Book Review: The Genesis Debate

David G. Hagopian, editor, The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo, CA: CruXpress, 2001), pb., 319pp.

Reading The Genesis Debate: Three Views of the Days of Creation provided a front row seat at how heated the conversation about origins among fellow-believers can be. The book brings together three teams of Christian scholars set to represent three views on the days of creation and how these views impact Christian thinking about origins and cosmology.

The Teams and Views

Each team is made up of two terminal-credentialed scholars, who present their view and critique the other viewpoints. Team one is made up of Presbyterian affiliated scholars J. Ligon Duncan, III, and David W. Hall. They write a chapter on the traditional 24-hour view of the days of creation, and engage the other view points from this young earth lens.

Team two is comprised of astrophysicist Hugh Ross and Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer, representing the Day-Age view of the days of creation in which they believe natural theology informs reading the days of creation from a deep time perspective. The final team provides a literary-framework approach to reading the creation story of Genesis 1. The literary framing of the story of creation is the heart of how to read the creation development outlined by Genesis 1. This chapter is written by New Testament scholar, Lee Irons, with Old Testament scholar Meredith G. Kline.

Observations

Due to the nature of this views book, I want to make some general observations about the interactions found in this work. I am doing this for a couple of reasons. First, some of the missteps I believe in this book provide examples to learn from to improve my own case-making. Second, while I believe in the legitimacy of a young earth and universe point of view, and that we ought to engage other viewpoints, fellow-believers should participate in gracious disagreement.

Evangelical Scholars Misunderstand Each Other

Each team complained of being misunderstood. The most pronounced and heated misunderstandings came from the exchanges between Duncan-Hall and Ross-Archer.[1] Duncan-Hall’s assertion of the testimony of the history of interpretation was misunderstood as the elevation of ecclesial dogma over scripture.[2] Ross-Archer’s assertion that evidence must be gained from both special revelation and natural revelation was misunderstood as an equivocation to anti-supernatural science.[3] Irons-Kline’s non-sequential framework was marginalized as a version of Ross-Archer’s Day-Age theory.[4] At various times, these evangelical scholars did misread and inadvertently misrepresented their opponent’s argument.

I was greatly concern in how the teams misread and misrepresented their opponents. It made me wonder how much crosstalk there should be between scholars on opposite sides if the purpose is to flesh out differences and promote solutions. This was not an oral discussion subject to off the cuff remarks. Surely, there was sufficient time to properly understand their opponent’s view. It strained reason for Ross-Archer to sidestep Duncan-Hall’s point about Jesus turning water into wine as example of Divine control over substance to illustrate God’s creative power. It showed an unwillingness to see Duncan-Hall’s point by reducing the miracle into “flavor” and “color” changes. Ross-Archer’s explanation ultimately calls into question the miracle of Cana in their fake whiskey story.[5] Listening carefully is important.

Methods Slant Emphasis

Each team presented their position from their unique methodological emphases which illustrates that conclusions are not only derived from the text but also from the methodology one employs. Duncan-Hall seize on the exegetical tradition of the church­ to buttress their position from which they will not be moved.[6] Ross-Archer find corroboration between “modern science” of an old cosmos and Genesis 1 from which they offer a radically different life origins narrative.[7] Irons-Kline uniquely offer an elastic approach able to embrace old or young cosmos viewpoints because their approach to the literary features of Genesis 1 allows them to read the text as providing a figurative portrait of a real historical event.[8]

The debate helped me reflect on the methods I use for interpretation. I should not be surprised at the results of the methods employed. If the method is to only use the rule of faith, the history of interpretation, then it should not surprise me that I may defend traditional interpretations. If I emphasize the tools of literary criticism, then I should not be surprised that it may force me to purely literary conclusions which may not be able to account for macro-theological truth. Methods which seek knowledge from natural revelation to inform my reading of the scriptures may subject the text to eisegesis. The methodologies used by Duncan-Hall, Ross-Archer, and Irons-Kline have strengths, but each were shown to have weaknesses as well.

Humility: Same Commitment, Different Results

Humility is vital when evangelicals hold the same core commitments, but their divergent methodologies lead them to different conclusions.[9] Although I gravitate towards Duncan-Hall, I found that they had the most difficulty with humility throughout the discussion. Their responses to Ross-Archer and Irons-Kline revealed their intolerance for their views. In fact, their disposition forced the discussion into a two-views debate rather than three-views. There was far more cordiality between Ross-Archer and Irons-Kline. The aggressive responses by Duncan-Hall provided impetus for more detailed responses by Ross-Archer and Irons-Kline in their critiques of their view.

This made me do some self-reflection. The assumptions I held about the Day-Age View and the Framework View before reading this book were very uncharitable. There is one exception. I was aware of the Framework approach and found it helpful for seeing additional layers to what could be seen in the text of Genesis 1. After reading their commitment to the core elements of creation I felt more sympathetic to each of their views. Furthermore, Ross-Archer and Irons-Kline really gave Duncan-Hall a powerful pushback and criticism. Duncan-Hall presented a “change my mind” argument, failing to offer an exegetical foundation for their argument.

