Creation Account To Be Taken Literarily or Literally?

From a sermon I found online …

Third, some clarification. Genesis 1 is not a scientific report. Genesis 2 and 3 is not an eyewitness account. And Revelation 21 and 22 is neither. What we have in these biblical texts is literature. Literature intended to evoke awe and wonder. Literature intended to sustain faith and hope. Literature intended to give understanding. To read these biblical texts not literarily but literally is misguided. It’s misguided to read them literally and then to dismiss them as hopelessly out of touch with reality.

1.) It is true that Genesis 1 is not a scientific report. Indeed, it is much more than that. Genesis 1 is a theological report. If it was only a scientific report we could not dare trust it’s accuracy. However, as it is a theological report we can trust its accuracy explicitly.

2.) Genesis 2 and 3 is not an eyewitness account, unless of course you count God as a reliable eyewitness.

3.) Was Jesus misguided when he read the creation accounts literally? The New Testament treats Genesis 1–11 as historical narrative that is literal. At least 25 New Testament passages refer directly to the early chapters of Genesis, and they are always treated as literal history.

a.) Jesus cited Genesis 1,2, and 5 in response to a question about divorce (Matthew 19:4–6; Mark 10:6–9). Are we to fault Jesus for being misguided in reading Genesis literally?

b.) Paul referenced Genesis 2–3 in Romans 5:12–19; 1 Corinthians 15:20–22, 45–47; 2 Corinthians 11:3; and 1 Timothy 2:13–14. Are we to fault Paul for being misguided in reading Genesis literally?

4.) There is nothing in Genesis 2 and 3 which suggests that it is not to be taken literally.

5.) Apparently literature is to evoke awe, and wonder and to give understanding but it is not to evoke confidence because it is true truth or give understanding because it is based on God’s reliable eyewitness.

6.) If we can believe in a literal resurrection, per the Gospel accounts, why is it so impossible to believe in a literal creation that is consistent with the text in Genesis? Or, are we to understand the Gospel accounts literarily as well so that we view the Resurrection as geschicte or heilgeschichte — historical events that are to be taken as true without necessarily being true historical events?

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him. View all posts by jetbrane