IS GENESIS 1-11 HISTORICAL NARRATIVE?

Many Christians demand that the first few chapters of Genesis must be historical narrative. From this assumption comes the primary cornerstone upon which all young-earth creationism (YEC) is built. If Genesis 1 is not historical narrative, then their whole cosmology of the entire universe being created in six literal 24-hours days falls apart. Their roughly 4,000 to 6,000 year old age of the universe depends upon Genesis 1 being historical narrative, with the added assumption that the book accurately defines the mechanisms and scientific principles God used to create the universe.

There is a serious fault with this viewpoint. Some or much of Genesis 1-11 is not historical narrative. It can’t be.

OK, so you’ve already learned that I’m an old earth guy. I admit it. I want to provide a little bit of explanation right now, even though I will be addressing specific young earth vs. old earth arguments in other posts. But one thing I need to make clear is that the young earth crowd is famous for insisting that belief in an old universe and naturalistic evolution must go hand in hand. I strongly disagree. I don’t have a complete answer for it, but I’m perfectly willing to accept an ancient universe – because of the vast mountain of evidence in science – and a special biological creation about 6000 to 10000 years ago – because of the vast mountain of evidence for that.

But back to the topic at hand. The first three days in Genesis are defined as evening and morning, a day. The sun was not created until day 4. A day is literally defined as a time interval of the earth’s rotation in front of the sun. There was no sun the first three days, therefore there could have been no evening and morning. Now, this has been a common topic of debate for hundreds of years so it’s not a new idea.

The YEC camp admits they do not know how there could be “evening and morning” without a sun in place. After all, they insist on the first three days being literal 24 hour days, but what defines a day is one rotation of the earth relative to some light source, viewed from a single fixed point on the planet. As a result, they admit we can only conjecture about how there were literal 24-hours days before the creation of the sun. Yet they demand a literal interpretation of every verse, so they are forced into the conclusion “Well, there must have been some source of light but we don’t know what it was.” This seems quite a stretch to me.

But one might argue “Oh, but these are metaphorical days” or “it was metaphorical light, perhaps the glory of God.” Exactly my point. Metaphor, not historical narrative.

Maybe we should pause long enough to define exactly what I mean by historical narrative. What this term means is very simply the retelling of actual historical events. It seems heretical to many Christians to even consider that the first book of the Bible is not actually historical narrative. For sure, YECs demand that compromise on this point compromises the validity of the entire Bible, and the validity of the gospel itself. They argue “How can one believe the rest of the Bible, for example the doctrine of salvation in the gospels, if one does not trust the historicity of Genesis 1?

It’s a valid concern, but it’s unwarranted.

First, there are a number of current and historical Christian leaders who believe that Genesis 1-11 need not be historical narrative. There are several interpretations about how we ought to understand these passages. Few of them undermine the power of the gospel.

Second, no one denies that the Bible contains many kinds of language – poetry, apocalyptic writing, historical narrative, parables, metaphor, etc. All of it is God’s truth. There is nothing in the text demanding that the first few chapter of Genesis be considered historical narrative, figurative or metaphorical language, or parable/myth. Let’s think this through together:

We understand things like Elijah declaring a drought, and the miracle of the actual drought, then the miracle of the rain that finally came. We understand things like Daniel being thrown into the lions’ den and being miraculously spared. We understand things like the children of Israel receiving miracle manna and quail from God for their sustenance. Why? Because there is much precedent and many modern-day examples of miraculous activities interrupting our otherwise natural lives. That’s why they are called supernatural events – they superimpose the miracle onto our natural circumstances.

But a talking snake? The serpent being condemned to crawl on its belly the rest of its life? What, did it start off with legs? The serpent was the craftiest of the animals – were they all able to speak? Were others almost as crafty, while others cooperative and honest? Did all the animals know how to speak or just the serpent? Who was Cain’s wife? And the people that might kill him when they see him, therefore God put a mark on his forehead to save him from the other people in other cities. Who were they? How can flood waters cover six mile high mountains? Where would it all go as it receded? Did Adam really name all the animals, birds and cattle on the planet in one day?

I am not suggesting that God does not have the power to do all this. He can do anything he pleases. But if we look honestly at the language used in the first few chapter of Genesis, we will see that it is very much unlike any other language in the Bible. It is very mythical, very strange, very poetic and epic-like. These are not just miracles, they are bizarre manifestations that have little bearing on our understanding of reality.

I believe it is entirely permissible to consider that the first few chapters of Genesis are poetic language, a creation story that credits God as being the Creator, all-wise, all-loving, incredibly creative and intelligent, without demanding that it must be considered a literal historical narrative.

