When I think of the years that I burned on this subject, it actually makes me angry. This is a nonsalvific issue that muddled my thinking for years. This is going to wander off topic at the end, but I think that you will understand why I end up there if you come back to the first sentence at the end. So, let’s get to it and layout the players.
Literal interpretation (new earth) = the passage means exactly what it says. Problems: Science infers an older earth (8400 years vs. 4.6 million years). Genesis 2 reverses the order of Genesis 1. It seems that man comes before vegetation and beasts in Genesis 2. I’ve not heard this one adequately explained away by literalists. Genesis 1 creates light before sun, stars and moon. This seems a bit counter intuitive.
Darwin, science and atheists = old earth, no God. I’m just listing this for completeness.
Intelligent design = Darwin + God. Genesis is just ancient fiction, not meant to be taken literally.
BioLogos = Darwin + God applied differently. Really interesting read from their web site, because they do a great job of going through all of the above stuff, but framework is not mentioned.
Framework interpretation.
This is where I am now, so I’m going to flesh this one out in detail. The arguments above each have a fatal flaw. They either attack the inerrancy of scripture, or they attack the validity of science. Just as I believe that all parts of the Bible have to fit together nicely, so I believe that creation and our observations of creation have to fit with the Bible. Therefore, each of the above explanations has to be flawed.
Amazingly enough, framework interpretation is NOT new stuff. It dates back as an argument of Augustine in the forth century. We are going to look at Genesis 1 and 2 in terms of two groups of three, firstly two triads, and secondly Two Kingdoms.
The first three days in Genesis 1 describe the creation in terms of conceptual separations. First, God separates light from dark, next He separates Heaven from waters, finally He separates land from water. The second three days in Genesis 1 describe physical attributes of the first three days with a strikingly obvious relationship. Day 4 is about the creation of the sun, stars and moon; in other words, the mechanism for light and dark. Day 5 is about the creation of creatures that inhabit the space between heaven and the waters, the birds and creatures of the oceans; in other words, another direct relationship, day 2 with day 5. Finally, on Day 6, plants and animals of the earth and man appear on the land; which as you can see, coincides with Day 3. Therefore, conceptually, the first triad actually overlaps and occurs simultaneously with the second triad.
Another way of viewing these two triads is in terms of kingdoms and kings. Day 1 is the creation of the Kingdom of Light. Day 2 is the creation of the Kingdom of Air and Water. Day 3 is the creation of the Kingdom of Earth. The second triad lays out the kings of each kingdom. Day 4 sets out the luminaries, the sun and stars to rule the light. Day 5 sets out the birds and sea creatures to rule the air and waters. Days 6 sets out plants, animals and man to rule the earth.
Finally, the argument comes to the issue of literary genre in the Bible. There are a number of types of literary genre throughout the Bible. The Covenant or treaty is clearly a principle type of genre represented in the Bible. There are historical accounts as part of the treaty models. There is poetry. There is prophesy. And there is the creation genre. The repetitive language of Genesis 1-3 is different from the straightforward language pattern of the rest of the book. The purpose of these three chapters of Genesis is to tell the story of the eternal decrees and specifically the introduction of the Fall of Man. Genesis 3 is the first major moment in the Bible. The theological significance of Genesis 3 is fundamental to our whole understanding of Christianity. The forcing of a literalistic interpretation of these three chapters on the text is not only unnecessary, but distracting from the purpose of these chapters, which, again, is to lay out the eternal decrees and introduce the Fall of Man.
Understanding the Bible requires a few tools. First, you must identify your presuppositions. This baggage will color how you read the Bible. We all have presuppositions. Anyone who says that they have no presuppositions, but they just read what the text says, is basically telling you that their own understanding is superior to that of every other human being and even of God. That or they are just incredibly dishonest with themselves intellectually. Secondly, what does the vast preponderance of the Bible say about a subject. When interpreting a section, does your understanding fly in the face of whole sections of the rest of the Bible. Use the Bible to interpret the Bible. This is the hermeneutic that yields the best results. If your understanding of one passage seems to contradict your understanding of another passage, you’ve got it wrong in one place or both. A useful construct is to decide first what a passage cannot possibly mean, and work backwards from there. Finally, what have the great thinkers and theologians said about the subject. The Bible is not dropped from a vacuum into your life for you to figure out. Luther talks about this subject in this way. If you give 100 Bibles to 100 people and ask each to figure it out on their own, they will return with 100 heresies. This is tough stuff. You don’t have to do all of the heavy lifting; it has been done for you.
Towards this end, there are two periods in history where Biblical thinking was done critically and most clearly. In the first four centuries after Christ, the Canon is set and all of the major heresies were weeded out of the Church. Modernism and Liberalism are not new. These heresies are all ancient heresies that the church has to stamp out every few generations. The second period is the sixteenth century. During the Reformation, writers from all sides restated all of their arguments in the most systematic manner possible and principles were established or reclaimed that serve us well today. The writings of the Reformers were intended for the laity, not for scholars. We should all be reading Luther and Calvin. We need to learn the arguments.
Finally, to reiterate, I do not believe that it is necessary for all people to have the same understanding of the Bible to be saved, but I do believe that the Reformers were right. One of the key tenets of the Reformers is the Sovereignty of God. Therefore, God will save whomever He chooses in His Mercy and Grace whether we understand His motives or not. At the end of days, there will be some issues about which it will be good to be correct. Those are the issues that we need to get right. All of the Bible is the inspired Word of God. But not all verses are equally important.
No comments:
Post a Comment