Background
This article is dedicated to ANE and biblical scholar, Dr. Noel Weeks, who passed away on March 8, 2020.
Like any discipline, hermeneutics can suffer from being used to solve problems which lie outside its sphere. Much of the modern discussion of hermeneutics is inconclusive because it involves an interchange between individuals who differ not at the level of hermeneutics but at the more fundamental level of religious presuppositions. Hence, to put this paper in its proper context it must be stated that this investigation begins by assuming a certain approach to religion, namely that of evangelical Christianity and its view of Scripture.1
Interpreting Scripture from Outside
In considering the hermeneutical problem of the early chapters of Genesis it is important that our own historical situation be clearly in view. We are not the first Christians to be troubled by the teaching of Genesis. Simply because the Bible has a different view of origins to those put forth in human philosophy, there is a period of conflict whenever the church comes under the influence of a human philosophical system. Thus, any defender of neo Platonism in Augustine’s day or of Aristotelianism in the late Middle Ages found himself in trouble with Genesis. It is a gross oversimplification to act as though we alone face a problem here. Nevertheless, the problem for most Christians today is generated by a specific challenge, namely that of biological evolution and related theories. I believe that there are deeper problems than merely the problem of Genesis. If we take the theory of evolution as established and modify our interpretation of Genesis accordingly, then we introduce a problem for the doctrine of Scripture. It is nonsense to speak of the unique and total authority of Scripture at the same time as we change our interpretation of Scripture to accord with theories drawn from outside Scripture. Hence, evangelicals have tended to seek for principles within Scripture itself which will allow them to interpret Genesis in a way that is compatible with evolution. If Scripture itself forces us to such an interpretation then we are not subjecting Scripture to evolutionary theory. It is with these attempts to find such principles within Scripture that this paper is mainly concerned.
Religion and Science
However, there is need to establish first that the basic problem can really be reduced to hermeneutics. Particularly, this must be demonstrated when there has been a tendency2 to solve the problem by regarding the biblical and the evolutionary descriptions as complementary rather than conflicting. This may be expressed in many different ways but the basic idea is a distinction between religious, theological, and/or naive explanations as distinct from scientific, technical ones. It is argued that there is no conflict because the two approaches are in separate spheres or on separate levels.
It must be emphasized that this in itself does not solve the basic problem. It merely shifts the point to be proven. If we interpret Genesis in terms of this religious/scientific distinction we may be just as guilty of imposing an alien authority upon the Scriptures. We must first establish that such a distinction is warranted by Scripture. The distinction itself looks suspiciously like Kant’s noumena/phenomena distinction. It makes little difference in principle if the foreign authority is that of Kant rather than Darwin. (See page 21 for more on Kant’s concept.)
In saying that the distinction must be demanded by Scripture itself before it can validly be employed one misconception must be avoided. If someone approaches the Scripture already accustomed to seeing things in terms of the Kantian categories, then the basic question has already been decided. Is Scripture a book of religious truths or a textbook of geology? We naturally tend to say it is the former. Yet this question may pose a false dilemma.
There is always the possibility that it is a book of religious truths which lays down basic principles which are relevant, even mandatory, for geology. If the question is posed so as to exclude this last alternative, and Kantian philosophy so poses the question, then the basic problem has been solved not by appeal to the explicit teachings of Scripture but by a philosophical presupposition drawn from outside the Scriptures.
General Revelation
A second way in which an attempt is made to solve the problem, without having to resort to the difficult task of establishing internal guide lines for the interpretation of Genesis, is by appeal to general revelation. It is claimed that since the creation is itself revelatory of God, we do not impose an outside authority when we interpret Scripture in terms of science. However, once again, the basic problem is not solved but merely camouflaged. Is our concept and use of general revelation a valid one or is ‘general revelation’ merely a label which allows us to ignore or destroy biblical teaching? The question can only be decided by establishing a correct view of general revelation on the basis of Scripture. One may say categorically that a biblical view of general revelation gives no support to the common use of science to determine our interpretation of Genesis.
First, there is no indication in the Bible that general revelation tells us about the means God used in creating the earth and life upon it. The passages which theologians appeal to in establishing a doctrine of general revelation, such as Psalm 19, Romans 1, etc., tell us that creation reveals the nature of God. We may argue that the creation reveals the glory and power of its creator. We have no warrant for saying that it ‘reveals’ scientific theories.
