Oct 23 2021

A Diatribe on Genesis One

James Jordan coals-M

by James B. Jordan   |   Biblical Horizons No. 255, August 2015

On what grounds do men reject the historicity of Genesis 1?

Just as the majority of evangelical Christians in America today are Arminian and Baptist, so the majority do not believe in a creation around 4000BC. I don’t expect any of these three situations to change anytime soon. Powerful presuppositions are at work in all three instances.

To cut it down to the most basic: It is clear that Genesis 1 narrates the creation of the world in six quite ordinary days, each day having a quite ordinary evening and morning, the days following one another to form a week. It is also clear that Genesis 5 and 11 form a chronology from creation to Abram. That’s the prima facie obvious reading of the text, and so the text was read by the Jews and by Christians for 3000+ years.

On what grounds do men reject the historicity of Genesis 1? One can assert simply that we now know that the world is older than 4000 years, and that the universe did not come into existence in six days; and then on the basis of such assumptions reinterpret Genesis 1. It is to the credit of most evangelical and Reformed expositors that such an argument is not satisfactory. The only possible Biblical argument for taking Genesis 1 in some other way must arise from the text itself, or other places in the Bible that rather clearly indicate that Genesis 1 is not to be taken as an historical account.

Thus, it is asserted that there are indications in Genesis 1 itself that the passage is not to be taken “literally,” indications overlooked by previous generations because they were not giving full attention to the text. The asseverations of “modern science” have forced us to look at the text anew, and now we find contradictions in the text that indicate that it is not to be taken as an historical account.

We can summarize these evidences of ahistoricality as follows. First, it is said that the creation of light on the first day contradicts the creation of the sun on the fourth. This argument cannot stand since the Bible presents the Shekinah light of God as the archetype of which the sun is but a copy. The light that was “let be” on the first day was the light of the Spirit. There is no Biblical ground for asserting a conflict between day 1 and day 4.

Second, it is said that all the plants were made on the third day, while at the time Adam was created there were still plants to be made. This contradiction is again illusory. Genesis 1 very carefully states only that grain plants and fruiting trees were made on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that at the time Adam was created certain other plants had not yet been created, and that the grain plants had not yet sprouted ears of grain. There is no contradiction in the text.

Third, it is said that the sixth day involves too much activity for one mere day. Not so. All the events could easily have been finished by noon.

Fourth, it is said that the sabbath day is unending. Here again, this is a mere assertion. The notion that the seventh day is unending has no support in the Bible. The Bible often speaks of “eighth” days. In any event, this has nothing to do with the lengths and character of the other days, which are specified as having mornings and evenings.

Finally, it is asserted that the firmament of the second day must be a hard shell over the earth, which we now know does not exist, and thus must be symbolic. This assertion ignores the facts (a) that a firmament in Hebrew is not always a hard shell, and (b) that the Bible often speaks of the firmament as a chamber as well as a layer, which comports perfectly with the statement that on day 4 God placed the sun, moon, planets, and stars within the firmament chamber.

These five asserted problems in Genesis 1 are then supplemented by observations on the literary structure of the passage, as if literary structure were somehow in conflict with historicity – an assumption so preposterous that it is never baldly stated.

In conclusion, the supposed indications that Genesis 1 is not to be taken historically prove on scant inspection to be chimaeras.

But what difference does it really make? I submit that ultimately the entire Christian faith stands or falls on how Genesis 1 is interpreted, and that the guardians of the Church must take an unequivocal stance on this matter.

The issue is hermeneutics and religion. Since these “contradictions” in Genesis 1 serve to indicate that this passage is not to be taken historically, the only alternative is to take the passage as giving some kind of archetype for creation by God. It is a foundational “myth,” expressing in “human language” matters that cannot be expressed any other way. It is a true myth in that the ideas taught in Genesis 1 are true.

And this is where the shift from true religion to gnosticism comes in. History has been replaced by ideas.

Now, with the care of a man selecting a meal from a smorgasbord, evangelicals who reject the historicity of Genesis 1 insist on the historicity of later passages in the Bible. In this happy inconsistency they rest – but for how long?

Let us turn to two other seemingly historical events in the Bible and apply the hermeneutical principles of our gnostic-influenced brethren. The first to which we turn is the ten plagues visited on Egypt.

