishing lines down to hell (Deut 4:18). Sheol is merely the poetic word for the grave in all
sixty-five of its appearances. Some passages, it is true, do refer to the foundations of the earth as
resting on pillars, but both terms are used metaphorically as we continue to do to this day. And
what shall we say about Job 26:7 that has the earth resting on nothing? The so-called primitive view
of cosmology in the Bible turns out to be a contrived view that cannot bear up under
examination.[ref]Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Downers
Grove, IL: IVP, 2001, 76-77; see also R. Laird Harris, Bible and Cosmology, Bulletin of the Evangelical
Theological Society, 5.1 [March 1962]:11-17.[/ref]
5
What is conspicuous about Genesis 1 in comparison to the Bab ylonian account of creation in Enuma Elish is
that there are no mythic elements contained in it. In fact, the following differences are readily noted in
Genesis 1 that are distinct from Enuma Elish:

1. monotheistic worldview is presumed in the account


2. there are no gods that are birthed into existence
3. there is no pantheon or hierarchy among the gods
4. there is no sign of struggle or combat (where the older gods war against the younger gods because
they could not sleep due to the noise of the younger gods)
5. there is no reference claiming that humanity was created by the blood of a slain god
6. humanity was not compelled to work and toil so that the gods could be freed from the curse of labor

As you read the ANE myths, what becomes very apparent is that these so-called gods are nothing more than
humans who have been projected as deities in myths like Enuma Elish. Moreover, central biblical concepts
such as monotheism, holiness, and sovereignty are conspicuously foreign to the ANE myths.[ref]For a more
thorough and comprehensive treatment of the differences between the worldview of Genesis 1 and the ANE
myths including Enuma Elish, see John N. Oswalt, The Bible Among the Myths [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2009], 47-107)[/ref] The differences are so profound that John Oswalt forthrightly avows, What is striking is
not what is similar in the biblical creation account to the other stories of origins found in Israels world; rather
it is what is different. Thus Wolfram von Soden can write: Direct influences of thee Bab ylonian creation epic
on the Biblical account of creation cannot be discerned. [ref]Ibid., 103; cited from W. von Soden, The
Ancient Orient [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994], 213)[/ref] Jeffrey Niehaus also notes: A use of the
comparative method that places biblical narratives among the mythological or legendary donations of the
world is flawed, because it assumes that biblical data are capable of such classifications. It ignores (or rejects
the Bibles claims about its own historicity.[ref]Jeffrey J. Niehaus, Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical
Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2008], 15[/ref]

The foremost literary difference between the Bible and Enuma Elish is that Genesis 1 belongs to the genre of
historical narrative. The mythic world of the ANE is at odds with the historical and literal account of Genesis
1. The notion that Genesis 1 is myth-like and figurativesimilar to poetic textscannot be substantiated
from a literary standpoint. Mark Futato notes the following differences between Genesis 1 consists of the
following differences from Psalm 104, a poetic text on creation:

Note that the grammatical and syntactical differences between narrative/prose and poetry are
obvious. Genesis 1 has all the features of historical narrative, including the waw-relative
imperfect which serves to express a chain of sequential actions in the past and functions as the
main-action line of the story; Psalm 104, b y contrast, is clearly the poetic account.[ref]Mark Futato,
Interpreting the Psalms [Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2007], 26.[/ref]

6
Genesis 1 Psalm 104

Waw-relative imperfect: 50 1

Direct object marker: 26 2

Relative pronoun: 9 2

Definite article: 79 27

Additionally, practically everything we encounter in Genesis 1-3 can be found within the present created
order (e.g., sun, moon, stars, sea, land, animals, man, etc.) or the eschatological New Earth as presented in
Revelation 21-22 (e.g., the supernatural light of Gods presence; the Tree of Life). The flood narrative of
Genesis 6-9 (cf. Genesis 6:19-20) also repeats the same created elements of Genesis 1 (cf. Gen. 1:24). But if
Genesis 1 is myth, are we not forced to identify Genesis 6-9 as myth as well? In Mark 10:6-9, Jesus appeals
to the reality of creation and to the origin of Adam and Eve in order to defend the divine design of the
marriage covenant between one man and one woman. But if Genesis 1 is myth, why would Jesus appeal to
the historicity of creation and of Adam and Eve as found in Genesis 1 in order to establish the marriage
covenant? Robert Stein helpfully guides us through this apparent dilemma b y citing the differences between
historical narrative and myth:

The main problem with the mythical approach to biblical narrative is that it confuses historical issues and
literary genre. If we leave aside the question of the facticity of the miracle stories in the Bible [including
creation], the whole question of whether these stories are myths becomes extremely easy to answer. The
biblical narratives are not myths. They do not possess a mythical literary form. The stories in the Bible are best
described as realistic narrative in that they are straightforward and use the language of ordinary events.
The biblical stories take for granted the world as we tend to experience it. There is no difference between
biblical narrative and history with respect to literary genre.[ref]Robert H. Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting
the Bible [Second Edition; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011], 86[/ref]

In reality, Enns view of Genesis 1 is closer to the liberal understanding of biblical narrative as historicized
fiction. In the final analysis, what is driving Enns denial of the historicity and literality of Genesis 1 in favor
of a figurative ANE worldview is his agenda to promote theistic evolution. (More on this in a later entry.)
Enns knows that in order to circumvent the clear teaching of creation, he needs to discount the literality and
historicity of these very significant and divinely-inspired texts. But this is something he has not proven nor
accomplished, only asserted.

7
3. How Should I Interpret Genesis 1-3?

