Session 2.1: September 29, 2023
Scripture Reading (for the next three weeks): Genesis 1:1-3:24
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.
6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.
9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good.
11 God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” It was so. 12 The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.
14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, 15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. 17 God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.
20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” It was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
27 God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has living breath in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so.
31 God saw all that he had made—and it was very good! There was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.
1 The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them. 2 By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the Lord God made the earth and heavens.
5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)
10 Now a river flows from Eden to water the orchard, and from there it divides into four headstreams. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is pure; pearls and lapis lazuli are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” 19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
“This one at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one will be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.
1 Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 The man replied, “I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” 13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.”
14 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all the cattle
and all the living creatures of the field!
On your belly you will crawl
and dust you will eat all the days of your life.
15 And I will put hostility between you and the woman
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your labor pains;
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,
but he will dominate you.”
17 But to Adam he said,
“Because you obeyed your wife
and ate from the tree about which I commanded you,
‘You must not eat from it,’
the ground is cursed because of you;
in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
but you will eat the grain of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat food
until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”
20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.
Introduction to the Bible Study
Welcome
Welcome to “season 2” of the Bible study. The fact that we got through an entire book of the Bible, went on break, and are now starting a new book certainly has that “season” feel to it. I’ll use that terminology of seasons, but please know that I do so only tongue-in-cheek. This study is not a show or even a podcast—it is meant to be a group of people getting together to study the Bible in an interactive forum. Sure, “episodes” are published as a podcast for anyone who would like to listen afterward, but my main interest is the community. There is enough Christian content being produced for general audience consumption (which is great!); that is not my goal here. So, if you are a new participant, I am glad you are here. If you are a returning participant, I am glad you are here.
I would like to begin this second season with some introductory remarks. Inevitably, some of these comments will sound redundant to returning Bible study veterans, but I hope they will bear with me for just a minute. I think that clarifying the scope of an engagement goes a long way in setting the right expectations, avoiding misunderstandings, and ultimately preventing disappointment and conflict. So, with that in mind:
(1) Who I Am. I’m just a guy. I’m a fan of Matt and Blonde’s show, and I feel extremely privileged to get to lead this Bible study. Professionally, I am an accountant and an attorney. I also have a degree in math. More importantly, I have been a Christian for a couple of decades. I went from outspoken atheist to committed Christian. Ever since, I have spent much of my time studying the Bible, theology, church history, and so forth. My hope is to think just as rigorously and precisely about my faith and the Bible as I do about matters in my profession.
(2) What I Hope to Do. Here are the characteristics and goals of this study:
a. Scholarship Based. I honestly attempt to base what I teach in solid scholarship. I read scholarly sources and check their citations. I try to say only what I know to be supported by scholarship and no more. I am sure I will fail at times, but luckily there are many brilliant participants who can set the record straight when I make a mistake.
b. Nondenominational. I try to remain “nondenominational.” When different Christian traditions offer different interpretations of a passage, I try to present those options and let the participants decide. I worry that the longer we do this study, the more my theological leanings will become obvious. To the extent that outcome is unavoidable, I will try to remain respectful of other theological bents.
c. Christian. I believe the Bible is inspired by God and is reliable. I take the facts presented in it to be true facts. If you are a skeptic, you are still very much welcome in this study. You are also more than welcome to add the word “allegedly” before any claim made in the Bible. Feel free to push back on anything I say. All that notwithstanding, I will present the text of the Bible as true.
(3) What I Hope We Do. I teach for about the first 45 minutes of each session, and then it is open to questions and comments. Feel free to say whatever you think is appropriate. I only ask that you wait your turn and respect everyone’s time.
