Do Different Interpretations of Genesis One Matter?

 We’re going through the book of Genesis in our adult Sunday school class at church. There are a lot of different issues that come up in a verse-by-verse study of Genesis. The first hurdle we have to clear is how to interpret chapter one.

There are a few different interpretations in circulation at the moment. The first is the Young Earth interpretation. This interpretation holds that the earth is somewhere between six thousand and ten thousand years old depending on whether we take the genealogies in Genesis to be open genealogies or closed genealogies. Open genealogies have gaps between the individuals listed. Closed genealogies do not. Some genealogies should be taken as open, and some should be taken as closed. The other identifying characteristic of this interpretational matrix is that the universe was created in six literal 24-hour days as is indicated by the text. This view holds that in Genesis 1:1, God created all the matter in the universe and that he formed and organized it in the following verses.

The second interpretation is called the Gap Theory. The gap theory shares the interpretation of the days of creation with the previous view but does not hold to the idea of a young earth. Gap Theory suggests that there is a gap in between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 of about 4.7 billion years. The idea is that Genesis 1:1 tells the story of an initial creation of the entire universe and Genesis 1:2 begins the account of a second creation. Why is there a need for a second creation? Good question. According to Gap Theory, the rebellion of Lucifer takes place in between the first and second verses of the chapter and all life on earth was destroyed. Genesis 1:2 is when God starts his creation for the second time to restore the earth to its former glory. This interpretation attempts to explain why the earth appears to be old.

The third interpretation is Deistic Evolutionary Theory. This theory was held by none other than Charles Darwin. It suggests that God created the earth and the primordial goo from which all creatures evolved. Under this interpretation, the six days of creation are symbolic lengths of time that represent different stages of evolution. The Day Age view is consistent with this interpretation. There is an additional theory called Progressive Creationism. I have not given it its own category because I struggle to distinguish it from Deistic Evolutionary Theory.

Finally, we come to the Big Bang Theory and secular evolution. This theory doesn’t take Genesis into account at all, so I will not be spending any time discussing it except to distinguish it from Deistic Evolutionary Theory. I will say that the Big Bang Theory, apart from the evolutionary aspects, is consistent with Genesis in that all matter was created in an extremely short amount of time. However, the Biblical perspective is that God spoke everything into existence whereas the secular position is that the big bang was spontaneous or self-caused.

I hold to the first position. I think it’s the most straight forward interpretation of the text. Gap Theory requires us to insert something into the text that has no independent collaboration outside of the theory itself. Deistic evolution seems to be an attempt to accommodate the scriptural teaching to the scientific theories of the day. The one thing a Young Earth Creationist must answer is how to explain the apparent age of the earth. There are a few responses. First, God is capable of creating the earth with apparent age. He created Adam fully formed. Creating the world with the appearance of age does not make him deceptive because he told us in scripture how he created the universe. Second, much of the earth’s apparent age can be explained by the catastrophic effects of the great flood. The fossil record in particular can be explained by this. The arguments about the scope or historicity of the great flood will have to wait to be addressed in a future article.

So, the question is, does this really matter? There are otherwise faithful Christians who hold to any of the first three interpretations of Genesis 1. I listen to teaching from people who hold all three of the deistic positions. They have a lot of good things to say, and I find their work to be very valuable. It’s clear from history and personal experience that God can draw straight lines with crooked stick and we’re all crooked sticks. I have been asked if I would require a pastoral candidate to hold to a young earth position. This is a good point. I would say that it depends on the alternative position. Each one of these interpretations requires a different hermeneutical standard. (Hermeneutics is simply the interpretation of language and is used mostly in regards to scripture.) The Young Earth position basically takes the scriptural account in the most straight forward manner. The Gap theory requires inserting a very large event into the text. Deistic evolution effects a person's view of man.

So, I would prefer to sit under the teaching of a Young Earth creationist. I would not disqualify a Gap Theorist. However, I do think I would vote against a pastoral candidate who holds to deistic evolution. Here’s why, the theological ramifications of any evolutionary theory are too great. Scripture teaches that man is created in God’s image. How do we account for that if man is simply a more highly evolved animal? There is a clear differentiation in scripture between animals and humans. That’s why we can eat animals, but murder of humans is punishable by death (Genesis 9:3-6). Furthermore, the cultural mandate was given to man not to animals (Genisis 1:28-30). To believe in evolution is to call into question God’s special creation of man and man’s special status as God’s image bearers and vice regents on earth.

Another issue with any interpretation that includes evolution relates to federal headship. The Bible teaches that all mankind is fallen in Adam. This means that we inherit our sinful nature from Adam. This not only explains why every person, with one exception, is sinful, it also explains why salvation can be procured through the death and resurrection of one man (Romans 5:12-21). If Adam represents the group of people who finally evolved from Neanderthals to homo-sapiens, we are not all fallen in one man. If we are not all fallen in one man, we cannot be redeemed in one man.

If a man is willing to accept these theological contradictions to scripture, I don’t want him to be my pastor. I would be willing to partner with him on other issues. I wouldn’t necessarily question his salvation based on his interpretation of Genesis alone. However, I would be concerned with how he interprets other scriptures that do relate directly to salvation issues. To be fair, I would be concerned that a Gap Theorist might be inclined to insert things into the text that are not necessary or appropriate. We should recognize that Young Earth creationists might miss some of the poetic passages in scripture and interpret them as the wrong genre.

The fact of the matter is, the Holy Scripture is God-breathed and we’re human beings. We’re going to struggle from time to time, but not all mistakes are equally dangerous. In my opinion, a Young Earth interpretation of Genesis will set the reader up for the most consistent understanding of the Bible as a whole. If you get the foundation straight, the rest of the house is more likely to look like the blueprints intend.