Secondly, Romans 1is adamant that sinful man suppresses and distorts the revelation of the creation. Any view of the creation that commands a consensus amongst unbelievers must be suspect. The appeal to certain scientific theories as though they are to be treated as revelation is completely invalidated by the biblical teaching on general revelation.
Finally, even if one were to grant that the creation does clearly reveal the manner in which God created the heavens and the earth, we would have to maintain the distinction between what the creation reveals and what people say it reveals. This is equivalent to the distinction between infallible Scripture and fallible later theologies. Thus, we would have to decide whether evolution etc. was actually what was revealed by creation. Discussion of this question lies beyond the realm of this paper but a few remarks may be made.
In order to conclude that a scientific theory is a correct interpretation of general revelation, one must be certain that the method by which it was established was not in any way contrary to biblical teaching. We certainly cannot say this for a science which systematically excludes any supernatural factors. There is no logical alternative to evolution once the intervention of God has been excluded.3 Furthermore, even amongst those who metaphysically accept evolution there is no certainty that it has been proven.4
Left: The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) proposed that objects exist apart from our experience of them, but their objective nature is unknowable because our experience of them is subjective.
Right: Dr. Francis Collins, Founder of BioLogos, an organization that seeks to blend the “natural processes” of evolution with the biblical account of Creation.
“The Thought Forms of the Day”
Another of the attempts to solve the problem is that which claims that God expressed himself in the thought-forms of the day.5 It would therefore be wrong to attempt to make these categories authoritative for our scientifically sophisticated age. The same reservation is valid here as previously. This assertion about the way in which God revealed the history of creation must itself be justified by Scripture.
Parenthetically it should be noted that this argument is formally identical with that used by Bultmann in his appeal for the demythologization of the resurrection narratives. He similarly argues that the resurrection narratives are expressed in terms of concepts held in that day which cannot be taken literally today. Here evangelicals typically maintain a great inconsistency, being ready to accept a form-critical method when it applies to the OT but not to the NT.6
To return to the main point, the argument being considered has a number of serious weaknesses. In order to apply it consistently one must first make some sort of a distinction between the cosmology implied in the terms used and the theological truth conveyed by the use of those terms. That is to say, unless one wants to remove the whole of Genesis 1–11 from the Bible, one argues that theological truths can be separated from the views of the physical universe implied. Such a distinction is just a variant on the Kantian noumena/phenomena distinction discussed above.
It would greatly help the discussion if this supposed use of concepts common to the era was more carefully specified and defined. One would like more than the bare assertion that the Bible employed the common concepts of the day. For the argument to be valid this would have to be carefully established. Once again, this lies outside the main subject of the paper but a few remarks are necessary. One must first reckon with the fact that certain ideas or stories may be shared by the Bible and surrounding cultures because they are both based on a historical event. For example, it would be rather ridiculous to argue that God chose to convey certain theological truths in terms of the flood concepts already possessed by the Mesopotamians. Obviously, both Bible and Sumerian traditions mention a flood because there was a flood.
As in the case of evolutionary theory there is a problem created by the fact that much work in the ancient Near Eastern field specifically excludes God’s activity. Hence the ideology and concepts of Israel must be considered as derived from its neighbors. As long as this view is prevalent, the uniqueness of biblical thought is depreciated and denied. A more mundane problem is the fact that when the discipline was younger it was natural to use the known to illuminate the unknown. Problems were solved by the use of biblical analogies and the impression thus created of a greater degree of common ground than was warranted.7 More investigation has a tendency to remove this false overlap.8
If supernatural intervention in the history of Israel is rejected, the most plausible explanation for the religion of Israel derives it by a process of ideological evolution from Israel’s neighbors. It follows then that the concepts of Israelite thought must be those common at the time. However, if we do not make this assumption, and Scripture will not allow us to make it, then we must carefully investigate the thought of the ancient Near East in order to see if the same concepts are used as in the biblical text. Even this search is fraught with problems of subjectivity. Some version or other of the flood story was known in Mesopotamia. There was also a memory of the fact that at one time man had a common language, though to my knowledge the confusion of tongues was not connected with the tower of Babel. One resemblance which is often referred to is that between the creation of the heaven and the earth in Genesis and the splitting of Tiamat to form the heaven and the earth in the Mesopotamian Enuma Elish legend.9 The tree often depicted on cylinder seals has been connected with the tree of life.10
These last two examples raise another set of problems. When it is said that God employed symbols common in that day, is it meant that both the symbol and what is symbolized were already known or that only the symbol was known with a completely different connotation? The distinction is an important one. For this argument to be convincing, the former must be the case. Otherwise, one is saying that God gave the symbol a completely new meaning. And if he did that, we are no longer dealing with symbols common at the time, but with new symbols. Then the necessity of interpreting them against the Near Eastern cultural background is removed. Whether there is any ultimate relationship between biblical and Babylonian accounts as we now have them, they belong to different ideological worlds. The symbols are not the same because the ideology is different. The goddess Tiamat defeated in a war by the god Marduk, if she may be called a ‘symbol’; must be seen as a symbol within the context of Babylonian polytheism whereas the creation of heaven and earth belongs within the context of biblical thought. It is meaningless to say that God used the same symbol but changed its meaning. It is then no longer the same symbol.11
Babylonian King Marduk-zâkir-šumi cylinder seal of lapis lazuli, depicting Marduk resting on his pet dragon, the defeated Tiamat having been split into the “upper” and “lower waters”.