(4) A Quick Note on Bible Translations. For this study, I will use the NET (New English Translation). It was originally published in 2005; it was composed by a committee of 25 scholars; and, it was meant to be a free online English translation of the Bible. As far as I know, this translation does not have a theological bias (i.e., reformed, Catholic, modern, etc.). I particularly enjoy it because of the thousands of translators’ notes that are provided along with the English text. However, feel free to use whichever translation you prefer. If you want my advice on Bible translations, I discussed translations at length during an early episode of season 1. Long story short, ideally do not use a paraphrase like The Message, a “modified” Bible like The Passion (the quote-on-quote translator claimed to receive additional divine revelation that impacted his rendering of the English text), and choose a Bible that you can understand. Different translations use different levels of language (i.e., 8th grade level, college level, etc.). There is no shame in reading at your level. In fact, the NIV uses 8th grade English level, and I really like it. I guess my low I.Q. is showing.
Season 2: Three Weeks(ish) in Genesis then Acts
When we finished the first season, we asked the participants which book they wanted to study next. Nearly every response was in favor of studying Exodus or Acts. Since the votes were about equally split, the choice came down to me. I selected Acts for a couple of reasons. Chronologically, it comes right after John. So, studying Acts will feel like a continuation of our last study. Also, Acts was written in Greek, and it takes place in the more familiar Greco-Roman world. Exodus was written in Hebrew, and its action takes place in the much more foreign Ancient Near-East. For most people, myself included, studying Acts is a bit simpler. (However, I am not opposed to studying Exodus in the future. I do hope we have that opportunity.)
Then why are we taking a few weeks to talk about Genesis? I have two main reasons:
(1) One of the Biggest Objections. Think of the objections that skeptics level against Christianity. Nearly at the top of the list, if not truly chief among them, is the claim that believing in Christianity requires a rejection of modern science. At its worst, the accusation says that to be Christian entails believing that the universe is 6,000 years old, and one must disregard evolution, astrophysics, geology, linguistics, and history. I want to address this objection head on, and that inevitably involves a discussion of Genesis.
(2) A Christian Worldview. The first few chapters of Genesis, regardless of whether they are taken literally or figuratively, establish key beliefs of the Christian worldview. Before we get deeper into studying the expansion of the church and nuanced doctrinal issues (i.e., Acts), I think we should stop and discuss those more fundamental points first.
(Important clarification: From here on out, when I write about Genesis, I am referring to the first few chapters of it—particularly the first eleven often just to the first three. I did not want to type “the early chapters of Genesis” every time. Everyone agrees that after chapter 11, Genesis is intended as history, so the following discussion would clearly not apply to the entire book or those later chapters.)
So, what will our study of Genesis look like? Well, it won’t really be a study. It will be more of a primer that hopefully presents some exciting possibilities. That’s the key: possibilities. I am not interested in convincing everyone to believe exactly like me. However, I want to give a good-faith, well intentioned “spoiler alert.” Many Christians are deeply committed to a literal interpretation of Genesis. I intend to present a competing alternative, and I know that will be controversial and perhaps even offensive. I respect that. If you do not wish to hear it, that is no problem at all. Simply skip the first few weeks of this study and come back when we are discussing Acts. You can also stay and disagree with me the whole time—totally fine.
Ok, ok, let’s be practical. Here’s the plan to tackle the two goals described above:
Genesis: Literal or Not and Its Interaction with Modern Science
(1) Read chapters 1, 2, and 3 of Genesis.
(2) Discuss some important literary concepts, particularly (a) what it means to read a text “literally” and whether it is more “conservative” to do so, (b) the importance of literary genre, and (c) how these concepts apply to Genesis (and any other text).
(3) Discuss whether a non-literal reading of the first few chapters of Genesis is plausible based on the text itself (not on modern science).
(4) Discuss the interaction between Christianity and science given the different interpretations of Genesis.
Genesis: What It Says About God, Us, and the World
(1) Recall chapters 1, 2, and 3 of Genesis.
(2) Discuss features of God.
(3) Discuss features of creation.
(4) Discuss features of man.
(5) Discuss the effect of sin and the Fall.
I hope we can get through all that material in the next two weeks, but it might take an additional week. After that, we will start covering Acts verse by verse. I intend to delve heavily into the cultural and historical context of the text. For that purpose, I have been reading Craig Keener’s obscenely lengthy, four-volume commentary on Acts.
Questions? Comments?