While I remain in general favor of a 24-hour viewpoint, I truly appreciated the tone, presentation and engagement of Ross-Archer and Irons-Kline. They raise some really important questions and offer an approach that should not be dismissed out of hand. Their arguments did not provide enough reason for me to change my view, but their disposition made them come off as cool heads in a heated discussion.

As a final note here, I make a plea to those who wade into the tempestuous waters of the debate on how to read Genesis 1. I support being forthright in case-making, but let us not confuse rudeness with directness–they are not the same.

Recommendation

Despite some of the weaknesses in this book, in particular the cross-talking and overt suspicion of sincerity, each chapter represents a clear argument that explains their view. I would strongly encourage to focus on the author’s commitment to a belief in God as the source of creation, give consideration to their methodology and their assumptions. As a “debate book” it was unnecessarily combative. Aside from this concern, it represents a helpful volume to understanding the sorts of issues believers debate over regarding how to read the creation days of Genesis 1.


Endnotes

[1] David G. Hagopian, ed., The Genesis Debate (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001), 189, 195–211.

[2] Hagopian, Genesis Debate, 89.

[3] Hagopian, Genesis Debate, 169.

[4] Hagopian, Genesis Debate, 108–09.

[5] Hagopian, Genesis Debate, 203.

[6] Hagopian, Genesis Debate, 21–60.

[7] Hagopian, Genesis Debate, 123–57.

[8] Hagopian, Genesis Debate, 217–53.

[9] The three teams shared a clear commitment to God’s existence, fiat ex nihilo creation, Genesis 1 affirms a historical event, and special creation of humankind; yet, they are divergent on their young earth, old earth, temporal agnosticism conclusions.


Genesis on Nations and Ethnicities

Genesis is the wellspring of all biblical thought and serves as the foundation for any well-rounded biblical worldview. Genesis reports the rise of nations and ethnicities is the result of God’s judgment on human rebellion. Is it myth or history?

Genesis as Theological Literature

First, Genesis is written in historical prose. It recounts in succession fashion early human stories, their consequences, and God’s responses. Genesis has a literary genre (historical prose), and it is theological because God is the central figure of the book.

Moreover, it is important to understand God also has inspired the form of his word. God selected the genre (i.e., form) as well as the words to be the vehicles of his word and message. Knowing this and following the scripture’s lead will help us to read the Bible closer to how God intended to experience its transforming and soul-searching power (Romans 12:1-2; Hebrews 4:12-13). 

Following basic genre guidelines will help us to identify what to expect when reading the book to, therefore, understand God’s intent; discouraging a subjective, privatized, understanding of God’s word. As Paul writes, “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (English Standard Version).[1]

God has spoken variously: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…” (Hebrews 1:1-2). This “many ways” phrase (polytropōs) indicates diversity. Our job as readers is to recognize this literary diversity and read scripture accordingly.

There are challenges to reading this ancient historical narrative. One challenge is its age because it is “older than most books we read… [and] the Bible’s antiquity provides a challenge to our understanding.”[2] We are separated by some two-and-a-half thousand years before we were born. Also, narratives often “make their points indirectly,” so we must read much larger portions of the book to improve our grasp of the book.[3] For example, how many Bible reading plans have died at the genealogies? Why? It is not part of our modern story reading expectations, which means such reports, lists, or ancient story forms are often lost on us. 

Genesis as Theological History

Second, Genesis tells us a tremendous amount about God and about the human story. But is all of it historical? Did it happen? These are serious questions asked in our secular and skeptical world. Unfortunately, even Bible scholars are counted among the skeptics.

The 2017 faith-based documentary, Is Genesis History?, argued that the historical narrative of Genesis 1–11 happened.[4] Sadly, Bible professors of Wheaton College reacted negatively to the film’s showing on their campus, a majority of whom are reportedly theistic evolutionists who believe that God used evolutionary processes to produce all the variety of organic life today.[5] This presumption calls into question the historicity of the Adam and Eve story and leads to shattering confidence in the historicity of the rest of the stories relegating them to mere theological myth.

There are clues in Genesis that it is theological history. For example, Genesis uses the phrase “these are the generations” or “this is the history” (toledoth) eleven times to mark historical events, genealogies, or literary movements (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2). Except for Genesis 2:4, ten references include a personal name to mark narrative’s events, much like in later times when events are timestamped to the year of a historical person’s reign (Jeremiah 1:1–2; Daniel 1:1; Luke 3:1–3). I believe this literary pattern asks the readers to have a historical expectation.

Unfortunately, a school of skeptical and naturalistic archaeologists (i.e., the supernatural does not exist) has been very successful in pushing their agenda that Genesis is unreliable history. To be clear, archaeology is not my field of training, but I have been reading about these issues for some time.

