I think, each of the four Theologians is kind of right. I mean, their different approaches don’t imply that one of them must be right and the others must be wrong. It’s enriching for us to see their different approaches, each of them has its own value. Maybe you didn’t realize, but my former comment was combined by “Nr. 2” and “Nr. 3”.

BUT: For me – it must not be the case for everybody – it’s not really helpful to study  Bible scholar’s interpretations. My basic personal problem is that Bible knowledge remains in my head, but doesn’t go down to my heart. In the case of Genesis 1 it is preferable for me, just to read the Bible – and I end up with being amazed by God’s magnificence.

As for other Bible passages, I think it’s most necessary to have some background information: What does a certain expression mean? How was the political or economical situation? Geographical setting? How was people’s way of life at that time? How was their mindset? I prefer to use Bible encyclopedies instead of commentaries.

I feel sorry that I am not able to express myself perfectly in English, but I hope, readers can grasp what I mean.

The four interpretations presented in this article are from renowned and famous bible teachers of our time. All of them believe in the deity and bodily resurrection of Christ and hold on to “crunchy” orthodox, christian beliefs as we do. All of them believe that God is the creator. And yet, their interpretations differ substantially. Furthermore, they contradict each other. This implies that one of them must be right and others must be wrong. Maybe they are all wrong. But either way, they cannot be all right at the same time.

In light of this, i decided for myself to appreciate these difficulties by trying to do better exegesis and trying to maintain a respectful and humble spirit, especially towards those who have struggled more extensively with Genesis 1 than i did.

As for the theological implications: i learned from Genesis 1 that God was in the beginning, that he is the prima causa and the Creator of everything and that he created me for a purpose, that is, to enjoy Him and to one day be able to hear from himself the joyous words: “very good”.

As for the terms “exegesis” and “hermeneutics”: i generally stick to the definitions, which were suggested in the book “How to read the bible for all its worth”. In this book, the authors define exegesis as understanding what the Word meant back then to the original hearer. Hermeneutics is defined as translating these findings to the ‘Here and Now’.

May i ask: what is your take on Genesis 1?

I think that when you say that you try to find out what the original authors had in mind, the circumstances surrounding the writing, etc., you are trying to determine the historical context of the passage. Maybe we are just using different words to describe the same thing. However, I think that asking those questions is part of hermeneutics, not something separate from it or something that is done before moving on to hermeneutics.

As for figures of speech, you are right that it would be absurd to take them literally. When the Bible says that Pharaoh hardened his heart, we do not think that he literally made it like stone. However, that figure of speech is conveying a literal truth, namely, that he was being stubborn. So reading the Bible literally does not preclude the use of sarcasm or euphemisms or other metaphors. The same is true of English. When I ask someone, “What’s up?” I do not mean literally, “What is above you?” But I am wanting to know literally how he is feeling and what events are taking place in his life.

Since others have included some of their favorite quotes, I will close with one of mine, from the 19th century revivalist Samuel P. Jones: “I believe the Bible just as it was written, and I believe that the whale swallowed Jonah.   I would have believed it just the same if it had said that Jonah swallowed the whale.”

I think that it is a slippery slope to say that Matthew is a Midrash. If the Magi never existed as Gundry asserts, than the slaughter of the innocents never took place, then the baby Christ had no reason to flee to Egypt, then Joseph had no reason to “withdraw to the district of Galilee,” then Christ would not have grown up there, and met the disciples there etc. etc.

That’s another issue altogether from the interpretation of Genesis, which is the remainder in the long-division equation. Can anyone have an 100 % accurate hermeneutical approach towards the Genesis Record? Take the table of nations in Genesis 10. Can anyone honestly admit that any table of conservative scholars can tell from this record where the political lines of the nations are? This is ridiculous, ludicrous even. Dealing with the ambiguity of Scripture is just as important, if not more so, as dealing with the ambiguity of the Bible teacher.

Debate, is and has always been the method by which we avoid the autodafe that happened during the Spanish Inquisition. Where ETS is right is that Scripture is and has been infallible, but also we know that interpreters are faulty, as McGrath reminds us. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this debate.

I’m reminded of the story of NT scholar Robert Gundry. Through his exhaustive study of the book of Matthew, he came to the conclusion that Matthew was using the genre of Midrash in writing the Gospel of Matthew. This meant that some of the events in the book didn’t necessarily have to take place in a historical sense. The events just had to make a theological point. For Gundry it didn’t matter whether or not the Magi came and actually visited Jesus–Matthew may have included that story to make a theological point (emphasizing the inclusion of the Gentiles in Christ’s ministry), and not a historical one (i.e., the shepherds in Luke’s birth narrative). Now Gundry can still hold to the inerrancy of the Bible since Matthew isn’t doing anything wrong according to the genre in which he is writing.

