How Should We Interpret Genesis 1–3? An Interview with Vern Poythress

Photo: Tavis Bohlinger

Vern Poythress is a highly-respected evangelical theologian and philosopher who has taught at Westminster Theological Seminary for the past 42 years, where he is professor of New Testament and Biblical Interpretation. We recently were invited by our friends at Crossway to review his latest book, Interpreting Eden: A Guide to Faithfully Reading and Understanding Genesis 1-3, and to engage him with some questions.

Reading Interpreting Eden was a delightful theo-philosophical exercise, because Poythress, in his typical manner, engages highly complex scientific, hermeneutical, and ideological issues in the highly contentious waters of Genesis 1–3 with eminently delightful prose and a grace worthy of admiration. We highly recommend this book to anyone wishing for a comprehensive exegetical, theological, and philosophical study of the opening chapters of the Bible, which also serves as a model of gracious scholarly engagement with alternate views on fundamental issues in biblical interpretation.


What is the major premise behind Interpreting Eden?

Vern Poythress

VSP: We can make good progress in understanding Genesis 1‐3 by having the right interpretive principles. There are quite a few principles that help. God is the absolute Lord. He can work miracles when he chooses. The Bible is the trustworthy word of God. Modern science relies on the regularities of God’s rule over the world, but cannot rightly forbid exceptions. This last principle applies especially to one‐time events in the past, which cannot be the focus of repeated experiments in the present.

Can you give us a brief behind‐the‐scenes of how Vern Poythress approaches and completes a writing project such as this, and did your approach differ if at all from your other writing projects?

VSP: I have been thinking about Genesis and modern scientific claims for over fifty years. So my ideas have had time to grow. In 2006 I published a book Redeeming Science (Crossway), which addressed some of the issues. But I continued to think about hermeneutical principles and Genesis. More recently I wrote a series of journal articles (in the Westminster Theological Journal) dealing with interpreting Genesis 1‐3, and decided that they could contribute to a whole book on the subject.

[callout img=”https://files.logoscdn.com/v1/files/7752105/content.jpg?signature=jIOTUgP_VNoizsGZ7AdRYMAVqUU” text=”Poythress’ Redeeming Science is just one of twelve exceptional titles in” link_url=”https://www.logos.com/product/55832/crossway-apologetics-collection-2#011?utm_source=academic.logos.com&utm_medium=blog&utm_content=2019-05-22-vern-poythress-interpreting-eden&utm_campaign=promo-logospro2019″ link_text=”the Crossway Apologetics Collection 2″]

You title the introduction to the book, “The Need.” What is the “need” we as the church have to get Genesis right, and why are these first chapters of the Bible so important to our understanding of the rest of Scripture?

VSP: The first chapters of the Bible describe God, the creation of the world, the creation of mankind, and the fall of Adam and Eve. These early events form a framework for understanding God, the world, ourselves, and the predicament of sin. Getting this framework right is important for understanding who Jesus Christ is and what is the meaning of the redemption that he accomplished on earth.

Early in the book you identify three modern myths that interpreters must face when approaching Genesis 1. Can you outline these for us, and briefly mention how faithful students of Scripture can avoid these myths? Do these myths affect our approach to the rest of the Bible, or are they limited just to the question of creation/evolution/etc?

VSP: The first myth is what I call the myth of “scientistic metaphysics.” What I mean here is the idea that modern science shows us the ultimate nature (metaphysics) of the world, in such a way that it virtually displaces rather than supplements ordinary experience. Because God created us, I maintain that ordinary human experience includes experience of the presence of God (Rom. 1:18‐23). Ordinary experience has been and continues to be a valid entry‐point into the world.

Sciences capture fascinating extra dimensions, but do not invalidate the perspective in which we say, for example, that the sun rises and the sun sets. It is true that the sun rises from the standpoint of ordinary human perception. Ancient knowledge by ordinary people, grounded in such perception, is in that sense on the same level as ours. The Bible speaks to ordinary people in ordinary ways, and such communication is valid.

The second myth is the myth of progress. This myth says that our modern Western societies are superior to the past, not only technologically, but socially, morally, and spiritually. It tends to make us look down on the Bible as an ancient, “primitive,” book, and not to probe the wisdom and the sophistication with which God speaks to people of earlier times.

The third myth is the myth of easy understanding of other cultures. The ancient Near East contained multiple cultures, changing and interacting over hundreds of years, and the evidence left for us to examine is fragmentary. It is easy to underestimate the challenge of thinking through what a whole culture is like, and to impose oversimple descriptions, when it comes to issues like ancient views of the world as a whole. Ancient societies had intense interest in the spiritual world, and this interest may dominate, rather than physicalistic accounts of how the world works.