There are a few important counterpoints to consider: (a) the ancient world is vastly lost to us moderns due to site plundering, destructive wars and occupation, and natural erosion or burial; (b) many early discoveries were not properly cataloged, obtained, lack translation, lack proper chain of custody; (c) there are many areas that have not been excavated due to politics or lack of funding; and yet (d) what is available to us has provided two valuable interpretation tools: the contemporary setting and context to set the biblical narratives against.[6]

The field of archaeology, nevertheless, provides limited and revisable interpretations of locations, texts, and artifacts, which often illuminate the realism and narratives we read. Genesis is consistent with what we know of the ancient world.

Finally, Genesis affirms the possibility of miracles. The argument is simple: “if God exists, then miracles are possible.”[7] One of the main problems with reading the Bible is found in the first sentence of Genesis: “In the beginning God…” If the reader keeps the door open to the existence of God, then the miraculous events throughout the book that seem improbable (creation from nothing, a global flood, confusion of languages) are quite possible or probable. The naturalist, on the other hand, keeps the door tightly shut against such possibilities.[8] Yet, Genesis presumes the existence of a God.

The Rise of Nations and Ethnicities

Third, Paul summarizes dozens of passages about God’s hand in the human story:

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place… (Acts 17:28)

Every “nation” (ethnos) of humanity is derived from “one” (heis) person. 

The nations go back to one historical human figure: Adam through Noah (Genesis 10:1). This biblical truth, tied to the historical creation of humankind (Adam and Eve) made in the image of God, is the foundation for understanding the unity, value, and indivisibility of the human race. There is no basis found for teaching prejudice toward others based on the color of one’s skin (there is no curse of Ham, Genesis 9:25). Instead, we are all descendants of the same person.

The rise of nations and ethnicities begins with the literary toledoth key in Genesis 10:1. The “criteria of division” used are genealogical, regional, and political divines of various relevant nations which interacted with Israel. A key point is, that “ancient peoples were more concerned with distinctions based on nationality, linguistics and ethnicity.”[9] By listing the personal names of the patriarchs (Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth), the names of their descendants as the names of political nations, and noting their linguistic differences (10:5, 20, 31), we are to understand a big picture development of early human history. All of these nations and languages are known to this day.

“The Nations of Genesis 10,” Nelson’s Map Collection[10]

The snapshots of the family of Noah in Genesis 10 prepare us to understand the “Tower of Babel” story in Genesis 11:1–9. To this point, Genesis connects the human story from one act of uncontrolled rebellion and sinful pride to another. Babel, the ancient Mesopotamian city founded by Nimrod (10:6–10), was the epicenter of a human endeavor to build a community around a tower to the heavens (11:1–5). Today, it is well documented that in ancient Mesopotamia such pagan temples existed. These are known as ziggurats, three-to-seven-tiered mountain-shaped tower structures. 

The Ziggurat of Ur (Source: Encyclopedia Britannica)

Babylon, the later name of Babel, means “gate of god” and was known for its ziggurat in the center of the court of the temple of the pagan deity Marduk.[11] As Arnold and Beyer point out, “with a single international language and advanced building technology, humanity was unified in rebellion.”[12] In a dramatic ironic twist, God made the “gate of god” the source of their confusion and dispersed humanity into the nations and ethnicities previously mentioned in Genesis 10 (11:6–9). These nations would eventually have historical interactions with the nation of Israel.

Conclusion

Genesis recounts the historical rise of nations and ethnicities. First, there are good reasons to believe that Genesis was intended to be read historically and that the events it reports did happen even if reported in stereotyped ways. Second, reading Genesis reveals our presuppositions about miracles, evolution, and archaeological certainty. If God exists, the epic events recorded in Genesis are possible. Finally, the rise of nations and ethnicities emerged as a consequence of human rebellion; thus, amid the confusion of languages, arose ancient nations and ethnicities from which we all descend.

Endnotes

  1. Unless otherwise noted all Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016).
  2. Tremper Longman, III, Making Sense of the Old Testament: Three Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 19–20.
  3. William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 424.
  4. Is Genesis History? (Compass Cinema, 2017).
  5. Brandon Showalter, “Young Earth Creationist, Wheaton College Students Speak at 1-Y Anniv. Release of ‘Is Genesis History?’
  6. See, Edwin M. Yamauchi, “The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. Barton Payne (Waco, TX: Word, 1970), H. Darrell Lance, The Old Testament and the Archaeologist, Guides to Biblical Scholarship: Old Testament, ed. Gene M. Tucker (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1981); Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2017).
  7. Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 71.
  8. Even some so-called supernaturalists, like John Clayton, have trouble with the miraculous components of these early Genesis stories cf. Does God Exist? 49.3 (2022).
  9. John H. Walton and Victor H. Matthews, IVP Bible Background Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 31.
  10. “The Nations of Genesis 10,” Nelson’s Map Collection, Logos electronic ed. (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1997).
  11. “Babylon,” Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, electronic ed., eds. Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1990).
  12. Bill T. Arnold and Bruan E. Beyer, Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1999), 86.