Taking Genesis at Face Value
May 2nd, 2008
(By John MacArthur)
I realize, of course, that some old-earth creationists do hold to the literal creation of Adam and affirm that Adam was a historical figure. But their decision to accept the creation of Adam as literal involves an arbitrary hermeneutical shift at Genesis 1:26-27 and then again at Genesis 2:7.
If everything around those verses is handled allegorically or symbolically, it is unjustifiable to take the description of Adam’s creation and fall in a literal and historical sense. Therefore, the old-earth creationists’ method of interpreting the Genesis text actually undermines the historicity of Adam. Having already decided to treat the creation account itself as myth or allegory, they have no grounds to insist (suddenly and arbitrarily, it seems) that the creation of Adam is literal history. Their belief in a historical Adam is simply inconsistent with their own exegesis of the rest of the text.
But it is a necessary inconsistency if one is to affirm an old earth and remain evangelical. Because if Adam was not the literal ancestor of the entire human race, then the Bible’s explanation of how sin entered the world is impossible to make sense of.
Moreover, if we didn’t fall in Adam, we cannot be redeemed in Christ, because Christ’s position as the Head of the redeemed race exactly parallels Adam’s position as the head of the fallen race: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18-19). “And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45; cf. 1 Timothy 2:13-14; Jude 14).
So in an important sense, everything Scripture says about our salvation through Jesus Christ hinges on the literal truth of what Genesis 1-3 teaches about Adam’s creation and fall. There is no more pivotal passage of Scripture.
What “old-earth creationists” (including, to a large degree, even the evangelical ones) are doing with Genesis 1-3 is precisely what religious liberals have always done with all of Scripture—spiritualizing and reinterpreting the text allegorically to make it mean what they want it to mean. It is a dangerous way to handle Scripture. And it involves a perilous and unnecessary capitulation to the religious presuppositions of naturalism—not to mention a serious dishonor to God.
Evangelicals who accept an old-earth interpretation of Genesis have embraced a hermeneutic that is hostile to a high view of Scripture. They are bringing to the opening chapters of Scripture a method of biblical interpretation that has built-in anti-evangelical presuppositions. Those who adopt this approach have already embarked on a process that invariably overthrows faith. Churches and colleges that embrace this view will not remain evangelical long.
“But their decision to accept the creation of Adam as literal involves an arbitrary hermeneutical shift at Genesis 1:26-27 and then again at Genesis 2:7.”
There is nothing arbitrary about it. Among other reasons for my viewing things the way I do, I believe nothing in the Bible hinges on a literal interpretation of the 6 days. Quite a bit hinges on the historical existence of Adam and Eve.
Scripture interprets Scripture. There are other passages which if taken at face value would lead to wrong thinking, but when viewed in light of the whole canon we know interpretation must take place.
A simple example for Calvinists is 2 Peter 3:9 which says the Lord is not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. Many Calvinists can affirm without qualification that God does desire the salvation of all, but those Calvinists would go on to say that is not the whole story. How do they know that is not all there is to it? Nothing from this passage, but by bringing in the rest of Scripture. How do I know that Genesis 3 is literal while Genesis 1 and 2 are not? Among other things, the rest of Scripture helps me to know that.
I completely agree with this article. I find it puzzling that many Christians reinterpret the Bible in order to have it conform to their own world view, subjective morality, and otherwise modern life in light of scientific discovery.
I am a Bible literalist, which is precisely why I am not a Christian, Muslim, Mormon, or any other sect that comes from a reinterpretative view of the Scripture. It is impossible to live the way many Christians live but also interpret the Bible literally. Scientific discoveries based on the theory of evolution include vaccinations and other medicinal remedies. However, I do not know of any Christians who condemn hospitals and vaccines.
But Bible literalism, in itself, is not going to last long; it is a dying faith, and will fade out the same as Greek and Norse mythologies, if not for the simple fact that it is impossible to live according to a literal Bible and not end up in prison or deathly ill from a sickness only treatable by medicine. The modern Christian is full of contradictions to make them more easily blend into society. They have homes, watch television, and visit fancy churches (with bathrooms, no less!)
The literal Bible tells us to destroy unbelievers, to toss away material wealth, and leave all up to prayer and faith. I’m quite sure everyone’s soul on this blog is in peril because of a loose interpretation of Christianity that would allow you to actually use a computer! Did Jesus need a computer? Is not the internet a pit of secular immorality?
