Interpretation

A JOURNAL
OF BIBLE AND
THEOLOGY

Climbing Out of a Swamp

The Evangelical Struggle to Understand
the Creation Texts
by Clark H. Pinnock
APRIL 198~)
VOL. xLln 1\'0. !!
SUBSCRIPTIONS:
I Year ....
3 Years
4.
Single Copies & Back Issuc~ .
Paymnu mwl hi in U.S. lund!
11 . . . . . . . . . t

...

f ........ .

U.S.

FordfJTl

Library

$13.50
$35.00

$15.00
.$40.00
.$ 4.65

~20.00

$ 4,00

$50.00
$ 6.00

INDl:XI::D flY:

IImm"", Tf",olulfi('al /~bra"

A<.<rxioljo"

Rf/igiOrl {wi"" OM: I'ni:x,.j(tlU

{",.fa II) Book It"";",,, .11 ReligiM
(,uiJ-t" tu Swt.ri Srinu, lmd Rrti~jl)ii ;'l P,riOtiirar Litua!llU
Irr.okr. vJ "'rlir/"
froil" Stud;"
]"ll'nurti{)unJr Zl'tlJ:,('/tnJI"'U(!."1l jii; BilJr/'lt'jJ.tf'n.t.th"I' mltl (:Pf"fH):.rhil'lr
N l"flI TrIta il'(n!! ),. In. (n.u!.f
F/,tig;OHj ",,d TI!ra/o,;jrq/ Abs/rari<

0"

SO(,ni Stif'I1Ul and lIuWlnrritirs /i,JI''X

PUlH,ISHf.RS: Un;()" Th(ol0i:k~1 S(,ntinary in Vir"ini:.

31UI firoul I{".. <I. Riclu,wnd, Viq(inu 23227 (801)

;I.~;,0611

ADVERTISING: Addre.. .advertu;.,,, w,r"'p<lnd"nc<o

Mr<.

II Gr"ff3m

R{l~d.

South

P"rtl~nd,

10

RUlh E. T~ylor

Maine (}4106 (201) 79'9.4381

PRINTING OFFICE: C:.. rlcr printing C<>.

2001 N. rhmillOll Slr,,"I, Rkhmond, Virginia '13230 (804) .359.9206
b ..... RY.UA'lON {I$~N n020.964:!) i. pubti1hcd quxTI"dy U."'lI~ry. Apnl. Jul)" ,,,<1
(klober) by Un'on Th("(ll<>gic<ll Scmin.ry in Virg.nia, 34M IlrO<lK R,,~d. Richmond,

Vorgin", 2:3221. 'xcood ..d$ p<lll .. gc paid;al Rochrnond. Virgo";,.

POS1'MASTF.R.: s.,nd ;,ddrciS d\~n"", to b"'[R'"~' ~1l0N. :HOI
mlll)d, VjrR'ini~ 2~227. RETURN I'OSTAGF. dUARANTa:n,

ti,"'"

Ro~d, R"I>

Climbing Out of a Swamp

The Evangelical Struggle To Understand the Creation
Texts

CLARK

H.

PINNOCK

Pro/usor oj Chris/inn lnterprtlaliou

McMasUT Divinity Colleglt

The lesson to be learned here is the principle of allowing

rhe Bible to .say what it wanes to say and not impose our
imperialistic agendas onto it: our exegesis ought to let
the texl speak and the chips fall where they may.

N ESTEEMED EVANGELICAL GEOLOGIST and son of the late

conservative Old Testament scholar E. J. Young has written: "The
evangelical community is still mired in a swamp in its attempt to understand the proper relationship between biblical interpretation and the
scientific endeavor;" and he added, there seems to be more effort being
put into name calling than into finding higher and firmer ground to stand
upon,l
The problem Davis Young idemifies is the proclivity of evangelicals to
treat the creation texLS of earl)' Genesis as a source of usable scientific
concepts and accurate historical information which can be employed in
dialogue with modern science. This tendency is well known and has been
dramatized for the public by the recent Arkansas court case. 2 the resur-

1. D,wis A. Young, "Scripture in the H;,nds of a Geologist," Wt!lmirultr Theological

jouT1Ul149 (1987), I, This is a long twopan :lnicle which traces the centuriesold effort [0
harmonize the Bible and nlOdern scienc.<: and which. according [0 the ",uliwr. has failed
(PI>. 1-34, 257-304).
2. See Langdon Gilkey's> rae;' ;tCC()Ullt oC his experience at the creationist trial in
Decenlber 198 I. Crmtionum 011 Trial: f;!)olution fl1ui God at Litll~ Rock (Mino<:apoiis: 'Winston
'ress. Hlf!5). Foranmher view. seC Norman L. Geisler, Tht: Cual(Jrin tht Cour/room (Milford.
MI: Molt Media. 19H2).