First of all, we note that 20th century historians of the ancient world cannot find any evidence of a vast host of people leaving Egypt at the time the Bible says it happened. Moreover, according to the text of Exodus, all the Egyptian crops and cattle were destroyed, along with the Egyptian army and a large number of Egypt’s sons. Modern “scientific” archaeology and history finds no such event. Therefore, we have to look at the text of Exodus anew. Maybe these events never really happened. Maybe they are just a “true myth,” providing archetypical “ideas” that undergirded God’s relationship with Israel.

Well, do we find any indications in the text that the ten plagues are only a story, that they never really happened? Yes, we do. According to Exodus 9:6, all the livestock of Egypt died in the 5th plague, but according to 9:19, there were still more livestock to be killed in the 7th plague. Also, according to Exodus 8:22, the insects destroyed all of Egypt, clearly including the plants, while in 9:31, the flax and barley were destroyed later on in the 7th plague, and then in 10:15, the locusts ate all the remaining plants. These are much clearer contradictions than anything found in Genesis 1. And to these we may add that repeatedly Pharaoh says he will let the people go, and then changes his mind. How likely is this?

Well, since we have found such clear indications that these plagues are not to be taken as real history, do we find a literary framework to posit as some kind of alternative? Certainly. There are three groups of three plagues, and then a 10th. The first plague in each cycle begins with a command to go to Pharaoh in the morning. The second in each cycle begins with a command simply to go to Pharaoh. The third in each cycle is not announced to Pharaoh at all. The first three plagues are brought by Aaron’s staff, while the last three are brought by Moses’ hand. Etc. So, we have a clear literary structure.

Of course, traditional expositors have suggested ways around the “contradictions” in the historical narrative of the ten plagues, but if we are going to let the interpretation of Genesis 1 be our guide, we may not try to get around these contradictions. Rather, we must let them be indicators that these events never really happened. The plagues on Egypt were not historical events, but are a foundational and archetypal myth for the nation of Israel, just as the six days of Genesis are a foundational and archetypal myth for the whole universe.

Now let us turn to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Repeating our Genesis 1 procedure, we note first of all that “scientific” historians can find no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Josephus says nothing about it, and neither does any other “unbiased” source. So, maybe it never happened. We must inspect the text anew.

Do we find contradictions that indicate that the resurrection never happened? Of course we do! The four gospels are in obvious conflict with one other regarding the events of Easter morning. Of course, traditional expositors try to harmonize these four accounts, as John Wenham does in his book Easter Enigma, but we should let the contradictions stand as they are, for they indicate to us that we are not dealing with what we think of as history at all. Only someone afflicted with “common sense realism” would think that these are historical accounts.

So, seeing that there are contradictions in the text, do we find literary structures that indicate the real meaning of the text? Certainly. In John, for instance, Jesus’ tomb is presented as a holy of holies with the slab on which He lay as an Ark-cover with two angels at either end. Moreover, Jesus appears as Gardener in a new Edenic garden in John. Thus, John is giving us theology, ideas, not history. It has been argued that the resurrection of Jesus differs from creation events in that the Bible presents human witnesses and testimony (1 Corinthians 15:5-8). Well, the creation events were witnessed by the angels (Job 38:4-7), and what we have in Genesis 1 and the rest of the first creation is the testimony of angels (Hebrews 2:2; Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; 4:1-7). The angels were there during creation week. They saw it happen. They, or one of them, or the Angel of Yahweh, revealed this information to whoever wrote Genesis 1, perhaps Noah.

And here my essay concludes. If we approach the Bible the way the ahistorical interpreters of Genesis 1 want us to, the Christian religion eventually disappears into gnosticism. By the same token, if we take other passages of the Bible in their obvious historical sense, and resolve seeming contradictions in the way the Church has always done, then we must do the same with Genesis 1.

The “framework hypothesis” and its brethren import to the Bible a hermeneutics completely alien to the Christian religion. Our faith is based in facts, historical facts: the acts of God in history, in creation, redemption, and new-creation. The faith of the gnostic is in ideas about eternal matters.

Our conclusion is that these modern approaches to Genesis 1 are badly wrong. Not that those advocating them are heretics, for they with happy inconsistency retain most of the Christian religion. But if their hermeneutical procedure is allowed standing within the Church, their disciples will in time carry forth their error consistently, and the faith will be lost. Thus it has ever been.

Photo by Brian Moats, Theopolis Institute.

Share Button

Aug 22 2020

Judges is About Needing God as King, not Man

Jephthah and daughter 165

Judges isn’t a story about Israelites refusing a king. It is a story about attempts to exalt a man as king and the catastrophic results of those attempts.