In the previous entry, I contended that the literary genre for Genesis 1-3 is historical narrative. In the
present entry, I will be arguing for the literal 6-day, 24-hour view of creation. Having said that, I want to make
clear from the outset that there are and have been many respectable evangelical scholars who have held to
a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1, and yet, believe[d] that the genre of Genesis 2-3 should be
understood as historical. Some of these interpreters are well-known evangelical scholars (such as B.B.
Warfield, R.A. Torrey, Gleason Archer, Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Meredith G. Kline, Bruce Waltke, Mark Futato, C.
John Collins, Wayne Grudem, Norman L. Geisler, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, etc.) who were/are
devout Christian believers and committed biblical inerrantistsmany of whom I have the highest regard.

I will also be using the grammatical-historical method, which seeks to find the plain sense of the biblical
text by applying standard rules of grammar and syntax and to discover what it meant historically.[ref]A
brief and adequate summary of the grammatical-historical method may found by: Bill T. Arnold & Bryan
Beyer, Encountering the Old Testament (Second Edition; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 28-29.[/ref] This is
accomplished by studying the context of the passage. Context refers to the words and sentences
surrounding a word or statement that help us understand the meaning of that word or statement.[ref]Ibid,
29.[/ref] There is an immediate context (the words and/or phrases closest to the word or phrase in
question) and remote contexts (the materials in the chapters surrounding the passage and the entire
biblical book in which it appears).[ref]Ibid.[/ref] Along with the context, the interpreter needs to determine
the texts genre (which we established for Genesis 1 as historical narrative), interpret figurative language
(if present), and let Scripture interpret Scripture (a.k.a., the analogy of Scripture).[ref]Ibid., 30-32.[/ref]
Note that The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978 [hereafter CSBI]) in Article 18 encourages the
same basic approach: We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historicaI
exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret
Scripture.[ref]http://www.etsjets.org/files/documents/Chicago_Statement.pdf[/ref]

Note that CSBI in Article 12 also asserts: We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to
spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We
further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of
Scripture on creation and the flood.[ref]Ibid.[/ref] Alongside the goal of biblical exegesis and the
grammatical-historical method, CSBI helpfully emphasizes that scientific hypotheses about earth history may
not be properly employed to overturn the clear teaching of Scripture with respect to creation and the flood.
This is significant because CSBI is precluding the eisegesis (i.e., reading into the text) of scientific theories
into the creation/flood narratives and, therefore, altering the plain sense of these important texts. While
not identical, the sentiments of Article 12 are similar to the Reformation conception of Sola Scriptura (i.e.,
Scripture Alone), which the Reformers applied in order to prevent popes or church councils to establish, by
virtue of their ecclesiastical authority, the official and acceptable interpretation of Scripture. In like manner,
our interpretation of Genesis 1-3 should not be governed by external influences such as scientific theories,
ancient Near Eastern cosmogonic myths, and philosophical notions that are inconsistent with the teaching
of Scripture. Note that The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1982) Article 19 underscores this
same perspective: We affirm that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should
be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it. We deny that Scripture should be
required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism,
secular humanism, and relativism.[ref]http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_2.pdf[/ref]

8
Differing Views of Genesis 1 & 2

In the following section, I will present a terse summary of the three major views regarding the interpretation
of Genesis 1 and 2.[ref]Due to the limitations of a blog entry, it is not possible to provide a complete survey
of all the current interpretations of Genesis 1-2.[/ref]

The Literal 6-day, 24-hour View of Creation

Proponents: Andrew Steinmann, Todd Beall, John Currid, Ken Ham

The days of creation are interpreted as literal 6-day, 24-hour periods as experienced
phenomenologically (i.e., how creation appeared from the stand point of the narrator on earth).

The Hebrew word ym consistently throughout the Old Testament refers to a literal, 24-hour day. In
the absence of strong evidence to the contrarywhich proponents of this view do not believe is
evident in the textthere is no reason to conclude that the author of Genesis 1 is intending anything
else than what is meant elsewhere in Scripture. While admitting the term may have a broader
meaning it only does so when the context explicitly says that it doesGenesis 1 does not fall into
this category.

The literal 6-day, 24-hour proponents appeal strongly to the history of interpretation claiming that
an historical consensus exists favoring the literal 6-day, 24-hour view.

The Day/Age View

Proponents: Hugh Ross, Gleason L. Archer

The Hebrew word ym can and does refer to a span of time other than 24-hours. The primary
motivation of these scholars is the strong astronomical and geological facts concerning the nature of
the origin of the universal, in general, and the earth, in particular. They claim that these facts are
virtually irrefutable.

Scripture being a non-technical text in regard to science typically speaks of natural phenomena in
descriptive rather than technical terms. Genesis 1 is no exception to this. The Hebrew use of ym is
flexible enough to allow for these days to be more than 24-hour days; they assert that vast ages of
time, millions and billions of years, are summed up in this chapter. Hence, there is no contradiction
between science and Scripturethe two are harmonious.

Framework Interpretation

Proponents: Meredith G. Kline, Mark D. Futato, Lee Irons

9
These proponents argue on literary and exegetical grounds. They insist that the structure of Genesis
1 must take precedence over any apologetic concerns since this is the intention of the text itself.

The distinctions of the framework view are two-fold: 1) it holds to a non-sequential view of the days
of creation, 2) it holds to a non-literal view of the seven days as a whole.

The Hebrew word yom has a metaphorical meaning: although it has a literal denotation (referring to
an actual day), it has a non-literal connotation (moving it away from an actual day to an unstated
time reference). The argument is further supported by an upper register/lower register view that
affirms a heavenly perspective on the event. What is primary to the framework view is the theological
connection of the message of Genesis 1 to the covenant community that has based its life around
the Sabbath week.