143

gence of creationist fervor in its many forms,:'} and by an acquaintance with

popular fundamentalism, onc of whose prominent traits in recent years is
.
IutIonary
'
its stubbornly antI-eva
strea k" 4
So, to write about the evangelical interpretation of creation texts means
that one has to probe an area of sensitivity and unsolved difficulty for
evangelical hermeneutics. It will dramatize the fact that evangelicals have
devoted much more time and energy to defending the inerrancy of the
Bible than to interpreting it impressively.s One is thus required to deal
with a malady in interpretation rather than a serious interpretation of the
doctrine of creation itself. Fortunately more and more evangelicals are
asking themselves if they ought to be looking to the Bible for answers to
scientific questions and embroiling themselves in these awkward debates.
They are searching for ways to back out of a dead-end street. 6
THE PRESENT SITUATION

The situation at present is roughly the following. 7 On the one hand,

there are various kinds of cona;rdists who try in differ~l1.t w~s to.p.arm-9nize the results q,f~esis'and science. They understand early Genesis to
be giving a more or less historical chronicle of what happened in the past
and try to demonstrate a concordance or correspondence between Genesis
and the adual events of creation. One of their difficulties is that there is
litde agreement among concordists on how to achieve this. One group
practices narrow concordism. They take (he days of Genesis 1 to be literal
twenty-four hour days and appeal to the tradition of flood geology to
explain the difficulties this creates. Why does the earth appear to be so old
if it is not? \Vhere did the enormous amounts of water which would be
required in a universal flood go afterwards? Though this approach bears
tremendous intellectual burdens and requires major leaps into speculation to deal with some of the problems, this is the approach presently

3. Ronald L. Numbers, "The Creationists" in God and Natuu: His/mica! Essays on tk

Enc()1lnUf" b,lw,m Christianity and Sama, ed. David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers

(Berkeley: University of California Press. 1986), pp. 391-423.

4. George M. Marsden. Fundammtalism and A11U'rnan Cu./J.urt:: TJu: SluJ,ping of Twmtitlh
CmturyEl.iang.dicalism 1870-1925 (New York~ Oxford University Press, 1980), pp.2l2-15.
5. There are hoperul signs this may be changing; see. for example, Moises Silva, Ha.s th~
Church Misread the Biblel The History of inlcrpre!.alion in the Light of Currmt Isstus (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. 1987) and Anthony C. Thiselron. The Two Honwru
(Exeter: Paternoster Press. 1980).
6. This is one of (he areas of change which Hunter notes in recenl evangelical thinking;
see James D. Hunter. ETla.ngdicalism: The Coming Gnll-ration (Chicago: University of Chi.
cago Press. 1987), pp. 27-28,33, 120, 1.32-33.
7. Davis A. Young's articles are helpful for background. andChrnlianity Today recently
published a major debate on these matters, "How It All Began:' August 12, 1988, pp.
31-46.

144

Climbing Oul of a Swamp

1n[('rpn:C'Uton

enjoying considerable popularity. a

Another group practices broad concordism, More liberal in exegesis
and more comfortable with the present scientific consensus, they construe
the days of Genesis I as long periods of time or as intermittent days of
creation amidst the lengthy process of billions of years. In this way they are
able to accept much of the evolutionary picture, picking fault with it only in
a general way, though they seem forced to stretch the text to achieve the
concordance.9
On the other hand, there are evangelical nonconcordists, who do not
read early Genesis to gain scientific information or to discover history as it
really was. They read it more as a theological text, best understood in its
own context, and therefore do nm come into such severe conflict with
modern knowledge. These scholars are of the opinion that the various
efforts at concordance have failed rationally because they were misinformed literarily. It was a mistake ever to have supposed that scientific
questions could be answered using biblical data. lO Davis A. Young can
speak for the noncontordists:
I suggest that we will be on the right track if we stop trealing Genesis 1 and
(he flood story as scientific and historical repons.' We can forever avoid
falling into the perpemai conflicts between Genesis and geology if we follow
those evangelical scholars who stress that Genesis is divinely inspired ancient
near eastern literature written within a specific historical context that entailed well-defined thought patterns, literary forms, symbols, and images. It
8. Henry M. Morns, Tlu Cmesu Ruord (San Diego: Creation Life, 1976) and Smntifu:
Creationism (San Diego: Creation Life, 1974): Donald "N. PaHen, TM Biblical Flood and til<! Ia
Epoch (Seatlle: Pacific Meridian Publishing Co., 1966); Norman L. Geisler and J. Kerby
Anderson, Origin Scinul!: A Proposal J(JY tJu: Creatilm-EvDl-w.ion ConJ.Tovasy (Grand Rapids:

Baker Book House. 1987).