Furthermore, there are important elements in the early chapters of Genesis with no real counterpart in contemporary thought. Of course, it is quite possible that such a counterpart existed and has been lost. However, the onus of the proof lies on those who so confidently affirm that Genesis employs the common symbols of the day. There is no real counterpart to the fall into sin in contemporary literature.12
Left: Illustration by Ralph V. Chamberlin, “The early Hebrew conception of the universe,” from The White and Blue (vol. 13, 1909) a campus newspaper published by Brigham Young University. Chamberlin was head of the Biology Department at BYU in the early 1900s when he and his brother, theologian and philosopher William Chamberlin, stirred controversy with the view that Darwin’s theory of evolution could be reconciled with Mormonism. Chamberlin was a proponent of historical criticism of Genesis text, believing it to be intentionally written for poetic interpretation. Diagrams such as his are commonly used to somehow prove that ancient Hebrews had this domed perception of the universe and the earth.
Middle and right: Typical representations of purported ANE and/or Israelite conception of the universe, a “naïve cosmology.” Recent research demonstrates that the idea that the ancient Israelites believed the heaven(s) consisted of a solid vault resting on a flat earth appears to have emerged for the first time only during the early nineteenth century. A closer look at ancient Babylonian astronomical documents also shows that they did not have the concept of a heavenly vault, nor a three-tiered universe. There are many reasons to reject the claim that these diagrams reflect the view of the ancient Israelites. This long-standing error illustrates the problems with making definitive claims about the ANE worldviews and ideas, and then using such conclusions to “properly” interpret the Bible.
“Naive Cosmology”
Sometimes it seems that those who claim that the Bible used the symbols of its day are merely trying to say that it used a naive as opposed to a scientific cosmology, or, to put it more popularly, it did not bother to correct the prevalent three-story cosmology. If we assume for the sake of the argument that this is the case, then it should be clearly recognized that all we have established is that scientific dogma should not be made out of biblical cosmology. The argument has no relevance to other parts of the account like the creation of animals, man, etc. Unfortunately, this argument is generally used without this careful delimitation. Generally, it is argued that the fact that one element shows the use of non scientific concepts proves that the whole uses naive ideas whose details may not be pressed.
Yet once more the validity of the basic premise must be questioned. Was there ever a pure ‘three-story universe’ idea in antiquity? For the pagan contemporaries of the Bible writers, cosmology was theology. The heavens expressed and were controlled by the various divinities. The sort of abstract spacial/ mechanical interest involved in the idea of a three-story universe is a product of the demythologization of Greek rationalism and Euclidian spacial concepts. One should not try to project a lateidea back into biblical times in order to explain the Bible. In its rejection of polytheism biblical cosmology is of necessity radically different to its surroundings. It is not popular cosmology.