There is a literary structure in Genesis 1 complete with two parallel triads. The first triad (Days 1-3)
consists of the creation kingdoms, while the second triad (Days 4-6) consists of the creature kings
who exercise dominion over those kingdoms. Based upon the analogy of the two triads, the
uniqueness of the seventh day presents the Creator King as enthroned in His heavenly Sabbath rest
over all creation. The parallel structure also indicates that the refrain evening and morning display
a semi-poetic genre for Genesis 1.[ref]See Lee Irons with Meredith G. Kline, The Framework
View, in The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, ed. David G. Hagopian (Mission
Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001), 184. For brevity, I have paraphrased the points given and included the
triad illustration from p. 224.[/ref]

Creation kingdoms Creation kings

Day 1 Light Day 4 Luminaries

Day 2 Sky Day 5 Sea creatures

Sea Winged creatures

Day 3 Dry land Day 6 Land animals

Vegetation Man

The Creator King

Day 7 Sabbath

What is the Meaning of the Word Day?

From the summary of the views above, the interpretive crux of the debate is clearly over the nature of the
days in Genesis 1. Are they literal 24-hour periods, long ages of time, or non-literal, non-sequential pictures
of Gods creative activity? In this section, I will argue that each occurrence of the word day in its immediate
context of Genesis 1-2 has four distinct meanings. However, it is my contention that these differences do not
point to an agnostic understanding of the word day, and, therefore, take it figurative as some of the
proponents claim who are arguing for billions of years. It is my perspective that each occurrence allows us to
understand the big picture of Gods creative activity within the period of 6 literal, 24-hour days. I will also
highlight how the word is used within the broader context of Genesis 2.

10
Verse 5 day occurs twice in this verse.

After God creates light, He separates the darkness from the light. He calls the period of light: day.
This is the first occurrence.
The second mention of the word day in v.5 comes after it is defined by the phrase, evening and
morning, followed by the cardinal number one (literally one day).[ref]Numbers like one, two,
three, four, etc. are cardinal numbers.[/ref] The phrase evening and morning, one day is a unique
Hebrew construction since the definite article is usually attached to the word day if it is to be
translated as an ordinal number as in the first day.[ref]Numbers like first, second, third, fourth,
etc. are ordinal numbers. See for example, Andrew Steinmann, as an Ordinal Number and the
Meaning of Genesis 1:5, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (December 2002): 581.[/ref]
The phrase in v.5, therefore, should be translated: evening + morning = one day.[ref]Ibid.,
583.[/ref] The word day, in this context, is defined as an evening, (a period of darkness) plus a
morning (a period of light) totaling one dayexactly the way the Jewish people currently divide
a 24-hour day. Could Moses have been any clearer?

Verse 8 The text reads evening and morning, a second day.

Note that Moses did not employ a cardinal number (i.e., two), but an ordinal number (i.e.,
second) that follows the initial one day and asserts that another period of evening and morning
has been completed. That is, this is a second period of time (i.e., one day) and is the same length
of time as the first, i.e., composed of an evening (a period of darkness) and morning (a period of
light). This reveals the sequential and chronological order of the creation narrative.

Verse 13 Note that this phrase and time period is again repeated for a third time: evening and morning, a
third day.

Verses 14-19 On the fourth day, the luminaries are created in order to divide the day from the evening.
In addition, the sun, moon, and stars are created to take the place of the stationary, supernatural light of
days 1-3. Note that the plural form of day occurs within the purpose of the luminaries to be for signs,
seasons, days, and years. The word day in this phrase clearly refers to a 24-hour period of time! This is
clearly an etiological statement showing why the sun, moon, and stars were created and, indeed, we see
them fulfilling their very purpose today.

Verse 16 God made the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the
night (lit. evening). On day four, God created the luminaries in order to continue the work of the
supernatural light created on day one. Framework proponents object that the light is created
without a source, but God is able to make light shine apart from a luminary object such as the sun.
Revelation 21:23 states, And the city [the New Jerusalem] has no need of the sun or of the moon to
shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb (NASB).
Verse 18 the purpose of luminaries to divide between day and evening repeated.
Verse 19 evening and morning, a fourth dayimplies that the first three days were analogous to
solar days. In other words, the fact that the same unit of time is given for the fourth day (evening
11
and morning) as it was for the first three days requires that the first three days were analogous to
solar days.

Verse 23 The phrase and time period is repeated a fifth time: evening and morning, a fifth day

Verse 31 evening and morning, the sixth daythe definite article is attached to the ordinal number
signifying that this day is special from the others. The significance of the definite article is related to the
completion of the created order on the sixth day.

Chapter 2:2-3 (day occurs 3x): God ended His work and rested; God blessed the seventh day and sanctified
it. The fact that God sanctified, i.e., made it holy or set it apart, shows us that this is not an ordinary day
like the first six days of creation. Note that the repetition of the phrase evening and morning is missing.
The perspective is no longer on earth, but it is in heaven, the place of Gods eternal rest. He had just
crowned Adam as his viceroy on earth and now the seventh day is the day of Gods sitting on His throne as
King of kings and Lord of lords. Thus, this has been correctly interpreted as an eternal day as God enters
His rest in heaven. See, for example, Hebrews 4:1-11, where the seventh day of rest (i.e., entering heaven
by faith in Christ) is still considered a reality for us today. The seventh day on earth, however, was clearly a
solar day according to Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:15-17.

Genesis 2:4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the
LORD God made the earth and the heavens. This passage begins a more detailed account of creation on
day six. Note also that the word day is not qualified by a number or a reference to time such as evening
and morning. The preposition in is attached to the word day in the Hebrew text and is considered to be
temporal.[ref]Ronald J. Williams, Williams Hebrew Syntax (Revised and expanded by John C. Beckman;
Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 97. See 241.[/ref] As a result, the phrase may be translated
in the day (ESV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV) or simply when (NIV, TNK). The use of the word, therefore, is a general
reference to the entire creation week.