Since this is the introductory session to season 2 of the Bible study, I want to stop for questions and comments before we proceed. If questions and comments run out with time remaining, I have prepared additional material.
If Time Allows… Otherwise I Will Move this Content to the Next Session
Since I want to present a nonliteral interpretation of Genesis, I will begin the discussion by addressing some of the concerns that are sure to come up. My hope is that by addressing these concerns at the start, I will bring the “temperature down.” The debate on Genesis can get quite fiery, after all.
The More Conservative Way to Read a Text
Conservative: Minimizing Risk
Is reading a text literally generally (or always) the most conservative approach to interpreting that text? First, I need to define my terms. What do I mean by conservative? Conservative can mean different things in different contexts. In politics, it generally means the position held by those right of political center. In scholarly disciplines, conservative can take at least two meanings. It can mean the traditional (i.e., the historical) position or the one held by the most scholars.
As I using the term conservative in this discussion, I am not referring to any of the denotations above. There is another possible meaning for conservative, which we use in daily life and in disciplines such as accounting and law. Conservative refers to the attitude, interpretation, or action that minimizes risk. Imagine that you are planning a backpacking trip in a dry area. You need to pack your drinking water. You think that you will need 4 gallons of water. However, you may choose to be conservative and pack an additional gallon. Or, imagine that you are preparing your tax return. You are wondering whether you should deduct a certain travel expense. Since you are not sure whether the deduction would hold up in case of an audit, you choose to be conservative and not deduct it.
With that definition of conservative in mind, is reading a text literally rather figuratively a more conservative approach? That is, does reading a text literally minimize the risk of misinterpreting a text? My contention is that the answer is no.
Consider the well-known expression: “I love you to the moon and back.” (Apparently this expression originated with Tom Topor’s 1979 play Nuts. It grew in popularity in the 90s and 2000s.)
Let us interpret this expression literally and consider the outcome. Literally, there are two ways to interpret it. The first would be that I will love you only throughout the duration of a trip to the moon and return to earth. Although not logically entailed in the statement, if I am specifying that I will love you specifically during the voyage, one could infer that I will not love you before or after.
The other literal interpretation is that love can be measured similarly to distance. At first glance, this would mean that I love you extensively since the distance from Earth to the moon (and back) is extensive. But notice that the distance from Earth to the moon is infinitesimal compared to other distances within our solar system, not to mention our galaxy or the whole universe. Really what I am saying is that I love you a nearly incomprehensibly small amount in comparison to the vastness of true love.
Of course, we know that the two literal interpretations are wrong. Moreover, those interpretations reach nearly antithetical conclusions to what the expression “love you to the moon and back” is attempting to convey, which is the vastness of the affection felt by one person towards another. What this example is meant to show is that assuming a text should be read literally is not conservative—it does not minimize or eliminate the risk of misinterpretation. Proper interpretation of a text requires that one considers the genre of the text.
If It’s Not Literal then It Doesn’t Mean Anything
I think a concern that Christians often have regarding the possibility of reading Genesis non-literally is that doing so neuters the text—it renders the text meaningless. Perhaps the argument is that the text would no longer have any meaning because non-literal texts are subject to so many different interpretations that one can no longer be certain of any one of them.
Again, I think we can dispel this concern with some examples. Notice that the expression “I love you to the moon and back,” although non-literal, clearly means something different to, “My love for you is like a flame that has gone out.” Even if both expression have semantic ranges, those ranges do not overlap. They convey distinctly different ideas—and they both do so non-literally.
Let’s use a more sophisticated example. One of the most popular English poems is Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Taken,” written in 1915. Ironically, this is also one of the most misinterpreted English poems.
Before we read it, try to recall what the poem is about. I bet you thought the poem was called something like “The Path Less Traveled,” and the point of it is that taking a harder, lonelier path leads to better, more fulfilling outcomes in life.
Now consider the actual text of the poem.
The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
What is the poem saying? First, let’s begin with the title (one of the most important contextual clues when interpreting poetry). The poem is about “the road not taken.” Notice, it is not about the road actually taken—the one less traveled. It is about the other road.