Other scholars couldn’t handle Gundry’s take. They felt that his reading of Matthew was a slippery slope. Gundry was kicked out of ETS and other evangelical societies. It was controversial at the time (in the 80’s), and still is today. You can read about it here:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/novemberweb-only/11-17-42.0.html
and if you have access to scholarly journal databases, you can search for some more in depth articles there.

I’ll close with one of my favorite William Blake poems:

Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read’st black where I read white.

“Every clock, and even the sundial, must be set according to their watches and the slightest difference from their opinion proves a man to be rotten at heart. Venture to argue with them, and their little pots boil over in quick style; ask them for reason, and you might as well go to a sand pit for sugar. They have bottled up the sea of truth, and carry it in their waist coat pockets; they have measured heaven’s line of grace and have tied a knot in a string at the exact length of electing love; and as for the things which angels long to know, they have seen them all as boys see sights in a peep-show at our fair. Having sold their modesty and become wiser than their teachers,they ride a very high horse and jump over all five barred gates of Bible texts which teach doctrines contrary to their notions…”

However, the text does not just say that it there was a first day, and a second day, etc. Rather, it predicates each of those with the statement, “And there was evening and there was morning”; and those words are much less ambiguous in Hebrew.

When I say historical-literal approach, I mean that we always take Scripture at face value, assuming that it literally means what it says within the given historical context. That is just the most natural way to read and understand anything. Nobody reading this would assume that I mean anything less or more that what I am saying. So why would we read about a day in Genesis and start thinking that it means something else?

D.A. Carson, in his lecture and book–The God Who Is There–addressed many aspects of Genesis 1 and 2 in chapter 1 with the title “The God Who Made Everything.” (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2010/07/29/audio-and-video-for-d-a-carsons-the-god-who-is-there/#hide)

Regardless of the position or interpretation or genre or hermaneutical approach that one takes, Carson mentions 7 things about God and 3 things about man that Genesis 1-2 is telling us:

Some Things about God

1) God simply is.
2) God made everything that is non-God.
3) There is only one of him.
4) God is a talking God.
5) Everything God makes is good–very good.
6) God comes to an end of his creative work, and he rests.
7) The creation proclaims his greatness and glory.

Some Things about Human Beings

1) We are made in the image of God.
2) We human beings were made male and female.
3) The man and his wife were innocent.

As much as Christians and scientists can’t agree on how exactly to interpret (or refute) Genesis, it is remarkable that it still stands as a towering document about God and creation and the world, even though it was written ~3,500 years ago!

You do raise a very good point about Hebrews 2:13. At the risk of sounding overly technical, we could say that the difference is not one of interpretation, but application. In other words, when Isaiah made that statement, he was speaking of his own physical children, that being the correct interpretation. But when the author of Hebrews looked back he saw a wider application than just that of Isaiah’s children, and thus he applies it to Christ as well. This is one of the more common problems with prophetic literature. The same issue also comes up in Isaiah 7:14, in reference to the virgin birth of the Messiah.

Also, when it comes to interpreting the text correctly, and saying that there is but one, true interpretation, I do not think that precludes multiple meanings within the text, as long as those multiple meanings were the original intent of the author. Using Isaiah 7:14 as an example, it would be an incorrect interpretation to say that the text only refers to Isaiah’s son, and not the Messiah. The correct interpretation is that it means both.

Going back to Genesis 1, speaking about “a day,” for example, it cannot refer to both a 24 hour period of time and a 24 million year period of time (I am being facetious). And there is no place else later on in Scripture that reapplies the days of creation to mean something else or to refer to something other than a typical day.

Now, I do agree with you that when it comes to discrepancies in interpretation, certainly they are not all equally acceptable. This is one reason why I think that an agreed-upon hermeneutic is so important. If the rules of interpretation are applied equally and consistently, I think that we would find many less instances of disagreement about difficult passages.

For example, last night we were studying Hebrews 2. We were wondering how and why the author of Hebrews, in Heb 2:12, quotes a line from Isaiah 8:18: “Here am I, and the children God has given me.” In the original OT text, it is quite clear that “I” is Isaiah, and “the children” are his own children, the ones with hysterically funny names. But the author of Hebrews uses it in a very different way, equating “I” with Jesus and “the children” with us. Same text, multiple meanings, no?

To say that a text can have multiple meanings is not the same thing as saying that all interpretations are equally acceptable.