Continue reading

Share Button

Jun 25 2018

Esther Predicted in Ezekiel


The book of Esther describes the fulfillment of the battle of Gog and Magog

An excerpt from “Esther in the Midst of Covenant History” by James B. Jordan (2001)
Continue reading

Share Button

Sep 5 2014

A Castrated Heart

After Meld

James Kirk learns via Vulcan mind meld that he will never marry.

Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. (1 Corinthians 7:6-7)

Reliance upon rules and regulations is a sign of immaturity. There’s nothing wrong with them, of course, just as there is nothing wrong with the “gutter guards” used to keep the ten pin bowling ball moving towards the pins for children’s parties at the bowling alley. Likewise, there was nothing wrong with creeds, rosary beads or religious paintings in their early days. They were simply mnemonic devices for the illiterate. But, just as it was with the Pharisees in the first century, these lifeless, inflexible “stoicheia” become a problem when they turn into legislation and become mandatory. Failing to tithe one’s kitchen herbs leads to certain destruction. The celibacy of certain prominent men in the Bible is part of this discussion. The question is not “Is celibacy holier than marriage?” but why were these spiritual giants, including Jesus, celibate at all?

This post has been slain and resurrected for inclusion in my 2015 book of essays, Inquietude.

Continue reading

Share Button

Jul 18 2014

Uncircumcised Jews

Joshua Jordan-West

At that time the Lord said to Joshua,
“Make flint knives and circumcise
the sons of Israel a second time.”
(Joshua 5:2)

Was Israel disobedient in its failure to circumcise every male born in the wilderness? The Lord never chastised them for this. If this lapse in the practice of circumcision was in the plan of God, what was the purpose of that plan? The example which first comes to mind is the circumcision of the firstborn son of Moses in Exodus 4:24-26.

This post has been slain and resurrected for inclusion in my 2015 book of essays, Inquietude.

Continue reading

Share Button

Jun 28 2014

Sin City – 2


or Where Kenneth Gentry Is Wrong on the Revelation

Part 1 here.

I’ve been meaning to write this post since I wrote Part 1 (over two years ago). A friend’s recent question concerning Kenneth Gentry’s lectures on the Revelation encouraged me to bite the bullet and bust a gut and get it done. The question is this: Is the Revelation to be interpreted in the light of Josephus’ Jewish War, or in the light of the Bible itself?

Continue reading

Share Button

Mar 19 2014

Weighed And Found Wanting


 And I looked, and behold, a black horse! And its rider had a pair of scales in his hand. (Revelation 6:5)

 The book of Revelation is a mystery, yet like all good mysteries it is a book made entirely of clues. It is a glimpse through the torn veil of the Temple, that is, the flesh of Jesus, into the heavenlies. The cloud into which He was taken up is opened to John’s eyes that he might see the horses and chariots of God (2 Kings 6:17). But John is a prophet who knows the Bible, and like John we will only understand the symbols if we know the Bible. The conversation at God’s table is for those who know their Master’s mind, who hear His voice as children and thus quit themselves like men. To them, this is indeed a Revelation. To those outside His commission, it remains an enigma, terrible lightning and thunder and the sound of trumpets (Exodus 19:19; 20:18).

This post has been slain and resurrected for inclusion in my 2015 book of essays, Inquietude.

Continue reading

Share Button

Sep 17 2012

Maturity, Not Merit

“What we have received from Jesus is not a collection of ‘merits,’ but rather His maturity.”

James B. Jordan writes:

The problem with the “covenant of works” notion lies in the fact that it is linked up with merit theology. There is no merit theology in the Bible. Merit theology is a hangover of medieval Roman Catholicism.

Continue reading

Share Button

Jun 27 2011

Wine, Women, Song… and War

From Wine, Women and Song, James B. Jordan lectures, Biblical Horizons Conference 2010:

“[Wine, women and song] are three things which are essential characteristics of the New Covenant glory which the Church has done a bad job of affirming over the centuries, and are three things which are hated by Islam. Islam is the scourge of Christendom, and a mirror of Christendom. It’s as if all the mistakes the Church makes are magnified in Islam or in some way directly perverted in Islam. Then, there is a fourth characteristic of the New Creation order: holy war.

Continue reading

Share Button

Jun 16 2011

Roasting the World


Wordmp3 has a new lecture by James Jordan available free for download:
Pentecost: Lighting the World on Fire

Share Button