9. Nineteenth..century evangelicals practiced broad concordance before the battle lines
hardened: David N. Livings[One, Darwin's FfYTgotun Dl!frodrrs: TM EncrmnJ.a BelwunEvangdutlLTkolagy and Evolul.ionary Tlwught (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co ..
1987). Recent exponents would include Bernard Ramm, Tlu Christian Vicw of Soma: and
Scriplur~ (London: PaternOSlcr,PreS5. 1955); Patde p, T. Pun,Evolution: Na/ure andScTiptuu
in Conflict1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982): John Wiesler, Tk Gnusu
Cannulion (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Publishers. 1983); Roben C. Newman and Herman
J. Eckelmann, Cnusu 0& and l!u Origin oj /Ju EaTth (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1977). Davis A. Yaung himself was formerly of this persuasion, Cualion and llu Flood
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977).
10. Nanconcordists would include: N. H. Ridderoos. h Tha" a C()Tlflici BdwUrt GcnulJ I
and Nalural Scunuf (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1957); Howard J.
Van Till, ThL Fourth Day; What du Bibl~ and 1M H~{wt:'TU AT" TrUing Us Aboul tAl! Cm.T.lion
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986); Henri Blocher, In tilL Bl!ginning:
TM Opming ChaPltTJ of Cmesis (Dow'ncrs Grove. IL: Inter Varsity Pre5_~. 1984); Meredith G.
Kllne. "Because It Had Not Rained." Wulmiruler Thlo[ogicaljouT1'W.l'lO (t958), 146-57; J. I.
Packer. "The Challenge of Biblical Interpretation: Creation" in TIlL PyocudingI of rJu
Confmmct On BiMical InurpY(/.atlon 1988 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 198B). pp. 21-33.

145

'

makes sense that Genesis presents a theology of creation that is fully aware of
and challenges the numerous polytheistic cosmogonic myths of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the other cultures surrounding Israel by exposing tllcir
idolatrous worship of (he hea venty bodies, of the animals. and of the rivers
by claiming that all of thosc things arc creatures of (he living God. The stars
are not deities. God brought the stars into being. The rivers are not deities.
God brought lhe waters imo existence. The .animals are not deities to be
worshipped and feared. for God created the animals and controls them.
Even the "chaos"!s undenhe supreme hand of the living God. Thus Genesis
1 calmly assertS the bankruptcy of the pagan polytheism from which Israel
was drawn and that constantly existed as a threat. to Israel's cominuing

faithfulness to the (rue God of heaven and earth. I I

Why is it, we may ask, that evangelicals are so powerfully drawn to the
concordis[ pattern of trying to integrate modern science and Holy Scripture? There are at least two sets of presuppositions which encourage
it-one is traditional and the other modern. First, evangelicals are theological traditionalists or conservatives, and therefore the mere fact that a
Calvin or a Luther, for example, had no qualms about reading Genesis to
be saying that God created the world in seven ordinary days impresses
them, whether it should do so or not. 12 Then there is the fact that what
Charles Darwin was proposing did administer a severe jolt to the premodern oudook and posed an apparent threat to traditional dogmatics,
particularly at the point of the uniqueness of the human and the historicity
of the fall into sin. Furthermore, 'when evangelicals look at what liberals
have done when they accommodated to this new way of thinking in
relegating biblical truth to the realm of the existential, threatening the
historical reality of the entire biblical narrative, they become understandably nervous. lS
Second, [here is a modern set of presuppositions, linked to the realist
epistemology most evangelicals favor. which has a profound influence on
their exegesis. Having a realist epistemology means that they will tend to
favor truth of a factual and scientific kind and not be quite so open [0 truth
of a more symbolic or metaphorical type. One sees it in the evangelical
doctrine of biblical inspiration, which is protective of cognitive truth in
general and factual inerrancy in particular. It means hermeneutically that
the natural" way to read the Bible is to read it as literally and as [actually as
possible. In apologetics too evangelicals like to appeal to empirical reason:
11. "Scripture in the Hands of Geologists." p. 303.
12. \Vhat they do not pause W notice is that Calvin also says in his commentary on Gellesis
that we should look elsewhere if we. wish (0 know aoout astronomy and that Genesis 1 was
using the language of ordinary description and nor teaching us science.
13, Langdon Gilkey makes rhis plain. RdigiDn and the Scimlific FuiUT"f (New York: Harper
& Row, 1970). Chap. I.