Secondly, what is so wrong about a “naive cosmology?” It is probably as close to the ultimate truth as modern cosmology. If we had not deified modern science, we would not be embarrassed by those points in which biblical thinking diverges from prevailing modern ideas. Certainly, biblical cosmology fits into a different structure of thought from modern cosmology, but it is the validity of that very structure of thought that is at issue. We tend to assume that the assumptions underlying modern physics are unquestionable. If we assume the validity of the structure of physics from any period with its philosophical presuppositions and concomitants13 we run the risk of accepting a structure which, because of its ultimate origin in a total humanistic philosophy, must clash with a biblical world view. What has generally happened is that the structure and method of modern science has been accepted as truth. When the conflict between this and a biblical view has been appreciated, an attempt has been made to give the biblical view a validity in some sort of restricted religious sphere. The basic question is whether our interpretation of the Bible is to be determined by the Bible itself or by some other authority. Once science has been set up as an autonomous authority it inevitably tends to determine the way in which we interpret the Bible. From the point of view of this discussion the outside authority may be Newton or Hoyle just as well as Darwin or Kant. The issue involved is still the same.
Somewhere in this sort of discussion poor Galileo is always dragged in. Yet if we want to learn from history we should at least begin with good history. There is nothing particularly Christian about Aristotelian cosmology. In fact, there are points at which it cannot be reconciled with the Bible. How did the church find itself in the position of defending Aristotelian cosmology against the new Copernican cosmology? It found itself in that position because it accepted the argument of Aquinas that the biblical texts which contradicted Aristotle should not be pressed as the Bible was not written in technical philosophical language. Moses spoke the language of his day. This is not to say that the church should have accepted readily the new astronomy. In its neo-Pythagorean mysticism14 it was no more biblical than Aristotle was. Those who want to say that the Bible is written in the popular language of its day and should not be pressed where it differs from modern philosophical-scientific structures cannot claim to have learned from the Galileo affair. They are merely repeating the arguments that helped to put the church in that situation.
Interpreting Scripture by Scripture
The point to be made in connection with the whole preceding discussion is that the positions discussed tend to introduce a rule for the exegesis of Scripture which is not drawn from Scripture itself. If this is allowed then Scripture is no longer its own interpreter.
Is there any explicit teaching within Scripture itself that its details are not to be pressed in matters of the physical creation? I know of no such teaching and in the whole discussion of this issue I have seen no attempt at specific appeal to the teaching of Scripture. When reference is made to the original creation, the creation narrative is treated as fact without any reservations. Peter’s argument in 2 Peter 3:5–7 does not shrink from reliance upon some of the details of the Genesis narrative. Other examples of biblical references back to Genesis (e.g., Ex 20:11; Mt 19:4; Rom 5:12–19; 1 Tm 2:13, 14), to be considered in more detail below, show a similar reference to specific details. Scripture itself gives no warrant for the oft-repeated claim that the details cannot be pressed and is not embarrassed to refer to specific details such as creation in seven days (Ex 20: 11) and creation of woman from the man (1 Tm 2:13, 14).
This should in itself be enough to dismiss the frequent statement that we may not press the details of the account. Yet, as argued above, the position being considered often rests upon a basis of Kantian philosophy. Is this philosophy itself sanctioned by Scripture? It is not, since there is no clear distinction made by the Bible between statements concerning the physical creation and theological statements. One influences and determines the other. Note that in the biblical references given above, the form which the original creation took is made the basis of theological and/ or ethical teaching.The separation between physical creation and theology is one that has to be imposed upon the text by us. It is not naturally there in the Bible.
The Literary Character of Genesis 1
It seems a more serious attempt at exegesis when appeal is made to the literary nature of Genesis 1.15 Even here care is needed that an outside standard be not imposed. One cannot simply define Genesis 1 as poetry by using a standard of poetry drawn from outside the Scripture, without assuming the very point at issue. Even if Genesis 1 were poetry, we would still be entitled to inquire what truth it conveys. Our answer to that question would have to be framed in terms of the rest of Scripture. If we take the passages referred to above, we obtain enough to place us in conflict with modern evolutionary approaches. Thus, the claim that Genesis 1 is poetic does not resolve the problem.
Furthermore, by what criteria do we call Genesis 1 poetic? The parallelism of days 1–3 to 4–6 is often cited. This however, is merely parallelism of ideas and is not the same parallelism that makes up Hebrew poetry. Hebrew poetry consists of a series of couplets or triplets exhibiting complementary, climactic or antithetic-parallelism e.g. in Psalm 5:1, ‘Give ear to my words, O Lord’, is complemented and paralleled by ‘Consider my meditation’. This is clearly different from the fact that on days 1–3 God creates the environment and on days 4–6 the creatures who are to live and rule in the respective environments. One is a parallel of ideas in successive stichoi, the other a parallel of ideas which may be several verses apart.