Implications of the Various Meanings of Day in Genesis 1-2

The word day has four different meanings in Genesis 1-2:

1. A period of light, i.e., daylight.


2. A period of evening and morning, i.e., a solar day.
3. An eternal, heavenly day, i.e., the seventh day.
4. A general temporal reference to the entire creation week.

The fact that there are four different senses of the word day does not deny a literal interpretation of the
days of creation. In 2 Samuel 7, the Hebrew word for house is rendered three different ways: 1) palace, 2)
temple, and 3) dynasty. David lived in a house (i.e., palace) and, therefore, wanted to build God a house
(i.e., temple), but God said that He would build David a house (i.e., dynasty). Does this mean that we can
deny the literal sense of the word house in 2 Samuel 7?

12
The answer is obviously no, since it is the literal/plain sense that leads us to understand what house
means in each immediate context. Likewise, each occurrence of the word day must also be read and
interpreted in light of its immediate context. This, I believe, will justifyfrom an exegetical analysisthe 6-
day, 24-hour perspective.

4. Is Genesis 1-3 Historically True?

The historicity of Genesis 1-3 has been traditionally maligned and attacked by liberal and neo-orthodox
theologians and their biblical scholars.[ref]Cf. Robert B. Strimple, Was Adam Historical?, Westminster
Seminary California, July 26, 2010, accessed January 22, 2014, http://wscal.edu/resource-
center/resource/was-adam-historical.[/ref] However, in recent years, there have been doubts and even
protests against the historicity of Adam and Eve from scholars who identify themselves as
evangelicals.[ref]Cf. Richard N. Ostling, The Search for the Historical Adam, Christianity Today, June 3,
2011, accessed January 22, 2014,
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/june/historicaladam.html?paging=off. See also, Peter Enns, The
Evolution of Adam (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2012); Denis O. Lamoureux, No Historical Adam:
Evolutionary Creation View, in Four Views on the Historical Adam, ed. M. Barrett & A.B. Caneday (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 37-65; and Kenton Sparks in Enuma Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation
in Nascent Judaism, Journal of Biblical Literature 126.4 (Winter 2007):625-648.[/ref] In this blog entry, I will
present arguments coming from two proponents who advocate the view that Adam and Eve did not exist as
historical personages. By virtue of their perspective, they deny the literality and historicity of Genesis 1-3.
Throughout this entry, I will critique what these proponents have written and defend the literal and historical
understanding of Genesis 1-3 and the historicity of Adam.

Proponent #1: Peter Enns

Peter Enns is currently teaching as an affiliate faculty member at Eastern University. He is a former Senior
Fellow of Biblical Studies for the BioLogos Foundation and was Professor of Old Testament at Westminster
Theological Seminary from 1994 to 2008.

In one of Ennss blog entries for BioLogos entitled Adam is Israel, he asserts:

Israels history as a nation can be broken down as follows:

Israel is created by God at the exodus through a cosmic battle (gods are defeated and the
Red Sea is divided).
The Israelites are given Canaan to inhabit a lush land flowing with milk and honey.
They remain in the land as long as they obey the Mosaic law.

13
They persist in a pattern of disobedience and are exiled to Babylon.

Israels history parallels Adams drama in Genesis:

Adam is created in Genesis 2 after the taming of chaos in Genesis 1.


Adam is placed in a lush garden.
Law (not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) is given as a stipulation for
remaining in the garden.
Adam and Eve disobey and are exiled.

There are two ways of looking at this parallel. You could say that the Adam story came first and then
the Israelites just followed that pattern. But there is another way. Maybe Israels history happened
first, and the Adam story was written to reflect that history. In other words, the Adam story is really
an Israel story placed in primeval time. It is not a story of human origins but of Israels origins.
Everyone has to decide for themselves which of these readings of Genesis has more explanatory
power. I (and other biblical scholars) come down on the second option for a number of reasons,
some having to do with Genesis itself while others concern other issues in the Bible.[ref]Peter Enns,
Adam is Israel, BioLogos, March 2, 2010, accessed January 17, 2012,
http://biologos.org/blog/adam-is-israel (italics are original to Enns).[/ref]

Evidently, Enns believes that Genesis 1-3 is nothing more than the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea and
the history of Israel up to the exile as simply retrojected into the primordial past of creation. As reflections
of the true historical kernel found in the history of Israel, the creation story and the fall of Adam are merely
considered myths like the other stories of the ancient Near East (hereafter, ANE). This is certainly what
Enns intends when he states, the Adam story is really an Israel story placed in primeval time. A major
premise of Ennss view of Genesis 1 as myth then is that the creation story never happened because
Israels history happened first, and the Adam story was written to reflect that history.

Enns includes the account of creation in Genesis 1 as the taming of chaos which is in direct correspondence
with the creation of Israel by God at the exodus through the defeat of the gods after the Red Sea is divided.
Thus, the separation of the waters and the creation of the people of God in Genesis 1 mirror the parting of
the Red Sea and the creation of Israel, the people of God. Although the typological parallels between the
covenant of works in Adam and Israel are widely recognized, especially among his former evangelical,
Reformed colleagues, Ennss view of Genesis 1-3 as myths falls out of the bounds of orthodoxy and an
evangelical view of Scripture.