146

Climbing Out of a Swamp'

I nlerpre.:>.tion

They like to ask, If you can't trust the Bible in matters oHact, when can you
trust it? In many ways then, evangelicals are in substantial agreement with
the modern agenda which also prefers the factual and the scientific over
the symbolic and figurative. What could be more modern that (0 search for
scientific truth in texts three thousand years old? Such a modern presupposition will demand the right to read the Bible in modern terms
whatever the authorial intention of the tex~ might be. It just assumes that
our values must have been the same as those entertained by the ancient
Israelites.
.
The influence of these presuppositions and this mindset is overwhelmingly powerful, and the difficulty standing in the way of evangelicals
transcending it is enormous, Changing one's presuppositions is a painful
business, and it will not be easy for evangelicals (0 listen to the Bible's own
agenda and to put their own on the shelf. Yet it can be done, and it is
happening. 14
GETf[NG OUT OF THE SWAMP

The way out of the swamp is to begin reading early Genesis appropri-

ately in its own context, in the setting of the life of ancient Israel, and to
stop forcing modern agendas upon it. Evangelicals who are supportive of
the final authority of the Scriptures over all the other sources of human
understanding ought to be open (at least in principle) to such a strategy. If
they are sincere in wanting to submit their minds to Holy Scripture. then
this is something they will have to learn to do in the case of the Genesis
creation texts.
Does Scripture help us to decide about its own original intentions, or is it
helpless in the face of contemporary reader interests? Are there indi
cations in Genesis which support the suspicion that an attempt to find
science in Genesis is likely to be a modernity-driven agenda? If there are
such indicadons, it would be ironic, insofar as evangelicals believe it is
exactly the opposite, namely, that people are attracted [0 a literary reading
of early Genesis, not because the text requires it, but because they are
over-awed by modern science. Let me explain the basis of my conviction
lhat the tex[ invites :1 literary rC<lding which docs not call for a dose
scientific concordance.
First. evangelicals need to attend to the purpose and function of the
Bible and of the creation texts in that context. As Van Till puts it: "Taking
the Scriptures seriously involves afflrming its status as 'VVord of God and

covenantal canon.,,!5 The Bible's purpose is

LO

present a covenantal

14. Conrad Hyel S fn;:!kt:;s this point gelHly hut insislc:ntly. TIll': A1tarting oj CUlllirm: GwrJIs
and Modnn Scima (Atlanla: John Knox Press, 1984).
15. Tlu Fourth Day, p. 7H.

147

relationship between the Creator and his creatures. Genesis I - I I in

particular is a preamble to God's calling of Abram (l2: I). It answers
questions whi~h have to do with God's decision to call him. Its purpose is
not to inform us about history or scientific process as a modern scholar
might investigate it but to explain how it came about that God issued this
call to the patriarch. It also tells us how Israel came to exist and sets her
election against the background of the creation and the fall into sin, thus
helping us to understand the purposes of God in redemption. Genesis
1-11 sets the stage for what follows in the rest of the Bible. It places the
drama of salvation in the universal context of the creation of the world, the
nature of the human, and the fall of the whole race into sin. Its purpose
first and foremost is to teach certain theological truths which lie behind
God's striking a covenant with Abraham and his seed,16
One should add, in order to allay genuine fears, that chis does not mean
that one has the right to create an ironclad rule for Scripture as a whole
that in no circumstances should readers ever "allow" the text to make
historically and scientifically relevant claims. This would be to substitute
one kind of imperialism for another and drive a false wedge between
religious and factual truth. For even though the purpose of Genesis 1-11
is other than scientific, these texts are still talking about the real world and
its history in Llu:ir oum way. After all, the creation of the world is the
beginning of God's purposeful temporal activity in relation to history and
the event of the world's coming into being. My point is more modest, that
we should be guided in a general way by the macro-purpose of the Bible
and the Book of Genesis and not unduly influenced by debates which have
their meaning largely in the context of modem society.
This impression about the function of the Bible is reinforced by specific
signals in the text itself which should alert us to it in other ways as welL The
fact that God made the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day, not on the
first, ought to tell us that this is not a scientific statement (Gen. 1: 14-19).
This one detail in the narrative suggests that concordism is not going to
work well and that the agenda of the writer must have been something
other than one of describing actual physical processes.
Second, the original purpose of the writer of Genesis 1 is brought out
rather forcefully in several ways. For one thing, there are numerous
indications that he wanted to combat the errors contained in the creation
myths of [he ancient world such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish. When
placed alongside this document. Genesis I reads like a strong polemic
against the kind of pagan ideas we find there. l7 In general, it thoroughly
16, Van Till leans on Meredith G. Kline for this perspective. Tfu: Structure of Riblical
A uthority (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972). pp. 53-57.