Nevertheless, it may be argued that the very fact that Genesis 1 exhibits such a structure proves that it is not to be taken literally. Surely, to state this argument is to refute it. Short of some sort of metaphysical presupposition that regards history as totally random and all order in historiography as being a result of arbitrary human imposition, I cannot see how one would ever prove such a proposition. The attempt to make a case by analogy from the book of Revelation is quite beside the point. If we took elements of Revelation as symbolical without explicit biblical warrant then we would be guilty of imposing an outside standard upon the Scripture. Revelation itself tells us that we are meant to see symbolism in its pictures:
the great city, which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified (11:8);
And a great portent appeared in heaven (12:1);
and on her forehead was written a name of mystery, ‘Babylon the Great… I will tell you the mystery of the woman. This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains…and they are also seven kings…The waters that you saw, where the harlot is seated, are peoples and multitudes…And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth’ (17:5–18).
It is the lack of a similar interpretation of the “symbolism” of Genesis which so sharply distinguishes Genesis and Revelation.
Structured History
Even though there is no logical reason why the presence of a structure should prove that a passage is not to be taken literally, this idea seems to have great emotive appeal. The whole question of structured history needs to be examined more closely. The title of this paper limits discussion to Genesis 1–11. This is because among evangelicals anyway there is a willingness to accept the historicity of the patriarchal narratives. However, the patriarchal narratives are structured history in the same way as the earlier chapters of Genesis. They fit within a framework created by the heading, “These are the generations of…” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12, 19, etc.). There are clear instances of parallel structure. Thus, the experiences of Isaac parallel those of Abraham. Both have barren wives (15:2; 16:1; 25:21). Both lie concerning their wives (20:2; 26:7). Both face famine in the promised land (12:10; 26:1). Both make a covenant with the Philistines (21:22–34; 26:26–33). If parallelism of structure proves that a passage is not historical then the patriarchal narratives are not historical. This of course is the conclusion of many liberal exegetes, but evangelicals once more maintain an inconsistency, being willing to apply a higher-critical principle in one area of Scripture but not in another.
If one looks carefully at these structured histories one sees that the structure is theological. Abraham and Isaac both face barrenness and famine because they both experience the trial of faith in being forced to believe the promise of God contrary to the physical situation (Rom 4:17,18; Heb 11:8–12).16 The structure that underlies the parallelism of Genesis 1 is that of covenant vassal and suzerain. On days 1–3 the environment or vassal was created and on days 4–6 the appropriate creature or suzerain to live and rule in that environment. This notion of covenant head and vassal underlies also the story of the fall in that on the fall of the suzerain the vassal is placed in rebellion against its lord (3:17–19). Further the idea of covenant structures the whole of history into old and new covenant each under their respective heads (Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor 15:45–49). For the historian who proceeds on antitheistic assumptions such a theological history must be rejected. He must assign all such histories to the category of theological subjectivism. A theologically structured history presupposes a God who actively shapes history so that it conforms to his plan. A liberal exegete who denies the existence of such a God must dismiss as true history all biblical accounts which see theological patterns in history. The evangelical has no basis for such an a priori dismissal of structured history. The fact that Genesis 1 displays a structure in no way prejudices its claim to historicity.
Scriptural Interpretations of the Genesis Account
So far the views discussed have consisted of statements about Scripture which were not themselves based on Scripture. An a priori statement about the Bible cannot claim biblical authority. Discussion of this area has been obscured by the number of these statements and there is a need to return to interpreting Scripture by Scripture and not by hypothesis. There are a number of passages which reflect upon the original creation. Some have been referred to in other connections above.
Exodus 20: 8-11 is significant in that it gives us a clear answer to the debated question about whether the ‘days’ of Genesis are to be taken literally. The commandment loses completely its cogency if they are not taken literally.17
This passage is also important in giving a proper direction to our thought. It is often said that the creation is described in seven days because this is the pattern of labour to which the Hebrews were accustomed. The text however says the very reverse. The Hebrews are to become accustomed to a seven-day week because that is the pattern that has been set by God.
Rather than God being made to conform to an already established human pattern, man must conform to the pattern that has been set by God. The point is an important one as it is crucial to the distinction between true and false religion. The oft-repeated claim that human thought and custom has created the categories through which, of necessity, all God’s activity must be viewed is a denial of the spirit of biblical religion. It gives to man the priority which rightly belongs to God.