“What “old-earth creationists” (including, to a large degree, even the evangelical ones) are doing with Genesis 1-3 is precisely what religious liberals have always done with all of Scripture—spiritualizing and reinterpreting the text allegorically to make it mean what they want it to mean. It is a dangerous way to handle Scripture.”
Dr. MacArthur is referring only to one kind of “old earth” view, the one that allegorizes Chapters 1 and 2. The view I advocate does not. The earth may be very old indeed, and chapters 1 & 2 taken literally. So it’s a little sloppy to conflate these views. One of the fathers of fundamentalism, and a champion of inerrency, was R.A. Torrey, after all. And in his analysis of the language and context led him to an old earth-literal interpretation view. As it has for many of the great Bible teachers. I would hope Dr. MacArthur would be a little more precise.
This muddiness perhaps explains why so many young earth creationists get nervous, and think “danger!” whenever the reconstruction view of Gen. 1:1,2 is first presented to them.
There is absolutely no danger to inerrency, or the literal view of Adam, in this viewpoint. So there is not a simple “old earth” v. “young earth” dichotomy. What counts it fidelity to Scripture. The reconstruction view is as faithful to a high view of Scripture as the young earth view. The former is, however, the better interpretation, IMO.
Hey Chris,
There are quite a few responses to your points but the 2 easiest are you have to qualify your answer with a scriptural response. Show with scripture where anywhere else in the Bible the Earth is referred to in terms of millions of years. Why use evolution and not refer to anything of the like? Why woukd a perfect all knowing God, need a concept to determine which species/adaptations are best for the Earth? That puts a severe limit on God’s knowledge and ability. MacArthur’s article yesterday gave scriptural examples of Moses, Jesus, Paul referring to a literal 6 day creation. Add that up to the fact that every notable theologian until the late 1800’s intepreted scripture the same way. If that is wrong, then the clarity of scripture is under attack.
Secondly I am not sure you have researched the Calvinist view of 2 Pet 3:9 that well. It’s a qualified statement to the believers Peter is talking to, he refers to believers and those in the faith repeatedly. If you take that out of context then it is a challenge, but in the scripture around it it is a strong case for election, effectual call and perseverance of the saints.
JohnD,
I know these posts are crossing all these articles so it’s hard to track them all. I still would disagree as to the impact of a old earth/re-creation. I think you have been graceful and intelligent in your posts. I also think a re-creation impacts many doctrines because it is never taught, it is only assumed that there was a judgement in order to have a re-creation, therefore the sufficiency of scripture is lacking. This view would allow liberal theologians to say if God didn’t even teach about the millions of animals He killed before Genesis, what else can we extract from a random scripture or the like. I still think that the Gap theory is a new concept, that would conflict with the literal view of creation by every notable theologian until Torrey and the like. That is the biggest problem with Gap Theory or Theistic Evolution. Not a shot at Torrey, but I would think the clarity of scripture would have presented such an idea, BEFORE the Darwin influence. Yes the text of Genesis is old, but nowhere in Hebrew teaching was a re-creation ever mentioned. I still think the strongest evidence for a possible old earth/re-creation is in an arguable text translation. That is why it normally can’t hold up to a systematic theology. In order for it to be carried throughout scripture there would be references. Wouldn’t such a destructed earth be a fine example to use in scripture to teach judgement? Why use only Noah or Sodom and Gemorrah? I think that’s why until Torrey and the like there isn’t a mention. While there isn’t a mention of 6,000 year old Earth, the one time, 6 literal day translation is mentioned repeatedly. Seems like a HUGE coincedence that this interpretation only appeared after the theories of Evolution came. Thanks for your dialogue, sharpening iron…
JohnD,
It sounds like you hold what most call the gap theory, which I agree preserves literal Adam and Eve and represents a much higher view of Scripture than any view which spiritualizes Genesis. I “passed through” that view on my way from old earth to young earth, but I acknowledge that there’s a big difference between spiritualizing and the reconstruction view.
How do you handle Romans 5:12? It’s not the least ambiguous that death entered the world through Adam. If the reconstruction followed a judgment, there must have been death long before Adam.
Chris,
The 4th commandment hinges completely on a literal 6 days. It makes no sense any other way.
Chris Robbers,
What are you doing on thos Blog in the first place?
You seem to be very contentious and provoking, questioning a literal translatio of the Scriptures given as a literal refrence of the literal Words of God?
John 13:35
“By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
1 Corinthians 11:16
“But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”
As for the Armenian view:
Best it be said that Armenius came up with a new theology when he rebelled at the notioun of God’s perfect justice.