17. Nahum M.Sarna, UndmJ.a.ndingGe7Ulu (New

l48

York~ $chocken

Books. 1970). Chap. I.

Climbing Oul. of a Swamp

lnlc:::rprt:utit:ln

demythologizes nature and sees it as the creation of the one true God. It
presents the one God who created all things and who exists independently
of nature. It says that there are no warring deities, and no mons[er goddess
needing to be subdued and cut in half. It describes the separation of the
primeval waters as a peaceful operation because the chaos is not a powerful force. Creation is by God's effortiess word and requires no struggle at
all. The text tells us (hat the heavenly bodies which (he ancients worshipped and feared are just lights in the heavens (cf. Deut. 4: 19) and that
the great sea creatures are God's workmanship too and not mythical
monsters. Most important of all. it teaches us that human beings are not a
divine afterthought, created to do the dirty work of [he gods. They were
created to be lords of the world. because they are personal agents just like
God is. is
The micro-purpose of Genesis 1 then is to counter false religious beliefs.
The author wants to undermine the prevailing mythical cosmologies and
call for a complete break with (hem. The chapter is not myth but antimyth.
Itis not history either in the modern sense, and itis mistaken to construe its
interpretation in terms of the debate over Darwin. The text tells us all this,
if we would only listen.
Third, the purpose of Genesis 1 is brought out rather plainly by evidences ofliterary artistry in itsconstruction. In so many ways it shows itself
to be a carefully composed and systematic essay. From one angle the text
moves from what is farthest from God (v. 2) to what is nearest and dearest
to him (v.26).It moves from the inanimate to the animate, from chaos to
Sabbath rest. 19 There is also an impressive pattern running through the
passage: the announcement of God speaking, the command to let something be, the report mat it was so, the evaluation that it was good, and the
temporal framework of evening and morning. Most impressive of all,
however, is the parallelism between the first (1-3) and second triad of days
(4-6). The author is using the Hebrew week as a literary framework for
displaying the theology of creation. First God creates the spaces, and then
he populates them with inhabitants. God deals with the challenge posed by
the world being "without form and void" by providing first the form and
(hen the fulness. 2o
18. The character of Genesis 1 as antimythical polemic was brought (Jut by ","UClllLl'"
evangelical s<holar Gerhard F. Hasel. "The Polemical Nature of the Genesis Cosmology."
Evangelical Qtu:J.'rUrly 46 (1974),81-102. Bruce K. Wai(ke echoes the samc p<ll"t in Cral/ion

and CMos: An EXlgclical and TluDwgU:a[ Slwiy of Biblical CosmDgony (Portland. OR: Western
Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1974).
L9. This majestic movement from chaos to order, which is preserved even when one npts
for a literal interpretation of Genesis I, opens the door (0 concordlsm gain, but in a very
general way and one which does nor require Scripture twisting.
20. This literary framework is noticed by Ridderbos, I> Tlurt: a CDnflict? pp. 29-55:
moeher, In 1lJ.< Bt:gi.nning, pp. 49-59: and Derek Kidner. Gmt:su: AT! In/roducll(l1! and
Commrol.ary (Downers Grove, IL: Inter.Varsity Press. 1967). p. 46.