Psalm 104 deserves more consideration in this question than it usually receives. The psalm follows in a general fashion the order of the creation days. The one point that is of particular interest is that the psalmist has integrated the account of Genesis 1 with that of the creation of springs in Genesis 2: 4-6. The reference to springs falls where one would logically expect it between the account of the creation of dry land (Ps. 104: 6-9) and that of vegetation (Ps. 104: 14-17). The problems of relating the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 is outside the scope of thus paper but any attempt must begin with Psalm 104. Unfortunately some evangelicals have accepted too readily the assertion of the documentary hypothesis that they are independent accounts of creation. The psalmist knew better.
A number of passages which refer to the original creation of man and woman and their relationship may be considered together (Mt. 19: 4; 1 Cor. 11: 8, 9; 1 Tim. 2: 13, 14). Note that the account is taken literally and made the basis of teaching on the relation of man and woman. Even if in only this point we take issue with evolutionary theory we find ourselves in complete antithesis to naturalistic evolution. If on the authority of Scripture we hold to the biblical Bible and ‘science’. The proper subject of this paper is the hermeneutical problem and these passages are adduced to show that the rest of Scripture sees the early chapters of Genesis as literal history. It may be objected as a last resort that only those details of the account mentioned as literal by the rest of Scripture may be taken literally. Even if this point be granted there is still enough contained in just these few verses to reopen the battle with evolutionary theory. However, the argument that only those passages in Genesis 1-11 referred to elsewhere as literal accounts are to be taken as such may be summarily dismissed. The early chapters of the Bible are clearly a unity and whatever hermeneutical method is valid for part is valid for all. This fact has been realized by those who have sought by various arguments to find evidence of ‘poetry’ in one part and to extend it to all. Yet all these attempts in so far as they were not attempts to see how the rest of Scripture treated the chapters in question must be condemned as methodologically faulty. Scripture is its own interpreter.
Against this one might argue that even though the NT treats Genesis 1–11 as literal, this should not be taken as proving that it is a literal description. One may argue that the NT writers were accommodating themselves to the beliefs of the time or that these passages are referred to only as illustrations and that their literalness is not implied by the NT usage. The first alternative must be rejected as involving a denigration of Christ and his apostles. The accommodation argument when used as a way of avoiding the implications of Christ’s use of the OT for the doctrine of Scripture has been rightly rejected by evangelicals.18 It is inconsistent to attempt to revive it to avoid the implications of NT teaching on another subject. Furthermore, the fundamental objection against a rule of exegesis drawn from outside Scripture applies here also. If the accommodation idea is to be allowed in the discussion then it must first be demonstrated that it is itself taught by Scripture.
The second alternative will not bear examination. Clearly in 1 Corinthians 11:8, 9 and 1 Timothy 2:13, 14 the argument of Paul would collapse if the details of the account to which he refers did not happen as recorded. It is foolish to suggest that his point would still be valid even if woman was not created after and from the man and even if Eve was not beguiled into sin. Similarly, Peter’s point is without cogency if the world was not destroyed by the flood (2 Pt 3:5, 6).
Conclusion
The thrust of this paper has been to direct discussion away from theoretical pre-exegetical arguments over the interpretation of Genesis and to concentrate on the way the rest of Scripture interprets it. We meet simple literalism in the scriptural exegesis of Genesis. Certainly not every detail of the chapters in question is referred to elsewhere but when they are literalism prevails.
If this be the case why has so much discussion been concentrated on arguments which are not only inconclusive but also diminish the right of Scripture to be its own interpreter? I suspect that the real debate is not hermeneutical at all. If it were then it would have been decided long ago by a comparison of Scripture with Scripture. The real problem is that we as Christians have in a double sense lost our historical perspective. We have forgotten that the church has always been under pressure to allegorize Genesis so that it may conform with Plotinus or Aristotle or some other human philosophy. We have treated the problem as though it were a modern one, as though we alone have had to face the onerous task of holding to a view of cosmic and human origins which is out of sympathy with the philosophical premises of our culture. The second sense in which we have lost our historical perspective is that we have forgotten that until our Lord returns, we face strife and conflict in this world. We have sought to avoid that conflict in the intellectual realms. We have accepted the claim of humanistic thought that its scholarship is religiously neutral when the Bible teaches us that no man is religiously neutral. Man either seeks to suppress the truth in unrighteousness or to live all his life to the glory of God. In that total warfare scholarship is no mutually declared truce.