[callout img=”https://covers.logoscdn.com/lls_rdmngphlspqstns/cover.jpg” text=”Poythress addresses philosophy as an approach to life in” link_url=”https://www.logos.com/product/165995/redeeming-philosophy-a-god-centered-approach-to-the-big-questions?utm_source=academic.logos.com&utm_medium=blog&utm_content=2019-05-22-vern-poythress-interpreting-eden&utm_campaign=promo-logospro2019″ link_text=”Redeeming Philosophy: A God-Centered Approach to the Big Questions”]

Halfway through the book, you provide a helpful outline of the hermeneutical principles advocated in Interpreting Eden. This list of 15 principles seems like a trustworthy roadmap for any pastor, student, or scholar to follow. But if you had to choose, is there one that stands apart, under which the others should be subsumed, and why?

VSP: A difficult question. I suppose I could do worse than point to the first principle: “There is one true God who does as he pleases.” It is easy to lose sight of this principle within a modern cultural context. Biblical scholars and theologians, as well as ordinary people, can be unconsciously influenced by the elite, who have abandoned God in favor of a predominantly mechanistic picture of the world. This modern view gives us a world in which God is either nonexistent or involved only at a private, psychological level.

Given your previous publication history, what is the relationship between Genesis 1‐3 and issues such as inerrancy, science and Christianity, miracles, and logic?

VSP: Interpretation of Genesis 1‐3 is influenced by all the topics that you list. And in all the topics people can go off the rails if they unconsciously absorb the predominant views coming from prestigious Western institutions like the universities and the media. Christians are called by God to renew their minds (Romans 12:1‐2), to think differently from most of the culture around them.

How essential is the ANE to our understanding of Genesis 1‐3? Have we paid enough attention to the non‐biblical sources contemporaneous to Moses? Or do they have more to tell us and thus to refine our comprehension of the Creation event?

VSP: There are relations between Genesis 1‐3 and nonbiblical documents in the ANE. The question is what kind of relations these are. One of the issues is whether historical and social‐anthropological study of ancient cultures treats them as all on a common level. Or can God speak his own message that differs? Can a differing message still make contact with people living in God’s world and in cultures all of which cannot escape God? Is there a difference between the truth in religion, offered in the Bible, and the many counterfeits, ancient and modern? Or is all religion merely a human response to a vague sense of the transcendent? I maintain that it makes a difference if we believe in a God who rules and speaks.

In addition, my book brings up the issue of the genre of Genesis. Comparative evidence leads to the conclusion that Genesis is ancient Hebrew nonfictional prose narrative, in the same broad category with Numbers and 1‐2 Samuel, not the ANE category of poetic narrative about the gods.

[callout img=”https://files.logoscdn.com/v1/files/6807179/content.jpg?signature=1axO4cBlVa6_mudYlnMIXs8ulZ4″ text=”Poythress presents a trinitarian understanding of human relationships, and how they are broken, in” link_url=”https://ebooks.faithlife.com/products/14531/redeeming-sociology-a-god-centered-approach?utm_source=academic.logos.com&utm_medium=blog&utm_content=2019-05-22-vern-poythress-interpreting-eden&utm_campaign=promo-logospro2019″ link_text=”Redeeming Sociology: A God-Centered Approach”]

Since you spend one third of the book discussing “time” in Genesis, and since much of the contemporary discussion hinges on this one thing, what is meant by the Hebrew word yom (“day”) in Genesis 1?

VSP: The Hebrew word means “day.” (The light can also be called “Day,” Gen. 1:5). But when we say that, does it immediately answer all the questions? The difficulty is that there are a variety of ways of timing the length of a temporal period. In the present providential order, we have many regular rhythms that intertwine with each other nicely. But the six days in Genesis 1 took place before all the elements of the present providential order were in place. It is easy for a variety of modern views too quickly to read back into Genesis 1 details of the patterns that belong to the present order.

You provide four substantial appendices at the end of Interpreting Eden. I was struck, in particular, by your discussion in Appendix A, entitled, “Genesis 1:1 Is the First Event, Not A Summary,” in which you engage directly with Waltke’s articulation of the “summary view”. What is the fundamental difference between the summary view and the “initiation view”?

VSP: The summary view says that Gen. 1:1 is a summary or heading for 1:2‐31. Verses 2‐31 unpack verse 1 in detail, by specifying the various particular things that God did in order to create. The first‐event view, by contrast, says that Gen. 1:1 describes the very first act of creation, in which God brought the cosmos into being, with no created antecedents. It was “out of nothing,” as theologians say. I hold to the first‐event view. I believe that the summary view has much less in its favor than many interpreters have thought.