I am sure that many of my brethern here and myself can refer you to numerous Scriptures refrencing “predistined”, “beforehand”, “at the foundation of the earth” etc that directly teach Election, yet election is NOT without personal responsibility to repent from Unbelief, in Ezekiel the LORD makes this very clear:
I personally can testify to my “self deceived” “salvation on MY terms” wherby I was LOST and unregenerate and open sinner. Yet; by the GRACE of God and the awakening DONE by His SPIRIT I have repented in Truth and in Love, I have been “born again by the Spirit”,
Ephesians 2:5
“even when we were DEAD in trespasses, MADE us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),”
Colossians 2:13
“And you, BEING DEAD in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has MADE ALIVE together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,”
John 1:13
“…who were born, not of blood, NOR OF THE WILL of the flesh, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, but OF GOD.”
These are only but a FEW Scriptures indicating that the Doctrines of GRACE are True.
Ephesians being the BOOK of Scripture through which the LORD speaks most clearly of the Spirit’s required INVOLVEMENT in granting REGENERATING FAITH.
For further BIBLICAL reference and authority read the following:
http://www.grace.org.uk/faith/calvin.html
http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html
http://www.gty.org/MeetGTY/DoctrinalStatement
If you do not agree with the brethren of Grace, then why are you lingering with us?
Jim, excellent piont concerning the Law of the Sabbath.
The Scriptures do not contradict itself, it builds upon itself. As Johny Mac does: “Verse by Verse” expositions.
Jim beat me to it, but the Sabbath also came to my mind as being grounded in the literal 6 days of creation.
Plus, the text is pretty explicit with the whole “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day” repetition.
The question I like to ask is, what else could the author have done to indicate 6 literal days?
Hi Jim. Funny, I came to the reconstruction view on my way through young earth! I just found it more faithful to the actual words of 1:2.
And Ro. 5:12 refers, right there within itself, to Adam and his progeny. It does not refer to any pre-Adamic life or death.
Gunny,
There are Scripture that comes to mind:
Matthew 7:26
“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:”
Romans 1:21
“…because, although they knew God, they DID NOT GLORIFY Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
1 Corinthians 1 (Especially verse 18)
“For the message of the cross is FOOLISHNESS to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
1 Corinthians 2:14
“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are FOOLISHNESS to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
John 12:40
“ He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes,Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,So that I should heal them.”
Ephesians 4:18
“…having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart;”
John 9:39
“And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.”
John 12:40
“ He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes,Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,So that I should heal them.”
Romans 11:7
“What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”
2 Corinthians 4:4
“…whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.”
Romans 9:20
“But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”
I am giving a WARNING for Chris Roberst and Armenius’ followers:
DO NOT think that you can “Cut & Paste” Scripture to suit your own Feelings and imaginations. The LORD Himself has gives a Verdict of Judgement for ADDING or DELETING from His Revelation by Scripture, IN A LITTERAL sense.
I think it’s funny in an article about biblical authority in Genesis, a picture of an apple is used, I suppose, to be the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Here is someone who debated with John MacArthur:
http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/revised-genesis-science.html
Is there an electronic copy of the article detailing the debate btw MacArthur and Copan available? I would love to read it.
Why does Genesis 1-2 even need to be reconstructed?
David B wrote:
“MacArthur’s article yesterday gave scriptural examples of Moses, Jesus, Paul referring to a literal 6 day creation. Add that up to the fact that every notable theologian until the late 1800’s intepreted scripture the same way. If that is wrong, then the clarity of scripture is under attack.”
I am assuming that Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, Anselm, Peter Lombard, and Thomas Aquinas, therefore cannot be considered notable theologians prior to the late 1800’s because not one of them was a believer in 6/24 days.
@ Steve
Your caricature of Christianity is totally wrong and I’ll try to shed some light and answer your criticisms.
1) First, when Christians say they deny evolution they mean macroevolution. No one denies Microevolution. Medicines and Vaccinations are not predicated on macroevolution, they are a result of observable mircoevolution. (This is my field btw)
2)”.., if not for the simple fact that it is impossible to live according to a literal Bible and not end up in prison or deathly ill from a sickness only treatable by medicine.”
Perhaps you are mistaking us for Jehovah’s Witnesses? Yes, if we live in N. Korea or China we may be presecuted for our beliefs, but by no means are we not allowed to use medicine. My goodness, the Gospel writer Luke was a physician! Btw Paul, even indicates Timothy to drink wine to help ease his stomach pain and the Good Samaritan washed up and bandaged the injured man on the road. I hope this clear tings up.