Third, there is a big difference between biblical history from Genesis 1 and the biblical history in the Gospels, therefore it is a false conclusion to state that if we can’t trust in the historicity of Genesis, then we also cannot trust in the historicity of the gospels (a very common YEC argument). Genesis 1 is ancient literature, and the creation of the cosmos ancient history, and no one was actually there to witness it all. God spoke through Moses who then recorded what He told him, and these writings became the Bible. On the other hand, there is much history recorded during the time of Jesus by the gospel writers AND by secular historians, and the manuscripts are much younger, more easily traceable, and physical historic verification of places and events is much easier than for Genesis 1. Therefore, the gospels, the death and resurrection of Jesus, the launch of the new Church age, the existence of the Apostles, and much more are historically verifiable, so we trust the gospel account on the basis of what the Bibles says, AND by the fact that it’s verified by human historical records.

Now, many will argue “We should not need historical human records to verify the contents of the Bible. It’s God’s word, we should trust it regardless of the historical evidence.” This is a completely self-refuting argument, because the only reason the Bible actually exists is because of the existence of the historical physical manuscripts! It’s true that God miraculously spoke through the authors of the Bible, who were faithful to write it all down, but we would never have known any of it without historical physical documents. We verify the actual existence of the Bible by physical historical proof, so therefore physical historical proof is a 100% legitimate and verifiable source of supernatural revelation from God.

Fourth, the doctrine of salvation has nothing at all to do with what one believes about the age of the universe. I would even argue that it has nothing to do with whether one believes in evolution (here I’m not talking about naturalistic, atheistic evolution arising strictly from natural unguided processes but the idea of theistic evolution, in other words, gradual evolution of life guided intelligently by God, which I DO NOT believe, but nevertheless remains an option for many Bible-believing Christians).

The Bible is clear about what it takes to be born again and receive new life in Christ, and no where in the Bible does it even remotely hint that it has anything to do with my opinion about the age of the rocks beneath my feet. The Bible does not address the age of the universe and it is not a science textbook. The Bible was no more effective in informing the church in Galileo’s time about a geocentric universe than it is in our time regarding young vs. old earth creation viewpoints.

Some scholars who hold to the view that the early chapters in Genesis are not historical narrative mostly include the first 11 chapters, which includes Noah’s flood story. This, too, is actually highly contested in Christian circles. It is my belief that there cannot possibly enough water to cover the entire earth 16 cubits over the highest mountaintops (Mount Everest is 6 miles high), and the explanations given by YECers about massive continental drift and the upheaval of mountain ranges during the actual flood are actually impossible. But more about that in another episode.

One important point here regarding the flood is that Noah was told to treat clean animals differently than unclean ones, but the law defining the difference was not in existence then. This seems to lean toward the account being written by Moses from an understanding of Mosaic law, suggesting the account is a story or creation myth from the age of Moses, not historical narrative about the creation itself.

We should not struggle with this. There is no reason to accept the parables of Jesus (fictitious stories meant to portray spiritual truths) and reject the creation “parables” in Genesis. Both can be seen in the exact same light: stories that are designed to express spiritual truths. In the case of the Genesis accounts, the spiritual truth is that God created the universe, He created it for mankind to dwell in and marvel at, He  created it good and beautiful because of His great love for us, and He created all the life forms on the planet for their own purposes, including the human race.

How He did all of this is not specifically described in the Bible. And it need not be. Humans are good at studying the universe and learning about it. It all points to a Creator with vast intelligence and an appreciation for art and beauty.

So, is Genesis really history? I have been seeing a link in my Facebook feed for a new movie called “Is Genesis History?” This is a Young Earth Creation site, and I do not doubt the salvation of those who espouse this belief system, as long as they do not demand that belief in a young universe is required for salvation. One’s opinion about whether the book of Genesis is a parable-like story crediting God with the creation and origination of all things, or whether it is actual historical narrative is not an essential to the Christian faith because the Bible itself says it’s not. Belief in an ancient universe is not doing any damage to the gospel of Jesus.

But insistence that belief in a young universe is required for salvation is doing grave damage to the gospel. And this, my friends is the crux of the matter. You may rightfully argue that the age of the universe is not a topic that is crucial for salvation so why debate it? I would agree that it’s not an issue that is crucial for salvation, but when those who believe one way or the other make is a prerequisite for salvation, then someone needs to confront those people and remind them what the Bible actually says. I have read many testimonies from people who dearly loved the study of science and the universe, but were clearly taught they could not be a Christian and still hang onto their opinion about a billions-of-years-old universe. This is absolutely unacceptable.

“In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.”