Ultimately, what is at stake for the church due to our handling of Genesis, in terms of her relationship to the world, her own health, and her understanding of God?

VSP: Elite Western culture has come to reject the God described in the Bible. With that rejection naturally comes the rejection of the idea that God created the world in a series of steps, and that he is intimately involved in the world ever since, both in ordinary providential rule over the world and in miracles. Elite culture replaces this view with an ultimately impersonalist view, with matter, energy, and motion as the “last thing back.” It devalues persons, and leaves every person with the task of constructing his own meanings in a world that is ultimately meaningless.

Genesis 1‐3 has a powerful message to the modern world, if only we got hold of it and believed it. It tells who God is, and also who we are, human beings created in the image of God and now fallen and sinful. The redemption of Jesus Christ, which is the crucial message of the Bible, makes sense only within the framework of understanding who God is and who we are. The overall framework, and the meaning of Jesus Christ, and his worthiness to be trusted for redemption, are all at stake in a conflict between God’s truth on the one hand and various forms of return to paganism on the other.

Finally, what are you working on now that we should anticipate reading in the future?

VSP: I am working on a book, The God of Majesty, which considers the attributes of God in the light of the Trinity. I hope also to have a book on Redeeming Our Thinking about History.


For more of Poythress’ stimulating theological and philosophical work, get a hold of his Redeeming series, including:

Share
Written by
Tavis Bohlinger

Dr. Tavis Bohlinger is Editor-in-Chief of the Logos Academic Blog and Creative Director at Reformation Heritage Books. He holds a PhD from Durham University and writes across multiple genres, including academia, poetry, and screenwriting. He lives in Grand Rapids with his wife and three children.

View all articles
5 comments
  • Thank You Vern Poythress! If only all academics would let God be God in Genesis and not feel compelled, strangely, to bring in theistic evolution, the day/age framework and be over enthralled with ANE sources!

  • I disagree. The Day / Age framework has some advantages over the young earth creationist view. If the earth and the universe are only about 6,000 years old, then all the stars and galaxies we see in the night sky can’t be more than 6,000 light-years away from us. If they were more distant than that their light wouldn’t have reached us yet. But it seems to me that if they were at most no further than 6,000 light-years distant, the light from these billions of galaxies and their stars would be so bright as to blind us. There would be no night. But both our own experience and the Bible tell us that there is night.

    • I think the brother answered your concern here.

      “We can make good progress in understanding Genesis 1‐3 by having the right interpretive principles. There are quite a few principles that help. God is the absolute Lord. He can work miracles when he chooses. The Bible is the trustworthy word of God. Modern science relies on the regularities of God’s rule over the world, but cannot rightly forbid exceptions. This last principle applies especially to one‐time events in the past, which cannot be the focus of repeated experiments in the present.”

  • With our GOD, anything is possible, But it is interesting to see and hear other interpretations. There will be a day when we know for sure. Remember, nothing is impossible for our GOD to do.

  • There are many different tools with which to approach Genesis 1-3. Let me introduce two more.

    Various parts of the bible were composed with certain textual structures — particularly because the bible wasn’t necessarily intended to be read, but rather heard orally. So we have responsive readings (the Shema in Deut. 6 is one such)…and we also have chiastic structures. Gen. 6:22 is a good example:

    A – Thus did Noah
    B – According to all that God commanded him
    A’ – So he did.

    Notice that the main point of emphasis isn’t at the beginning, but rather *in the middle*. You’ll also find A – B – B’ – A’, A – B – A’ – B’, etc., in different places in the bible.

    I’m bringing this up because Genesis 1-3 is one long chiastic structure, with dwelling with God on the Sabbath day being the central point of emphasis (Gen. 2:2-5). Darkness (Gen. 1:2) parallels exile (Gen. 3:23-24). The creation of man (Gen. 1:26-31) parallels the creation of man (Gen. 2:7). Etc.

    For a reference, you can google “two creation stories aishdas” and click on the first result.

    Why is this important? Because this structure is an excellent interpretive aid in understanding the meaning of Gen. 1-3.

    In addition, clay tablet archives dug up at the ancient near eastern sites of Mari and Nuzi had what are called “toledoth” phrases at the ends of the tablets. These phrases took the form of “These are the generations of X” or, more poetically, “This is the history of X.” Because the clay tablets stuck out on the shelves where they were stored, these toledoth phrases served the same purpose as a title on a book spine might, if you’re looking at books on a bookshelf.

    We find these “toledoth” phrases sprinkled throughout Genesis, usually (with a couple of notable exceptions) at the ENDS of the sections they label.

    The first such “label” is found in Gen. 2:4: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, in the day they were created.” And the second is found in Gen. 5:1: “These are the generations of Adam.”