3. “The modern Christian is full of contradictions to make them more easily blend into society. They have homes, watch television, and visit fancy churches (with bathrooms, no less!)
The literal Bible tells us to destroy unbelievers, to toss away material wealth, and leave all up to prayer and faith.”
Hmmm… I have no idea where this is coming from, perhaps you’re mistaking us for another sect of Christianity?
Here is what Paul says in 1 Timothy 6
“17Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy.
18Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share,
19storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed. ”
Here it says nothing of selling everything you have an live in utter poverty does it?
Also, in another place it tells people to work and not just live on prayer and faith:
2 Thessalonians 3
“8nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you;
9not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example.
10For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.”
Here Paul clearly is telling ppl not only did he work hard, but that other ppl must work as well – No Freeloading!
If you have any other questions you should ask someone knowledgeable about the Christian faith (or come to my blog) and perhaps you’ll find that there is more to it than you think…
JohnD,
Don’t know if you’ll see this; I don’t have time to visit the site as often as I would enjoy, so the reply is late.
I had the same thought about Romans 5:12 at first, but the text is specific that sin and death entered the world (eis ton kosmon eiselthen), “into the world it entered.” The next phrase says “and so death spread to all men.” I can’t see how the verse can allow for death to be in the world in any sense prior to Adam’s sin.
In other words, it says two things: 1) Death entered the world through Adam’s sin, and 2) Death spread to all men through Adam’s sin.
Have a great Lord’s Day.
Jim
Thanks for the note, Jim. It’s crucial to exegete “kosmos” here. It is in contrast to the disorder presented in Gen. 1:2. So it refers to all that happened after God’s “ordering” of the chaos and waste.
Note to James: That’s what reconstruction refers to; it’s not the hermeneutics. Good query. Thanks.
Can the “death” in Romans 5 be referring to spiritual death as opposed to physical death?
Hey Dan,
Going to need some back-up there big guy. If your going to quote their remarks about “a day as a thousand years” that they used to answer ONLY the fact that Adam did not die within a day after eating. Even in those quotes the earth would still be a young earth. Not an argument for 6,000 years but I guess for that sake the earth would be 12,000 years. Show me quotes where they are stating an OBVIOUS old earth or gap theory. I have read all of the one’s that supposedly support both and at best they are more quotes of amazement an the workings of God within the time period and not theological discussions of the literal creation. Not arguing they didn’t, just haven’t read anything from them to say they did. Thanks Dan.
David B,
Rather than providing all the quotes from the various church fathers, I will refer you to an article in JETS Volume 32, No. 4, from December of 1989 entitled, “The Days of Creation: An Historical Survey of Interpretation,” by Jack P. Lewis.
Before Darwin came along, the battle was between 6/24 days and an instantaneous creation. As Lewis concludes, “Our survey shows that Bible readers have never been of one mind concerning the nature of the days of Genesis.”
Certainly throughout church history the 6/24 view has been dominant. However, it is ahistorical to concluded that all non-6/24 views are products of 19th century liberal scholarship.
Gotcha Dan. I was mainly talking about Gap Theory and Theistic evolution as being new concepts. Best scenario for both I have found are ALL post Darwin concepts. It seems in the early church that some theologians were more philosphical than others, as it can be on plenty of topics. Thanks for your input Dan. I always lean more to the historical viewpoints and I enjoyed reading many new quotes based on extra research from your post.
Young Earth believers might as well believe that the earth is flat. If the devil is deceiving so many scientists about the age of the earth, maybe we’re all wrong about the globe as well. If so, why do we accept anything from the scientific community?
Have you ever been to a medical doctor? Ever travel in an automobile? Ever turned on a light switch? They all require faith in and acceptance of things developed by the “secular” scientific community.
It is NOT un-Biblical to believe that the One True God is a Supreme Being that created the earth billions of years ago. The Biblical facts are not incompatible with good science.
The leading Christian ID scientists have the strongest argument for Creation.
JR,
“Young Earth believers might as well believe that the earth is flat.”
No, the bible doesn’t teach a flat earth.
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
I believe the bible no matter what man says. Let God be true and EVERY man a liar.
You said: ‘If the devil is deceiving so many scientists about the age of the earth, maybe we’re all wrong about the globe as well. If so, why do we accept anything from the scientific community?’ The bible says ‘But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived’. Why should the godless theories of men change my belief in God? Why should I wrest the scripture so I can be in agreement with men?
Is that really what you think? I guess since so many scientist and doctors agree on abortion, that is OK? Is biblical authority trumped by scientist? Do believe the bible only if you can confirm it by a secular source?
1Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: