some of why i think what i do about genesis 1

[UPDATE: It has been pointed out to me by a careful reader named Jonathan Morgan that I've made an error which is further discussed here.  The mistake is left as is in the post below, and both I and Jonathan think that while it is an inaccuracy, it does not in any major way affect the general line of thought of the post.]

After swapping some thoughts with Jeff of Scripture Zealot, it occurred to me that, in my first 91 posts, I’ve never explained why I think the way I do on Genesis 1.  As a preface to this, let me assure all who may be reading this that I do not condemn anyone for disagreeing with me on Genesis 1.  Christians, Jews, and to a lesser extent even Muslims have reached a variety of different conclusions over the years as to what Genesis 1 means.  I certainly don’t want to push my positions as mandatory;  I am simply writing to explain the situation in Genesis 1 as I see it.  I embrace my fellow-Christians who disagree as brothers and sisters in the faith.

I want to further preface this post by saying that I what I am saying here is not an attempt to prove in a strict logical way that Genesis 1 affirms certain things or that the universe is a certain age.  That is beyond the scope of what I want to do here, and even if I did pull of the unlikely achievement, it wouldn’t convince people, regardless of what side I proved.

So all I want to do is to outline a sketch of why I think what I think.  I’ll keep most of the details out of the post let it get too cluttered.  If people would like my take on any particular point of the outline, I’d be happy to dialogue with them about it.

To understand the nature of Genesis, we must first decide what sort of view of Scripture we are going to take.  I choose to take a high view of Scripture:  that it is a gift given by God to instruct us and lead us toward him.  And God does not make mistakes.  This eliminates the possibility that Genesis is nothing but a mistaken history.

So once we’ve put to rest the mistake concept, we then got to figure out what sort of significance Genesis 1 has.  If you’ve nevered read Genesis, go read it now.  The whole thing.  It’ll help give you an understanding of the book we’re arguing about.

***

Okay.  So now I’ll write assuming that everyone reading is familiar with Genesis, and with how Genesis 1 fits in it.  Basically, as I see it, there are two main options–the metaphor option and the history option for Genesis 1.

The metaphor option sees the first chapter of Genesis as periods of time which are in agreement with neo-Darwinism.  And even this does not explain the chapter, as additionally we must assume then that the six days overlap one another in strange ways, because the order of events in Genesis are different from the neo-Darwinian order of events.

I’ve read a number of proposals as to how we ought to understand Genesis 1 as metaphorical.  Each of them, as far as I have seen, requires what appears to me to be a stretching of Genesis 1 to make it fit with the conclusions of neo-Darwinism.

But leaving aside the question of Genesis 1, there is the question of how Genesis 1 fits into the Bible as a whole.  If we look at the Old Testament as a whole we see a historical sketch which trails through the centuries in a very detailed fashion, with no gaps.

The story follows, a series of historical events until Jesus.  God makes everything in the world in six days, and on the sixth day he makes Adam and Eve.  Adam has a son named Seth, Seth has a son named Enosh . . . etc.  Ages are given for all these characters, when they had their first son, and when they died.  We are told about Enoch walking with God.  Following along in the genealogy, we see end up with Noah and his three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth.  After some more stories, genealogy continues, until we reach Abraham.  Abraham and his wife Sarah have a son named Isaac when Abraham is one hundred years old.  Isaac has a son named Jacob, and Jacob has twelve sons whose descendants compose the twelve tribes of the Israelite nation.  The twelve tribes live in Egypt for a time, where they are abused as slaves, until God appoints Moses to lead them out of captivity.  Moses leads them out and brings them to the promised land.  Joshua leads them in, and rules over Israel until he dies.  Then a series of Judges rule Israel.  Finally, God appoints the king Saul, and later King David.   David is succeeded by his son Solomon, after whom the kingdom is split in two parts over taxation problems.  The southern part of the country is ruled by Rehoboam, and then by his sons until at last the Babylonians carry the Jews away into captivity.  Rehoboam’s descendent Jeconiah, born about the time of the Babylonian captivity, is the father of Jeconiah, who is the father of Shealtiel, who is the father of . . . until Joseph, the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ.

The case can be very convincingly made that the whole of the Old Testament is one long genealogy, stretching from Adam to Christ.  And it is to this genealogy that Matthew appeals when he makes his case for Jesus being the royal descendant of David.  You can see it in Matthew 1–Matthew lays out three groups of forty-two generations.

Now, it’s clear that Matthew regards Jesus’ descent from David as being not only genuine but also a very important point.  And he traces Jesus descent from Adam, on to David, and on to Joseph.  So why and where does factual history end and metaphor begin in the genealogy of Christ?

So far I’ve found no satisfactory way to deal with the question of Old Testament history other than the assumption that the entire history of Jesus, from Joseph to Joseph to David and indeed back to Adam, is a factual genuine history.

Anything else appears to me to be a stretching of the Biblical story to make it fit with modern evolutionary theory.  And I’ve not yet been convinced that’s a good idea.

I realize that a number of difficulties may exist in my understanding of the history of the Bible.  But thing my thoughts do have:  consistency.  I treat all the characters in the family tree of Jesus as historical characters, and their stories as history.

If anyone wants to try to convince me of an alternative to my understanding of Genesis, they are welcome.  But it will have to be something more than simply an appeal to “greater theological issues” in Genesis 1.  It will also have to explain the relationship of Genesis 1 to the rest of the story of the Bible in a way that makes logical sense.

Your thoughts are all welcome.  And I’d be happy to clarify my thoughts on any of the many-faced details of the issue of biblical history.