Having said that, the only consistent and satisfactory way to interpret Scripture is to do so using a historical-literal approach. Those who interpret Genesis 1 as less than literal run the danger of interpreting all of Scripture as less than literal. Imagine what could happen if we did that? We might say that Jesus was not really dead for three days, because none of us would know what a day was. Or worse, we might say that “death” was really a euphemism for being asleep.

To apply one hermeneutic to one part of the Bible and another hermeneutic to another part does not make any sense at all. Incidentally, that is one of my big problems with Covenant Theology, but that is for another discussion.

I am curious to know how most orthodox and Messianic Jews interpret Genesis 1. I would imagine that most of them interpret it literally, considering all the literal promises contained in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah. And from what we know of the Pharisees in Jesus’ time, their approach to Scripture was certainly a literal approach.

Now, concerning the differences in the Hebrew words bara and asa, it is true that there are nuances in meaning. Still, most word-for-word English translations render the word asa as “make” in Genesis 1. And while it can be translated otherwise, that is the most common rendering of that word throughout the entire Old Testament. If the context suggests that it should be rendered differently in Genesis 1 then I ask, “Why isn’t it?”

I have one final thought about this as it relates to Scripture in general. Either the days of creation are literal days or they are not; but they cannot be both! This must lead us to the conclusion that despite any differences of opinion about Genesis 1 or any other part of the Bible, Scripture has only one, true interpretation. While we all should study the Bible for ourselves and do our own interpretation, I simply cannot accept the notion that each of us gets to interpret it in our own way. If we apply a common, logical hermeneutical principle when doing so, then we should all get to the same conclusion.

@Wes: Ha, ha… of course i have my own preferences concerning Genesis 1! At least sort of…
i accept your suggestion concerning the title. Every difficulty is growth opportunity.

But to avoid any misunderstandings: this does not mean that we follow the post-modern notion that texts are basically meaningless and that we can interpret it any way we want. (i’m not implying here that you said anything close to that).
In contrary, i am arguing for a more thoughtful and careful approach to Scripture by abiding to certain exegetical rules… rules, which at times are more like rules of the thumb… =)

On a lighter side, I get the subtle hint that your suggestions are every-so-slightly hinting at a particular interpretation of Genesis 1. But I’m just poking fun.

I absolutely agree with your statement. This should be the ultimate end of the creation story in Genesis.

I suspect that some readers will find this bewildering. They may have heard good things about MacArthur, Walton, Driscoll and/or Keller. These are all good men. And then to see that four intelligent, devout, reputable, effective  Bible teachers present the text in such divergent ways, the question becomes, “Which one is right? Whom should I follow?” And the even more vexing question, “When I study this passage with Bible students, what should I teach?”

I believe that in today’s world, one of the qualities that you need to be an effective Bible teacher is the ability to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty. Bible teaching is not about imparting a body of information to someone. It is creating an environment where the Bible student can learn how to approach the text with respect and learn from it by himself or herself and, in the process, grow in a relationship with God. It’s all  about learning how to learn. I’ve had the opportunity to study with some very good Bible teachers over the years: Tiger Lee, Daniel and Suzy Hong, Sarah Barry, James H Kim, Jacob Lee, etc.   These people are different. The  important things that I learned from each one, the things that stuck with me over the years, are not specific doctrines or interpretations of the text. What influenced me was to see how each of these people personally  interacted with the Scripture and with God.  Each one of my  Bible teachers  transmitted to me elements of their character. Same can be said of my Bible students. I have learned immensely from each of my Bible students. Bible study is a way for us to have holy fellowship with one another in the presence of God, sharing our character, personality and selves. To characterize the purpose of Bible study as to find the right answer and teach it to others is to lose the beauty and magnificence of what the Bible was meant to be: the living, breathing word that serves as the continual source of inspiration, renewal and strength in the community of saints.

What I’m trying to say is this: The value of Henoch’s article is that he is modeling for all of us how a thoughtful sincere Christian can joyfully interact with the Bible and with other members of the Christian community to grow in faith and enjoy fellowship with God, growing in knowledge and maturity, without having to suppose that he  must get the right answer. It’s good to get the right answer, but it’s far more important to be in right relationships with God and with others. And to understand that what we  transmit most to others is not our informational knowledge but the less tangible but more powerful qualities of character.

Here is a another shameless plug. (Yes, Wes, shameless plugs are always welcome at UBFriends, so plug away shamelessly whenever you like.) At the upcoming North American UBF staff conference in Chicago, there will be a track session on “Next Generation Education.” At that session, we are going to discuss how to create an environment where today’s disciples can learn how to learn. We will discuss educational models that work and ones that do not work. And we will discuss the all-important issues of character that  everyone inevitably passes on to the next generation whether they intend to or not. If you are coming to the staff conference, wed love to  see you there!