The first stanza tells us that the traveler runs into an intersection, and he was sorry he could not travel both paths. The second stanza tells us that as far as the traveler could see, both paths seemed about the same. (One of the paths does not seem more adventurous than the other!)
Then, in the third stanza, the author copes with his choice of selecting one path by lying to himself. He tells himself that one day he will return and traverse the road not taken, but he knows that is not true. He will probably never come back.
The last stanza, the one everyone remembers, tells us how that lie will grow in time. The traveler will deal with the pain of never knowing what the “the road not taken” was like by telling himself and others that surely he chose the boldest path and it made all the difference—something he could not possibly know since both paths looked nearly identical (“worn . . . about the same”), and his whole regret is not knowing the outcome of taking the other path.
What’s the point of this exercise? Notice that poetry is a genre of literature that is not meant to be interpreted literally, unlike historiography or technical writings, yet it has a discernible meaning. And people can get that meaning wrong! Robert Frost’s poem is not about the positive outcomes from following the “path less traveled” but about the regret of not being able to take all paths in life.
Similarly, if we interpret Genesis figuratively, we are not rendering the text meaningless. It can still have a correct interpretation and, by extension, incorrect interpretations. A nonliteral interpretation means that the way the text coveys its message is not direct, not that it has no message.
Conservative in Other Ways?
There is one last roadblock I wish to remove before we get into the text. Oftentimes Christians will claim that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the conservative interpretation in the sense that it is the historical interpretation of the text. The claim may also add that the only reason we (modern Christians) are attempting to re-interpret the text is because of our desire to accommodate modern science. We are straying from Christianity’s historical beliefs, and we are compromising our view of scripture—is the accusation.
So, is a literal interpretation of Genesis a more conservative interpretation given that meaning of the word conservative? Put another way, is it true that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the traditional interpretation of the church? Has the church held to a literal interpretation as a crucial matter of faith? Surprisingly, the answer is no. To make my point I will give one example, although many could be provided.
Short of Jesus and the Apostle Paul, no one person has had a bigger impact in the western church than Augustine of Hippo. He lived in the late 300s and early 400s—centuries before the advent of modern science. Did he—literally the patron saint of theologians (according to some traditions)—take Genesis literally? No. Augustine wrote extensively on the book of Genesis (five commentaries!) and after thinking long and hard about the early chapters, he admitted that understanding what the writer of Genesis meant by days is a hard thing. This is already instructive. An early church father, reading nothing but the text without pressure from modern science, could already see that the text does not seem straightforward.
Augustine concluded that God created all that exists in an instant. Therefore, the days in Genesis are not (and cannot be) literal. The days are an accommodation to human understanding. They are like a metaphor. They put creation in terms of a human work week so people can understand it.
Why would Augustine conclude such a thing? For many reasons, but chiefly among those are three peculiarities in the text. First, light appears in day one but the luminaries (e.g., the sun, moon, and stars) are not created until day four. Second, the dischronology between chapter 1 and chapter 2:4-6. In chapter 1, vegetation is created early on. In chapter 2, there is still no vegetation. Finally, the idea of God literally resting. Augustine argued that God cannot grow weary (there are verses in the Bible that explicitly state this) so the idea that God would literally rest, if taken literally, is nonsensical. The language must be figurative, he concluded.
Other church fathers, such as Clement (c. 35-99), Origen (c. 185-254), Didymus (c. 313-398) and Athanasius (c. 296-373), also understood the Genesis creation story as non-literal to different extents.
The point I am making is simple: to claim that to interpret the early of chapters of Genesis non-literally is an unprecedent deviation from the church’s historical interpretation of those chapters is simply not true. Of course, this says nothing of which interpretation is correct. The point is merely that non-literal interpretations of Genesis are not heterodox per se.
There is a related conclusion that one can draw from Augustine and the other church fathers. They were not influenced by modern science. They came to their conclusions by simple observation of the world and from the text itself. So, the accusation that modern Christians are reinterpreting Genesis merely because of their concordist desires (between modern science and the Bible) loses much of its bite.