Hermeneutical Principles and Concordism
-
Introduction to the Excursus
- This excursus focuses on one aspect of the doctrine of creation, which involves the creation-evolution debate, the origin of life, and biological diversity.
- Focus will start on the interpretation of Genesis.
-
Fundamental Hermeneutical Principles for Interpreting Genesis 1
- Interpret according to Literary Genre: Genre is critical for correct interpretation (e.g., interpreting poetry or apocalyptic literature literally is a mistake). So we must determine the literary genre of Genesis 1.
- Determine Original Author and Audience Understanding: Seek to understand the text as intended by its original author and comprehended by its original audience.
-
Critique of Concordism
- Definition: Reading modern scientific findings into the text of Scripture. (e.g. Interpreting “every eye will see him” as predicting television, or “stretched out the heavens” as the Big Bang expansion.)
- Dangers of Concordism:
- Misunderstanding the text by imposing alien concepts.
- Reading obsolete science into the text, making interpretations quickly outdated (e.g., a 17th-century Newtonian interpretation).
- Distinction from Integration:
- Understanding the text on its own terms is the first task, and so we should set aside our modern understandings for the time being.
- Later, one can (and should) seek an integrative understanding of science and Scripture to form a comprehensive worldview.
-
Upcoming Discussion on Competing Interpretations of Genesis 1
- Several interpretations emerge when reading Genesis 1 without imposing external frameworks.
- Resource: PCA history website for historical interpretations. 🌱
Discussion
- Q1: Who wrote Genesis 1, and does its date affect interpretation? A: Traditionally attributed to Moses, but modern scholars believe it uses older oral or written sources. The compilation date (possibly post-exilic 5th century BC, incorporating older traditions) is uncertain. While the author’s intent is key, the specific date (e.g., 1000 BC vs. 450 BC) likely doesn’t fundamentally alter the core worldview for these ancient narratives. Divine inspiration didn’t mean dictation; God used human authors with their own backgrounds (via middle knowledge).
- Q2: Could the “waters” in Genesis 1:2 refer to a prior angelic creation or life, similar to symbolism in Revelation where waters represent peoples? A: This sounds similar to the “gap theory” (Genesis 1:1 describes a prior creation/fall, verse 2 is a recreation). However, be cautious of “theological concordism” – imposing symbolism from other biblical genres (like Revelation’s apocalyptic imagery) onto Genesis 1, which is a different genre. We should let Genesis 1 stand on its own.
- Q3: Doesn’t the reference to God creating in “six days” in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:8-11) imply Moses knew and understood the Genesis 1 story literally by the time he wrote the Law? A: Yes, the Exodus passage shows the Pentateuchal author clearly knew the Genesis 1 account and interpreted it as a six-day creation followed by a seventh day of rest. This passage is strong evidence cited in favor of the literal interpretation of Genesis 1, and it will be discussed further when examining that view.
- Q4: What is the meaning of the “light” created on Day 1, before the sun/moon on Day 4? Isn’t this a problem for the literal 24-hour day interpretation? A: The creation of light on Day 1, followed by “evening and morning,” before the creation of the sun and moon on Day 4 is indeed a significant interpretive challenge for a strictly literal understanding of Genesis 1, as a day/night cycle typically depends on Earth’s rotation relative to a light source like the sun. This difficulty will be addressed later when examining different interpretations.
- Q5: How does the biblical Flood narrative impact our understanding of Genesis 1 and what we observe today, geologically and biologically? Does it challenge modern paleontology? A: The Flood narrative in Genesis (part of the primeval history, Genesis 1-11) does raise questions about the geological and biological state of the Earth post-flood. Scientific challenges, particularly in paleontology and geology, to a literal global flood account are significant, similar to the challenges facing a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. The question of literal interpretation applies to the Flood and Babel narratives as well; they are interconnected aspects of the same block of prehistoric material, though this excursus focuses primarily on Genesis 1.