Enns Perspective on the Date and Composition of Genesis 1

With respect to the dating of Genesis 1, Enns believes that it was written during the Babylonian exile in
response to the Babylonian cosmogonies such as Enuma Elish and Atrahasis. Enns sees two distinct creation
stories in Genesis 1-2[ref]Enns, Evolution of Adam, 68.[/ref]the first being found in Genesis 1:2-2:3 and the
second in Genesis 2:4-25.[ref]Ibid., 50-53[/ref] The former was influenced by Enuma Elish, while the latter
(including Genesis 3-8) by Atrahasis.[ref]Ibid., 53-56. See also Ennss comparison between the flood narrative
14
of Genesis 6-9 to the Mesopotamian flood story known as the Gilgamesh Epic on pp. 46-50.[/ref] Enns stoutly
notes that,

The presence of these two different creation accounts is troublesome for readers who assume that
Genesis 1 and 2 are historical in nature and that the Bibles first priority is to recount history
accurately. Yet the divergence of these stories cannot be reasonably questioned. To stitch them into
a seamless whole would dismiss the particular and distinct points of view that the authors were so
deliberate in placing there.[ref]Ibid., 52.[/ref]

Enns, in his BioLogos blog entry regarding Adam and Israel,[ref]Ibid., 65-70.[/ref] highlighted the
correlation between the history of national Israel and the mythic Adam:

This mirroring [between Adam and Israel] can hardly be coincidental. Adam in primordial times plays
out Israels national life. He is proto-Israela preview of coming attractions. This does not mean,
however, that a historical Adam was a template for Israels national life. Rather, Israels dramaits
struggle over the land and the failure to follow Gods lawis placed into primordial time. In doing
so, Israel claims that it has been Gods special people all along, from the very beginning.[ref]Ibid.,
66.[/ref]

Enns concludes that Genesis 1 was written during the Babylonian exile and indirectly influenced by Enuma
Elish:

The Adam story functioned as Israels creation story and was probably rethought and retold along
the way as Israel grew and developed in its self-understanding. In exile, faced with this national crisis
and asking themselves basic questions of self-definition, their relationship with God and so forth,
Israels theologians added another creation story, Genesis 1, modeled more along the lines of the
stories of their captors, the Babylonians, with perhaps Enuma Elish exerting an indirect influence. I
am not suggesting that Genesis 1 was written at this point out of whole cloth, especially since the
themes are not necessarily strictly Babylonian, and Israel was hardly immune to Babylonian influence
before the exile. But what became Genesis 1:1-2:3 seems to fit best in the context of national
struggle. The story stresses the sovereignty of Israels God over all of creation, who alone made all
that is, and this set Israels God apart from the gods of Israels captors and of every other nation.
Hence, what we call Genesis 1 was put at the head of Israels national story, a collection of writings
either composed or brought together in what eventually came to be called the Bible.[ref]Ibid., 141.
Note that Enns earlier stated on p. 68: A postexilic writer/writers (perhaps the shapers of the
Pentateuch) introduced an alternate account of origins, Genesis 1, modeled after common themes
found in Enuma Elish, that focused on Gods sovereignty and might over his creation, not to mention
the rhythm of the week and Sabbath restIn my opinion, the editors of the Pentateuch subsumed
the older story under the newer one so that Genesis 1 became the story of the creation of the cosmos
and Genesis 2 became the story of Israels creation against the universal backdrop. This may be why
these two different creation stories are placed next to each other as they are. Note that Ennss view
that Genesis 1 was written during the Babylonian exile as a response to the dominant culture is in
agreement with his colleague at Eastern University, Kenton Sparks, who argues that a Priestly Writer

15
wrote Genesis 1 modeled after the Babylonian cosmogony in Enuma Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite
Emulation in Nascent Judaism, Journal of Biblical Literature 126.4 (Winter 2007):625-648.[/ref]

But Ennss theory that there are two different creation stories is contextually mistaken.[ref]Although they
are not in agreement with Enns, proponents of the framework view have also argued for two distinct
creation accounts in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25. See Lee Irons with Meredith G. Kline, The
Framework View, in The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, ed. David Hagopian (Mission
Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001), 217-256. Significantly, both Kline and Irons have explicitly rejected animal
ancestry for human origins.[/ref] Genesis 2:4-25, when read in the context of Genesis 1:1-2:3, should be
understood as an elaboration of the events of the sixth day. John Collins cogently states,

It is often said, for example, that we have in Genesis 1-2 two different creation accounts (1:1-2:3 and
2:4-25), which come from separate sources. We also hear frequently that the two accounts may even
be difficult to reconcile with each other. As for the question of separate sources, the arguments for
and against such sources will be forever indecisive, since none of these putative sources is actually
known to exist. The only text that we have is the one that places the two passages together. Further,
we have no reason to expect that whoever did put these passages together was a blockhead (or a
committee of blockheads), who do not recognize contradictions every bit as well as we can. I argue
for a version of the traditional Rabbinic opinion, namely that, far from seeing two discordant
accounts, we should see Genesis 1:1-2:3 as the overall account of the creation and preparation of
the earth as a suitable place for humans to live, and Genesis 2:4-25 as an elaboration of the events
of the sixth day of Genesis 1.[ref]Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?, 52-53.[/ref]

David Tsurmura similarly asserts,

both chapters [i.e., Genesis 1 and 2] reflect the same cosmology. In Gen. 1:2, the initial situation
of the world is described positively in terms of the still unproductive and uninhabited (th
wbh) earth totally covered by ocean water, while in 2:5-6 the initial state of the earth is
described negatively in terms of the not-yet-productive earth in more concrete expressions, no
vegetation and no man. And the underground-water was flooding out to inundate the whole area
of the land, but not the entire earth as in Gen 1:2. Thus, Genesis 1 describes an earlier stage in the
one creation process in which the waters cover the earth, Genesis 2a a later stage (in 1:9-10) in which
the waters have separated and the dry land has appeared.[ref]David T. Tsumura, Genesis and
Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood: An Introduction, in I Studies Inscriptions from
Before the Flood, edited by R.S. Hess and D.T. Tsurmura (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 28-
29.[/ref]

