Due to my recent interest and work on Genesis 1 and the creation
account, I have been approached by many people about my views. While I have
detailed much of my views in my various articles and podcast episodes which you
can find
here,
I have found the need for me to produce one brief article laying out my
position in broad strokes. This article is not intended to argue for the truth
of my position or present it exegetically from the Scriptures, that is what my
other work on this is for. This is merely for summary. I have opted for a
simple Q&A format. Should you have more questions for clarification or
recommendations for how to improve the clarity of this article, please email
me.
Q. Do I hold to Inspiration and Inerrancy?
A. Yes. I affirm and orthodox view of the verbal, plenary inspiration
of the scriptures, that they are without error in intent and content, and are
authoritative for the Christian in life and practice. I reject liberal theological
notions of errors in non-salvafic statements.
Q. Do I affirm what has been called
Concordism?
(I do not agree with everything in the linked article.)
A. No, I reject Concordism as a hermeneutical principle. While I affirm
Inspiration and Inerrancy, I still do take exception to the fundamentalistic/literalistic
approach which sees even the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) conceptual and worldview
backgrounds which inform the text and positive affirmations of the text. When
God says that he judges our kidneys to determine the reward/punishment for our
conduct in Jer. 17:10, reflecting the ANE notion that the kidneys and bowels
were the seat of the person (not the mind and the heart as our modern
translation update it) I believe that God is revealing himself to the Hebrew
audience in terms they would understand without affirming such a
view of human physiology as true. I think we should not take the ANE Hebrew
cosmology, geology, or astronomy reflected in the Bible as doctrinal affirmations
of truth any more than we should the physiology reflected in it.
Q. Do you affirm Young Earth Creationism (YEC), Old Earth Creationism
(OEC), or Theological Evolution (TE)?
A. No, I reject all three precisely because they all share a Concordist
view in common. All three come to the text of Genesis 1 seeking to understand
it in terms of diachronic (chronologically ordered in time) and scientific
material origins. I find any such approach to the text to categorically
misunderstand Genesis 1. I also think that the view of the age of the earth
should be distinguished from one’s view of the text of Genesis 1. Thus, someone
is a YEC and holds to a 24 Hour or Solar Day view of Genesis 1; or one may be an
OEC and hold to a Day-Age or Gap Theory view of Genesis 1. I’m not always as
consistent on making this distinction myself in dialogues but I think it is
helpful.
Q. Do you have a view on the age of the Earth?
A. Not really. I’m largely agnostic on this question because I think
that this is purely a scientific question and I simply have not studied the
scientific evidence for or against each side. I think it has no actual bearing
on Christian theology and that current arguments about the age of the earth are
misguided and not productive in advancing the gospel.
Q. What is my general view of Genesis 1?
A. I believe that Genesis 1 is in the form of an ANE temple text, specially
a liturgical hymn of ordering and inauguration, structured around a specific
literary framework. I think that the author was likely Moses and that he
composed it sometime following the exodus from Egypt while Israel was in the
plains of Moab. Because of the recent conflict with the gods of Egypt, and the
presence of numerous Egyptians and other Semites who came out as the mixed multitude
spoken of in Ex. 12:28, I think that Moses wrote this hymn to not only reflect
the earth as the temple of YHWH, but to polemicize the gods of both Egypt and
Canaan so as to instruct the Israelites away from worshipping false gods.
Q. Do you think the “days” of Genesis 1 reflect 24 Hour solar days or long
ages?
A. I have stated above that I am not a Concordist and thus I reject the
views of Genesis 1 by YECs, OECs, and TEs such as the 24 Hour and the Day-Age
view. Ironically, while I think the rhetoric of fundamentalistic Evangelical
YECs is wildly problematic, and that the arguments for their view are typically
uninformed, I think that their reading of Genesis 1 is far closer to accurate than
that of the OEC and TEs with their Day-Age, Gap Theory and other such views.
Those familiar with just how strong my opposition to YEC views are may find
this surprising but it is true. I think that Moses used the framework of an
ordinary work week (following the pattern of 6+1) as the structure to format
his temple inauguration hymn. This reflects that God fashioned the creation
temple during the day and rested evening through morning each day, culminating
in the final day of rest in which he takes his throne as sovereign over all
creation. This paradigm of work and rest following a 6+1 pattern is used later
to model the Hebrew work week in Ex 20:11 and to set the blueprint for Sabbath
years and the years of Jubilee.
My objection then to the 24 Hour or Solar Day view is the Diachronic Concordism
by which they seek to understand it as a scientific statement about material
origins. I think reading it in such a way not only produces contradictions
within such a position, but also misses the beauty and themes developed by
Moses throughout his hymn. I think we should recapture the ANE Mosaic
backgrounds of the text and enjoy it for the presentation of our majestic
Creator God who rules and reigns from his throne over all his creation.
Q. Do I believe in a historical Adam and Eve.
A. Yes. I believe that their was a historical and singular Adam and Eve
and that the fall was a real event in history. I take note of the genre change
that occurs at Gen 2:4 and think that Moses hymn likely ends in 2:3 moving into
a more theological narrative from there.
