Fascinating post on Genesis and creation

From Justin Taylor's blog:

It is sometimes claimed that the church has historically interpreted Genesis 1 as taking place in six twenty-four hour days, such that this is the “traditional” interpretation, with the rise of other interpretations as being solely due to scientific theories with naturalistic assumptions, especially those of Charles Darwin in the nineteenth century.

In light of this claim, it’s instructive to read the historical survey conducted by Robert Letham in his article, “‘In the Space of Six Days’: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly,” Westminster Theological Journal 61 (1999): 147-74 [not available online].

Professor Letham writes, “This article focuses on how the six days of creation in Genesis 1 have been understood in exegetical history until the time of the Westminster Assembly [1640s]. . . . We will simply ask how the matter has been viewed in the past, for if it is as obvious as some make out we might expect a broad measure of agreement to exist.”

What follows are his summary points at the end of the article:

(1) Before the Westminster Assembly there were a variety of interpretations of Genesis 1 and its days. If the text of Genesis is so clear-cut why did the church down the centuries not see it that way? Does that not say something not only about the interpreters but also the text? Claims that a literal reading of the days of Genesis 1 is obvious fall down when the history of interpretation is taken into consideration.

(2) We will be wise to heed the warnings Augustine and Calvin give on the difficulty of interpreting this chapter, and so beware of dogmatic claims they themselves did not advance. Jerome pointed to the Jewish rabbis’ refusal to let anyone under thirty interpret it. Creation transcends our knowledge and experience. A heavy dose of medicine from Job 38:1ff is in order. As with any other passage, Genesis 1 must not be interpreted in isolation but in the context of the whole of Scripture.

(3) Until the mid-sixteenth century the interpreters we cited were all abreast of the philosophy and science of their day, and often made use of it in biblical interpretation. That we reject many of their scientific beliefs is because of our own scientific knowledge. That we place implicit faith in the laws of gravity is due to what we know scientifically, rather than from the Bible. So far I, for one, have found this reliable! Calvin allows and supports scientific work. He indicates Genesis is of a different literary genre than a science text book.

(4) The Reformed tradition of the sixteenth century interpreted creation theologically. The classic Reformed creeds consider it in the context of the doctrine of God, as an ex nihilo work of the Trinity. In so doing, they affirm their continuity with the historic teaching of the church. The question of the days of creation was not even a matter of discussion. It does not appear in theses for debate by students. Its absence is striking. It was never a matter of confessional significance.

(5) The Puritans until the time of the Westminster Assembly are significantly different from the historic church in their conspicuous lack of interest in creation in general and Genesis in particular. They never even attempted a serious theological interpretation of creation. Nor were they interested in interacting with contemporary science. At a time of such scientific and philosophical ferment this is astounding. Their interests had switched to the narrowly soteriological and ecclesiastical. Evidently, the focus of this article was not a matter of controversy for them.

You’ll have to track down the full article to see the historical homework behind these conclusions.

To be sure, none of this settles the issue—which ultimately must be settled by careful exegesis. But it is a helpful reminder for us not to assert or assume that the history of interpretation before Darwin was uniform.

When caught, blame others first.

I was at my sister's place last night and after dinner my sister and her husband and my wife and I talked. As is usually the case, with 9 children between the two couples, our conversation covers many topics about our children. Their activities, growth, idiosyncrasies, strengths, and flaws all make their way into the conversation. Such was the case last night.

My brother-in-law told us about a habit of one of his boys which is a default mode his son falls into whenever he is getting in trouble. When his parents question him about what he has done he always begin with who is to blame. When he comes up from the basement crying his parents ask him "What happened?" and his response begins with the sibling's name who he wishes to blame. He is not as concerned about what happened as he is with declaring who is to blame. That is an interesting quirk. And I have seen it in my kids as well.

This morning I was reading from Genesis 3. Here is the paragraph that caught my attention:

8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” 11 He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

After eating from the tree in disobedience to God's command, God had 3 questions for Adam and Eve: Where are you? Have you eaten from the tree which I commanded you not to eat? What is it that you have done? None of these questions should be answered by an indication of a person. And yet, in guilt, Adam replies to God's question of "Where are you?" by pointing a finger at God and saying "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid,". Then when Adam is asked if he has eaten from the tree the first words out of his mouth are "the woman". Answer the question, man! And Eve, when questioned about her role , in like manner, responds with "the serpent". Having been given responsibility over all of creation before "the fall", they would not take responsibility for their actions after "the fall".

Now, drawing these parallels from the conversation with my brother-in-law and God's Word is pretty fascinating. I must admit, I even began gloating over my discovery the more I thought about it. But then I realized, the point of the exercise was to show me that this is what I do. And it's true. My first reaction when I err(read sin) is, like Adam and Eve and my nephew, to blame someone else. The gloating stopped, quickly. When it comes to the blame game, I need look no further than than the tip of my nose.