Moreover, Tsurmura shows the continuous narrowing focus of the narrative in Genesis 2:5-6:

Therefore, the stage of the narrative setting in Gen 2:5-6 moves from the wider area, ere [Heb.
earth], to the narrower area, dm [Heb. ground], from whose dust (pr) man (dm) is
going to be formed (cf. v. 7). This focusing (or narrowing down) of the geographical area as the setting
for the Eden narrative is certainly the primary purpose of Gen 2:5-6 In other words, the garden, the
16
main stage for this Eden narrative, is part of Eden, which is part of the land, which is part of the
earth.[ref]David T. Tsurmura, Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in
the Old Testament (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 81-82.[/ref]

Thus, if the earth is viewed as universal in scope in Genesis 2:5, it stands to reason that the universal scope
of Genesis 1 had continued into Genesis 2:5, only to be further narrowed or telescoped into the land and
even further still into the garden. This contextually justifies the interpretation that Genesis 2:5-6 is a more
detailed account of the sixth day of Genesis 1.[ref]There is an apparent contradiction between Genesis 1
which has the animals created before mankind on day 6, while in Genesis 2:19 the animals are allegedly
created after Adam. The Hebrew verb in question is a waw-consecutive imperfect or wayyiqtol form of the
verb to form. Literally, the text reads and the Lord God formed. But C. John Collins convincingly argues
that the phrase could also be taken as and the Lord God had formed, i.e., a pluperfect/past perfect tense
verb (cf. the NIV and ESV translations). See C. John Collins, The Wayyiqtol as Pluperfect: When and Why,
Tyndale Bulletin 46:1 (NA 1995): 117-140. Even if it may be established that the animals were created after
Adam, but before Eve, as the other English translations imply (i.e., NASB, NRSV, NKJV, JPS), that does not
prove two creation accounts per se. Genesis 1 is a compressed narrative that summarizes the events of the
creation week, while Genesis 2:4-25 presents a more in-depth narrative as to what specifically occurred on
the 6th day. The narrative in Genesis 2 pointedly reveals that Adams creation was incomplete because he
did not find a suitable helpmate among the animals. His completion or wholeness required the creation of
Eve from one of his ribs. This then harmonizes with Genesis 1: male and female he created them (v. 27)
which would chronologically place the creation of Adam and Eve after the creation and naming of the
animals.[/ref]

Additionally, Ennss suggestion that Genesis 1:1-2:3 fits the period of the Babylonian exile is certainly
mistaken due to the unlikely triumphalism of the Israelites during that time. Would the defeated and
downcast Israelites, as Enns presumes, have the audacity to depict their cosmogony in terms of a sovereign
victory of Yahweh over the Babylonian god, Marduk, in relation to their respective cosmogonies? While
prophets of the Lord did, in fact, predict the deliverance of Israel from their Babylonian captors, as in Micah
4:10 and Isaiah 47, the prevalent mood among the rejected Hebrew people was anything but triumphant. In
Psalm 137, an exilic psalm, the psalmist did not display the kind of Israelite triumphalism over their captors
as Enns thinks. For example, verses 1-5 state:

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion. Upon the willows
in the midst of it, we hung our harps. For there our captors demanded of us songs, and our
tormentors mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the LORDS song in a
foreign land? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget her skill (Isaiah 47:1-5 NASB).

Thus, if the Israelites, as Enns believes, shared the common ANE worldview that this world takes the shape
it does because it is a mirror image of the invisible world,[ref]Oswalt, The Bible among the Myths (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 62.[/ref] then the Israelites would have understood that the Babylonian high-
god, Marduk, defeated Yahweh, the God of Israel, when the Babylonians took them as captives from their
land in 586 BC. To posit that the Israelites would somehow deny the victory of Marduk over Yahweh, as
critical scholars imagine, is highly unlikely, especially if the Israelites did, in fact, share the same worldview
as the Babylonians.

17
It is apparent that the best context for Genesis 1 and 2 belongs within the period of Moses who received the
creation story as divine revelation from God inspired by the Holy Spirit. As noted in Numbers 12:6-8a, the
Lord spoke directly and plainly with Moses: He [the LORD] said, Hear now My words: If there is a prophet
among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. Not
so, with My servant Moses, he is faithful in all My household; with him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly,
and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the LORD. While the text is silent about whether or not
God gave Moses the creation account by divine revelation, it is interesting to further note that Moses had
spent two periods of forty days with God alone on Mount Sinai (cf. Exodus 24:18; 34:28).

In spite of our conjectures, the account of creation is a part of the Pentateuch that has been traditionally
ascribed as the work of Moses. Since no human being experienced the events of creation firsthand, Moses is
surely the best candidate in biblical history (cf. Number 12: 6-8) to have received such a divine revelatory
account as recorded in Genesis 1. By contrast, however, Enns knows that in order to circumvent the clear
teaching of creation and the fall of Adam, he needs to discount the literality and historicity of Genesis 1 and
2.

Proponent #2: Denis O. Lamoureux

Denis Lamoureux is currently Associate Professor of Science and Religion at St. Josephs College in the
University of Alberta. He holds doctoral degrees in both evangelical theology and evolutionary biology.