l49

To spell it out, the first problem God confronts is onc of darkness, an'd
he overcomes it by creating the light on day one 'and by making the sun,
moon, and stars on day fOUl'. The second problem is posed by the watery
chaos, and God deals with it by creating a i'irmament to divide the waters
on day twO and by making birds for the sky and fish for the seas on day five.
The third problem is the formless earth, and God takes care of that by
separating the waters a second time and forming dry land with vegetation
on day three and then making the animals and human beings to dwell
upon it on day six. The author is obviously a literary architect who has
created a framework which serves magnificcmly for presenting the totality
of creation at the hand of God. 2I
The antimythical agenda coupled with the strong suggestion of literary
artifice leads to the conclusion that the logic of Genesis 1 is primarily
theological rather than historical o~ sden tific. It is the evidence of the text
rather than the desire to avoid modern criticism from science which ought
to move evangelicals away from misreading the creation account as a
scienrificall), informaLive tract and burdening themselves with enormous
and unnecessary difficulties.
A SIMILAR PATTERN IN GENESIS 2

A similar pattern emerges wh~n we examine the evangelical interpretation of Genesis 2. What the genre suggests comes into conflict with what
these modern readers seek, and one is forced to choose between the intent
of the text and reade.r presuppositions. The 5itua~ion in this case is actuall y
worse in that the passions are even more heated and agitated, because even
more is thought to be at stake. Therefore, the'dire warning is frequently
issued that the moment one begins to move away from a nonliteral,
nonhistorical reading of Genesis 2, the floodgates of criticism will open
and threaten to overthrow the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.
Listen to Francis A. Schaeffer: "If Paul is wrong in this factual statement
about Eve's coming from Adam, there is no reason to have certainty ill the
authority of any New Testament factual statement, including the factual
statement that Christ rose physically from the dead.'!22 In a similar vein,
John Meyer speaks of the text providing reliable histol'ical and scientific
information and insists on maintaining its historical 'accuracy and inerrancy.23

21. It is no[ aud! unusual [or bihlical writers [0 arrange their materials anificiallyin order
make some point: see Riddcrbos.151'heu It Got/flict? pp. 3fr-40: and Roben H. gundry,
Mauht:w: A Comrnrolary on IIi.! Lill!mry and Tht:oiogica/ Arl (Grand R<lpids: WIll. H. tel<dmaas
Publishing Co., 1982). "A Theological Postscript:' pp. 623-40.
22. No Final (;onflici (Downers Grove. ! L: IrHt!r Varsity Press, 1975), pp. :1:1-:14.
23, "How \( All Began; pp. 33-31.
I
to

150

Climbing Out of a Swamp

lrucrprcl'Hion

Why would evangelicals respond so strongly to this issue? Pan of the

expLanation relates to what has already been noted in connection with
their interpretation of Genesis 1. that is, the expectation on [he part of
evangelical readers of finding historical fact and scientific information in
the biblical text. It is an expectation which leads them, not surprisingly, to
some remarl;.able speculations including: (1) The notion that Genesis 2. is
just an explication of the sixth day of Genesis 1, which conveniently
ignores the fact that verses 5-6 presuppose a totally different order. 24 (2)
Efforts to date the appearance of Adam and Eve in history. James O.
Buswell, Jr. puts it at 30,000 B.C. on the basis of the supposed rise of
language, even though this creates another problem. namely, the neolithic
cast of the Genesis 4 account. leading Millard Erickson to admit: "This is
an area in which there are insufficient data to make any categorical
statements. It will require additional study."25 (3) The location of the
Garden of Eden. In Iran, says Ramm; but Archer demurs, claiming that it
cannot now be located because the geological conditions which the account
assumes no longer obtain.26
In addition to expectations of accurate information. (here are other
powerful assumptions at work as well. (1) There is deep resIstance to the
idea that Scripture might resort to myth; legend, or saga in order to
communicate its truth. Although there is no a priori reason to exclude this
possibility. there is the fear of liberal theology and what admitting such a
thing here could lead to. 27 (2) There is fear that the uniqueness and the
unity of the human will be jeopardized if we grant a theory of evolutionary
origins. (3) There is also fear that the fall into sin as an historical ~vent will
be lost sight of and with it the evangelical soterioiogy dependent on it.
Again, there is much by way of presuppositions to prevent a patient
hearing of the text. The impression is given that the whole gospel depends
on a literal reading of Genesis 2.
Here again the solution is to listen to the text and not let modern
presuppositions overwhelm it. First, readers need to acknowledge what a
very different narrative of creation this is in comparison to Genesis 1. The
focus is narrower, on the creaLion of man, not the cosmos. It asks the
human, not the cosmological, question: How did we come to be? It begins'
by describing a very inhospitable eanh withour any vegetation or rainfall
24. Compare Gleason L. Archer. Encyclopedia of Bibu Diffuulties (Grand Rapids! Zon.
den/an Publishing House. 1982). pp. 68--69.
25. Chrlilian Th~ology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 1987). r. 487.
26. Ramm. ThL Christian l'~w. p. 231-32; Archer, Encycloptdirr. of BiblL Diffiwllits. pp.
G9-70.
27. My suggestion lh:lt Scripture ought to be permitted to employ whatever rorms of
lil,-rary composition it chooses encountered a cool response. TIl( Scriplure Prindpll (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 19R4). Chap. 5.