    Along with the textual structure of Gen. 1-3, that tells us something highly significant. It tells us that Gen. 1:1-2:4a and 2:4ff-3:24 were written by TWO DIFFERENT AUTHORS. But, these authors were aware of each other, and deliberately wrote their texts in such a way as to form a composite, chiastic structure!

    The author of the first section, of course, was God. The author of the second was Adam. Yes, Adam was a real person…but Gen. 1-3 holds quite a bit more in store for us, if we use the other tools we’ve already been given.

    As the author of this piece rightly points out, the Ancient Near East (abbreviated as ANE) has *some* relevance to our understanding of Genesis 1-3. But what, exactly? And how do we know?

    Looking at some of the other ANE creation stories, we find some important, salient points:

    1) They often featured real, historical people and real places, but the creation stories themselves were not intended to be understood literally. For instance, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, there was a real King Gilgamesh who ruled the town of Uruk, but he never went in search of the so-called “plant of life.”

    2) They often spoke of a “place where creation occurred.” This was a real place, in close geographic proximity to whatever culture was responsible for that creation story. For instance, in one Egyptian creation story, a mound of earth rose out of the primordial waters. An erect stone rose out of that mound. A bird landed on the stone and light first appeared. This stone became the foundation stone of the temple *at Heliopolis*. And of course, Heliopolis was in Egypt.

    3) These creation stories often described the creation itself as divine. For instance, the heavens and the earth were formed from the bodies of a goddess and a god, respectively, in the ancient Egyptian myth.

    Looking at these points, we see some interesting points of comparison with Genesis 1-3. First of all, ARE we to understand the biblical Creation story literally, or not? Young Earth creationists would of course say, literally. Those with more of a scientific background would say, maybe the day-age theory fits better. But we’re trying to comprehend Gen. 1-3 through a MODERN mindset. How would people living roughly 6,000 years ago have understood it?

    The answer is, they would consider it to have had some literal elements (e.g. Adam and Eve themselves, and the Garden of Eden being a real, physical place), but would have regarded the rest as not literal.

    That may shock you to think of it that way, but that’s how it would’ve been interpreted back then. And we know this, because we have numerous examples of ancient near eastern creation literature to analyze, and draw conclusions from.

    But, if the biblical creation account isn’t literal, then how are we to understand it? And, how can it be “God’s word” if it’s not literal? How does that even make sense?

    Because the literary purpose of Gen. 1-3 wasn’t to LITERALLY explain how creation happened, but rather to explain what man’s relationship to God is supposed to be. And that’s in stark contrast to how other ancient creation literature viewed it. In Babylonian myth, man was created as an afterthought, to serve the capricious whims of the gods. In the biblical account, man is the epitome of God’s creation. What Genesis 1-3 is in effect saying is, you think you’ve heard how creation happened? No you haven’t! Let me tell you the REAL story.

    Genesis 1-3 was written as a REACTION to other ancient creation myths. It was written down at a time when those other myths — and the nations that wrote them — ALREADY EXISTED. Hence, Adam and Eve may have been real people, but they were most definitely not the first people.

    And in fact, we find evidence of that right in Genesis 1-3.

    The bible sometimes uses the symbolism of “beasts” or “animals” to describe foreign nations in the bible. Daniel is a good case in point, where a horned goat represented the nation of Greece. In Genesis 2:18-20, we read that God desired a “suitable mate” for Adam, so He brought *the animals* to Adam…but none of them were suitable mates.

    This isn’t a primitive rejection of bestiality. No, this is a poetic way of describing *other peoples and nations* going to and fro past where Adam lived in the Garden of Eden. But none of those foreign peoples were suitable mates. Why? Because they worshipped foreign gods and held foreign beliefs — beliefs which Genesis 1-3 was flat-out rejecting!

    There’s a lot more to be understood here, but it suffices to say that we need to look at Genesis 1-3 from the perspective of someone living 6,000 years ago, in order to properly understand it.

    Far from being in conflict with science, Genesis 1-3, when properly understood, backs up the fact that there are far more human generations that science and archaeology tell us about, than will fit in 6,000 years. It’s a story about seemingly very humble origins, in relative proximity to other ancient nations of that time (Sumer and Egypt), and proclaiming an ethical way of life in worship of God — in sharp contrast to the approach of the surrounding nations.

    The other ancient nations believed in the importance of advanced knowledge and wisdom, and their ethics were compromised by evil (King Gilgamesh made a friend of the wild man Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh. This friend was only tamed by introducing him to the fruits of civilization — beer and prostitution. I kid you not; read the story and see for yourself!) But instead of this tree of knowledge AND of good AND of evil (all three together), we’re to choose the way that leads to life.

Written by Tavis Bohlinger
theLAB