Lamoureux, who is a self-professing evangelical, states,

Real history in the Bible begins roughly around Genesis 12 with Abraham. Like many other evangelical
theologians, I view Genesis 1-11 as a unique type of literature (literary genre) that is distinct from
the rest of the Bible. So from my perspective, was Abraham a real person? Yes! Even though I do
not believe that Adam was historical, I thoroughly believe in the historicity of Jesus and biblical
testimonies of His life.[ref]Lamoureux, Historical Adam, 44.[/ref]

He continues,

I do not believe that there ever was a historical Adam. Yet he plays a pivotal role in Holy Scripture.
Adam functions as the archetype of every man and woman. In Genesis 2 and 3, he is an incidental
ancient vessel that delivers numerous inerrant spiritual truths. Adams story is our story. The
nonhistorical Adam is you and me. But the Good News is that the historical Second Adam died for
our sins and frees us from the chains of sin and death. Amen.[ref]Ibid., 65 (italics are original to
Lamoureux).[/ref]

Lamoureux justifies his non-literal reading of Genesis 1 by appealing to the two-triad structure as found in
Genesis 1.[ref]See the previous blog entry under framework interpretation for the diagram.[/ref] He states,

18
Genesis 1 is built on an ancient poetic framework, casting doubt on the belief that this chapter is an
objective description of Gods creative activities The parallel panels in Genesis 1 are evidence
within Scripture itself of poetic license, and they indicate that the biblical author never intended to
offer a list of divine creative acts in a chronological sequence.[ref]Lamoureux, Historical Adam, 232-
233 (italics are original to Lamoureux).[/ref]

Clearly from his statement above, Lamoureux appeals to the same two parallel triads structure that is more
typical of the framework interpretation in order to justify a non-literal reading of Genesis 1. While it is
evident that the two parallel triads are present in the text, it is also apparent that the correct genre for
Genesis 1 is historical narrative and not poetry or semi-poetry (see previous article refuting
framework interpretation). The notion that the phrase, And there was evening, and there was morning
day x should be considered as a poetic refrain is not true to biblical poetry (note that the so-called refrain
is not repeated on day 7). Rather, biblical poetry is clearly marked by parallelism along with a high degree
of imagery.[ref]Cf., the works of Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Revised & Expanded
Edition; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008) and James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981). Note that Berlin explicitly states that Genesis 1:5 belongs to prose
and not poetry. See Berlin, 35.[/ref]

Genesis 1 rather has all of the earmarks of biblical narrative along with a literary structure that is
foregrounded in order to help us understand the theological intent of the passage. The fact that biblical
narratives contain literary structures does not make them poetry or semi-poetic.[ref]So Meredith G.
Kline, Because It Had Not Rained, Westminster Theological Journal 20 (1959): 156.[/ref] There is a
recognized repetitive device, which may be called formulaic repetition, in which the narrative inserts a
formulaic pattern. Note that any changes in the pattern, whether an addition or deletion, should be carefully
scrutinized.[ref]See Norman Habel, Literary Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1971),
14-15.[/ref]

Examples:

1. The formulaic pattern found in Judges 2:11-12 is used as a preface to its other occurrences in Judges
3:7-11, 3:12ff., 4:1ff., 6:1ff., 10:6ff., 13:1ff.

The sons of Israel did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh

And they served Baals (or some other gods)

Therefore the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel.

So he sold them into the hand of for years.

Then the sons of Israel cried to Yahweh for help


19
And Yahweh raised up a deliverer for the sons of Israel

Note that this literary structure is expanded to provide a theological rationale for the writers
interpretation of the entire history of the judges in the preface of Judges 2:11-23.[ref]Ibid., 15.[/ref]

2. A comparable literary structure is evident in the treatment of the kings of Israel and Judah
throughout the book of Kings. In the case of the kings of Judah the following sequence is regularly
used to introduce a king:

Year of office of the reigning king of Israel.

Name of the king of Judah and his father.

Age at date of accession and duration of reign.

Name of the mother and king of Judah.

Judgment on his religious activities (good or bad).

Examples of this formal introductory sequence appear in 2 Kings 14:1-3, 15:1-3, 16:1-3, 18:1-3 and
elsewhere.

Note that in the two examples above that there is a clear repetitive pattern that is a part of historical
narrative and yet the formulaic repetition structures the narrative in order to highlight an overarching
theological message. Note also that when there is a change to the repetitive formulawhether it be an
alteration or deletion careful attention should be paid to it since an emphasis is being highlighted. Robert
Alter comments,

a time-honored tradition of storytelling may have prescribed a mode of narration in which frequent
verbatim repetition was expected, the authors of the biblical narratives astutely discovered how the
slightest strategic variations in the pattern of repetitions could serve the purposes of commentary,
analysis, foreshadowing, thematic assertion, with a wonderful combination of subtle
understatement and dramatic force.[ref]Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York, NY:
Basic Books, 1981), 91.[/ref]

This is clearly the case with the repetitive pattern found in Genesis 1 especially with regard to the differences
of the repetitive structure found in days 1-5 while days 6 and 7 are noticeably distinct (see the previous entry

20
on How Should I Interpret Genesis 1-3?). Therefore, even though we can recognize the literary structure of
two parallel triads, the text itself is not poetic and does not allow us to interpret it figuratively, i.e., allow the
day to mean billions of years.

Was Adam Historical?

The fact that Genesis 1 and 2 are historical narratives should alert us to the fact that Genesis 3 represents
the culmination of the creation story. E.J. Young believed that the main intent of Genesis 2 was not to
continue the order of events of creation in Genesis 1 but to begin, in topical fashion, to prepare for the
scene for the temptation and fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden as depicted in Genesis 3. Young explained,

First the ground is watered and then man is created. For man the garden is made, Gods garden, and
man is placed therein. The garden, however, is a place of exquisite beauty, and trees are made to
grow therein. Thus we are prepared for the prohibition not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil. He [Moses] emphasizes just those points which need to be stressed,
in order that the reader may be properly prepared to understand the account of the fall.[ref]Edward
J. Young, Studies in Genesis One (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1964),
74-75.[/ref]

William Henry Green also held that Genesis 2 was a narrative link that logically unified the creation of the
heavens and the earth to the temptation and fall of Adam and Eve. Green averred that the vegetation
mentioned in Genesis 2 had to deal with the planting and forming of Eden alone.