15 [

and then describes (he creation of a man from the day. The origin of
woman is entirely unique. The whole ethos of the passage is pastoral. It
describes the world of the shepherd, wilh its concerns about dry earth,
abundant waters, fruited trees, and serpents.
Second, we have to be straightforward about the symbolic character of
this narrative. This is a story with the following features: a talking snake,
symbolic trees, Eve's origin through divine surgery, cherubim, a flaming
sword, God walking in [he garden, God modelling Adam from the day
and breathing into his nose, a perfect garden, the world rivers, the parade
of animals. It is a story in which God is described very anthropomorphicallyas potter, as surgeon, and as gardener. Ramm suggests that
one might view the account as a nonpostulational literary vehicle for
conveying truth, the language of theological symbolism rather than literal
prose. He mentions] ames Orr's view that this 'was "old tradition clothed in
oriental allegorical dress: 28 Even]. 1. Packer, a strong inerrantist, admits:
"There is nothing inconsistent in recognizing that real events may be
recorded in a highly symbolic manner:29
The symbolic form of the account of course does not rule out the
possibility that the fall into sin was an historical event. One of the purposes
of Genesis 2 surely was to explain what went wrong in God's good creation.
As Nahum Sarna says, "The story of the Garden of Eden is the answer of
Genesis to this problem. It wishes to indicate very simply that man,
through the free exercise of his will in rebellion against God, corrupts the
good and puts evil in its place."3o James Orr, Bernard Ramm, and James
Packer are all concerned to defend the event characcer of the fall inca sin,
and properly so in my view; but this does not necessitate misconstruing the
nature of the Genesis record. Our Christian belief in (he historical fall of
humanity into sin rests on a good deal more than Genesis 2 and does not
require us to distort that narrative in order to protect this doctrine. In a
real sense, the fall is the silent hypothesis of human history, and is one of
the most empirically verifiable doctrines of all.
CONCLUDING REMARKS

1. Evangelicals as a group have

receive low marks for their performance in this area of biblical interpretation. It is certainly not their fines(
(0

28. The Chrislw:n View, pp. 223-24. l.fore recently he speaks of Genesis 2 as ~divjnc!y
inspired reconstruction" and theology in the form of narration, Offl!rul! Lo Rt:a.son: TIlt
Tluawg;y of Sin (San Franci~co: Harper & Row. 1985). pp. 68-75.
29. 'Funrimrl.ltnl.tJli.rm." and/he Word ofGod (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship. 1958). p. 99.
He continues to hold this view; see Tlu Procuding! of llu COTiffTma on Bibiicalllllt:rpTt:I.tJLi(j1'l
1988. pp. 30-33.
30. Unrlml.anrling Gt:nL'$U, p. 24.

152

Climbing Qui of a Swamp

lntcrpc"t:Ltio"

hour. Man)' are still burdening their exegesis with presuppositions which
need to be critically reexamined. The result is a set of interpretations badly
flawed and a warfare with modern science and with one another which
createS a bad impression.
2. In this, they are behaving contrary to their own principles of theological method and operating below their own ideal of letting Scripture
speak definitively above the noise of human opinions. On this subject
indeed they tend to act like certain religious liberals in allowing the
modern demand for scientific information and accuracy to silence the
agenda of God's Word.
3. This area of hermeneutics al~o reveals the "docetic" potentia! very
near the surface of the evangelical doctrine of Scripture, an unconscious
wish not to have God's Word enter into the creaturely realm.!!l A strong
emphasis on the divine inspiration of the text naturally tends to overshadow the obligation to read the Bible in its own human and historical
setting in order to grasp its truth. It encourages readers to seek the pure
divine message to themselves here and now and to assume they will grasp
its meaning best by reading the text in the most "natural" way, which
means, in a way congenial to the assumptions of the reader, maximizing
the danger of text manipulation.~2
4. Inevitably this. also leads to theological impoverishment. So much
time and energy is consumed tilting at windmills that little gets said about
the actual doctrine of creation. Look at this article, or pick up an evangelical book on creation, and you will seldom find a discussion of the. issues
which properly belong to the heart of the doctrine: our relationship with
God the creator in contrast to systems of dualism and pantheism; the
meaning and destiny of our own existence grounded in the purpose of
God; the goodness of our created lives; creation as the basis of the belief in
the intelligibility of our world. Evangelicals themselves are forced to turn
to nonevangeIical authors such as B3;rth, Torrance, and Gilkey.3:!>
5. One of the reasons many evangelicals are hesitant to grant that the
creation texts ought to be read on their own terms and not anachronistically in the contextofmodern science is valid. They object to the way in which
liberals tend systematically to transform biblical claims into existential
31. G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Sc:riptIJ.Tt! (Grand Ra.pids; Wm. B.
1975). pp. 17-38.
32. The obvious parallel is the e\'angdical hermeneutics of eschatological asseniom
which displays the same insensitivity to the all-lmponant historical background of (he
~ymbols being employed by the biblical wrilers. Stephen Travis [ B diau: in the SaoM Coming
of Christ (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982). Chap. 4.
33. MiUard Erickson comments on some of these issues, but his discussion is limited as to
space and overshadDwed as [0 content by (he strong presence of cOflcordist concerns.
Christian T!u:owgy, Chaps. 17 and 22,