Chapter ii alleges nothing respecting the relative priority of man or plants. It does not deal with the
general vegetation of the globe any further than to carry us back to a time when it did not exist. Of
its actual production ch. ii says nothing. Its positive statement is restricted to the trees of the garden
of Eden (vs. 8, 9), and we are nowhere informed that these were brought into being at the same time
with vegetation elsewhere. Nothing is said of the origin of grass and herbs, or of trees, outside of
Eden, except in ch. i.[ref]William Henry Green, The Unity of the Book of Genesis (New York, NY:
Charles Scribners Sons, 1895), 23.[/ref]

From a narrative perspective, it is clear that Moses intended Genesis 1-3 as beginning from a universal
perspective of creation (i.e., forming and filling; Genesis 1) to the creation of humankind and the Garden
of Eden (Genesis 2) to the Adamic probation, complete with the two trees: the Tree of the Knowledge of
Good and Evil and the Tree of Life (Genesis 3). (Note also that the Tree of Life reappears in Revelation 22:2.
If the Genesis 3 is ahistorical, why would the Holy Spirit inspire John the Apostle to see a vision depicting the
Tree of Life in the New Jerusalem?)

The fact that these are historical narratives requires that we should take these texts at face value and let
them speak for themselves. Adam does not represent every man, and he is not a fictional character that
belongs to a retrojected account of national Israel. Adam is employed in Scripture as a historical personage.
Note the important historical references to Adam throughout the Old and New Testaments:
21
Romans 5:12-16:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death
spread to all men because all sinned13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given,
but sin is not counted where there is no law.14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over
those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to
come.15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one mans trespass, much
more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for
many.16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one mans sin. For the judgment following one
trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

Note that Paul states very clearly that through Adam (i.e., one man) sin and death entered the
world (v. 12). The apostle continues to show that mankind is not responsible for sin where there is
no law (v. 13), since the law came through Moses. The question implicitly posed is: why then are
people dying from Adam to Moses if there is no accounting for sin until the law? The answer is already
given in v. 12, sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to
all men because all sinned, i.e., all sinned in Adam. This passage is clearly teaching the doctrine of
original sin, that the sin of Adam was imputed to his posterity along with its penalty, i.e., death.
Jesus Christ, however, reverses the curse and brings justification (v. 16) and life (v. 18). This is
nothing less than the Gospel itself.

1 Corinthians 15:45-49 (see also v. 22):

Thus it is written, The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving
spirit.46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man
was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.48 As was the man of dust, so
also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of
heaven.49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the
man of heaven.

The typological comparison between Adam and Jesus, the last Adam is obvious. Note that Paul states
very clearly that the first Adam was from the earth, a man of dust whereas Jesus, the last Adam, is
from heaven (v. 47). If Adam was not a historical person, the analogy between Adam and Christ
rings hollow.

Matthew 19:4-8

He answered, Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male
and female,5 and said, Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his
wife, and the two shall become one flesh? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What

22
therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.7 They said to him, Why then did Moses
command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away? 8 He said to them, Because of
your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not
so.

(Also the parallel text in Mark 10:2-9): these texts that show Jesus quoting from Genesis 1:27 and
Genesis 2:24. Note also that that Jesus explicitly states he who created them from the beginning
made them male and female (v. 4). It is obvious that Jesus thought of Adam and Eve as historical
persons and that He understood Genesis 1 and 2 as historical narratives.

Acts 17:24-27

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in
temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he
himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.26 And he made from one man every
nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the
boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward
him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us.

Paul in vv. 24-25 teaches about God as creator and then moves toward the creation of Adam in v. 26.
Once again, this squares with the story of the historical Adam in Genesis 1 and 2 as well as in Genesis
10 where we get the genealogical Table of Nations.

1 Timothy 2:13-14

For Adam was formed first, then Eve;14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived
and became a transgressor.

Note that Paul not only asserts that Adam and Eve are historical; he also followed the storyline from
Genesis 2 (i.e., creation of Adam and Eve) to Genesis 3 (i.e., the account of the fall).

1 Chronicles 1:1; Luke 3:38

These two passages are genealogies that include the historical Adam. Interestingly, the former begins
with Adam and the latter ends with him. If Adam were regarded by the Old and New Testament
writers as fictional, then why include him in the genealogies?

23
In conclusion, it is clear that the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were historical persons. The premise that
Adam is a mythical character without an historical basis cannot be proven by Scripture. Indeed, it is certain
that both Enns and Lamoureux do their best to deny the clear teaching of Scripture in order to read their
scientific theories of theistic evolution into the Bible. But this is not a agree to disagree peripheral issue.
It is nothing less than an essential teaching of the Christian faith because the Gospel of Jesus Christ hangs in
the balance and is severely undermined without it.

The Apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, could not have been more explicit in his teaching on the
historical Adam. It was through Adam that sin and death entered the world and because of this reason alone
did God send His only begotten Son so that He might save lost humanity and draw all humanity to Himself. If
Adam is mere fiction, then the truth of the Gospel that Christ came to save sinners who inherited Adams sin
has no real foundation for our redemption in Christs atoning work. The urgent call to bring sinners to the
cross is undermined and the only question to seriously ponder is: Saved from what?

John Yeo is Assistant Professor of Old Testament at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

24

You might also like