153

symbols. not just when the text suggests it, but whenever it is convenient
and practically across the board. 31 This means that they have difficulty
accepting the idea that texts like Genesis 1-2 might be more theological
than factual, despite the evidence in favor of it, due to their (warranted)
anxiety on this score. Here is a case of a presupposition, born out of the
painful experience occasioned by liberal theology and quite appropriate in
the circumstances, being applied unwisely. Even though it may be valid to
be wary of existential hermeneutics, that does not give anyone the right to
twist Scripture into a convenient polemical instrument without exegetical
permission. Besides, reading Genesis 1-2 in the way it itself commends
does not negate the major factual issues. For when all is said and done,
Genesis 1 still affirms a creation event and Genesis 2 still asserts a fall into
sin at the beginning of human history. Evangelicals are understandably
nervous about existemial hermeneutics, but that is no reason to overreact
and make the Bible a victim.
6. By placing the Bible and modern science in a strongly adversarial
relationship, evangelicals have also created a problem surrounding the
place of reason in their theological method. Normally reason plays a useful
ministerial role in theology as faith seeks critical understanding in its
assertions. The effect of this searching for scientific information in the
biblical text is that it resu Its in a much higher level of tension with current
scientific endeavor than is necessary, which in turn gives the impression
that reason plays no positive role in Christian interpretation. Of course
Calvin took the days of Genesis 1 1:0 be ordinary days, but after all he had
no reasons to doubt that. The data had not accumulated which would have
required him to deal with the issue of the age of the earth or the processes
in its formation, but we are in the position of having to take seriously the
information scientists have gathered from a careful study of God's world.
Have astronomy and geology nol told us some things which suggest it
would be wiser not to regard Genesis 1-2 as a chronicle of creative acts but
in some other way? Have not the broad concordists admitted as much
when they stretch out the narrative to include billions of years unknown to
premodern exegesis? One thing is certain~they did not find our about an
ancient earth [rom reading Genesis. Sciemists do not need any defense
from me, but something has to be said on behalf of the freedom human
beings enjoy to explore God's world without the clergy looking over their
shoulders. 35
34. Langdon Gilkey, Naming the Whirlwind: The Renewal of GDd.languag~ (Indianapolis:
Babbs-Merrill, 1969), p. 76-77.
35. Thomas Oden's treatmelll of the \Vesleyan quadril.atcral of sources for lhe thcology
induding n~a50n is helpful here. Tlte Living Gud: Systematic TheDlogy (San Fnmcisco: Harper
& Row. 19B7). 1.330-44.

154

Climbing

Ou..~

of a Swamp
!nleq",eullon

7. The lesson co be learned here is the principle of allowing t:he Bible to

say what it wants to say and nO( impose our imperialistic agendas onto i(,
squeezing it into our molds. I am not fora momemsuggesting that religion
and science occupy emirely different realms and never touch; or that
evolutionary theory, when it puffs itself up and pretends to offer us a
world view which can take the place of biblical theism, is not something (0
. be fought against; or [hat Christians ought not to raise questions about the
hard evidence which is said to favor a purely naturalistic account of
origins. My intention is to make the simple plea for the sovereignty of r.he
biblical text over reader agendas. Our exegesis ought to let the text. speak
and the chips fall where they may.