This article was published in: Themelios 4, no. 1 (September 1978): 12–19. This article was republished with permission in the Fall 2020 edition of Bible and Spade magazine. Errata from the print version has been corrected in this electronic version that can be downloaded here.
Other articles on this and related subjects can be found under the following categories: Ancient Near Eastern Studies, and Biblical Chronologies. Endnotes for this article: The-Hermeneutical-Problem-of-Genesis-1-11.pdf
A Theology Of The Fall In Genesis 3 And The Ancient Near East
Author: James Gee PhD Category: Creation & Early Man ca. 5500 BC Created: 31 October 2013 Genesis is a book of beginnings. It is the record of the beginning of all creation: the universe, the earth, mankind, and the people of Israel. It also contains a record of the beginning of sin and the circumstances of that beginning. This is normally referred to as ‘The Fall.’ As time progressed and sin increased, man eventually digressed so far that he started believing in and worshipping other so-called gods. As a part of this apostasy the account of the beginning of man slowly evolved to fit with the lifestyle of sin, as well as with these new gods and beliefs. Other things crept in to sometimes completely distort the account. But, some similarities remain.
The article was published as a shorter, popular level version in the Summer 2013 issue of Bible and Spade. This is a more expanded version of the original article.
Introduction
Many of these accounts were written down in different countries, cultures, and languages for various reasons. We have found accounts of creation and the flood. What has not been found is a specific account of the fall (Fretheim 2005:71). While we do not have a specific account of the fall from these cultures, many authors believe that several stories contain elements that refer to the fall, e.g. the Epic of Gilgamesh. This article seeks to compare some of these accounts of the Ancient Near East (ANE) with the account found in Genesis 3 to see what can be learned of their theology of the fall. This will be accomplished by looking at the accounts under one heading or by asking one question. That question is: “What was the nature of the fall?” Under this question there are several subheadings or questions that we will ask to guide our study. The questions were determined from a reading of the literature on this subject and the things that were highlighted by the various authors. The questions will be asked and, by so doing, the accounts will be compared as the article progresses.
What Was The Nature Of The Fall?
There is a great deal of discussion as to the nature of the fall. Two basic approaches have been put forth (Fretheim 1994: 145–149). The first is that it was a fall downward. The second is that it was a fall upward. The fall downward obviously refers to the idea that man was in a perfect state, living in what some have described as a “golden age” or “paradise” (Ries 2005: 2959) and, because of sin, this perfection came to an end. This has been seen as a negative view of the fall, i.e. “human beings transgress the limits of creatureliness and assume godlike powers for themselves” (Fretheim 2005: 71). But, it is this last part that is seen by some as the basis of a fall upward. Under this idea man was in the dark concerning certain things. He was in a primal state, ignorant, immature, and childlike. When he crossed the boundary that had been set by deity, he became civilized, knowledgeable, wise, mature, and more like an adult. Thus, man was improved and grew or, in other words, an upward fall. This author cannot agree with the idea of an upward fall. The fall downward seems to better fit the context of Genesis 3. But, there is a third possibility which has been introduced by Fretheim and which is very appealing to this author as a way to explain, or expand upon, the idea of a downward fall. That is, Fretheim suggests a falling out (Fretheim 1994: 153). This has to do mainly with the idea that mankind fell out of relationship with God when he disobeyed. This fits the context and complements the fall downward idea very well. But, when we consider these ideas, what exactly do they have to do with the fact that we are comparing Genesis 3 with the ANE literature? The answer is that it lays the foundation of what occurs in the different accounts as told by the different cultures. The nature of the fall is tied to all aspects of how the event is portrayed in the different accounts. The accounts to which we will compare the Genesis material are the Atrahasis Epic, the Gilgamesh Epic, and the Adapa Story.
The Atrahasis Epic is the Akkadian myth concerning primeval history. It is found only “in incomplete copies…made c. 1630 BC and circulated widely during later centuries (it was known at Ugarit)” (Mitchell 1996: 373). One of the copies can be found in the British Museum. And, “the most complete copy of Atrahasis comes from the early seventeenth century B.C.” (Lucas 2003: 132). The story:
explains the creation of man as intended to relieve the (lesser) deities of their toil, and the attempted destruction of humanity as divine response to the noise of the expanding human population which threatened the very rest that their creation had sought to provide for the gods. This destruction, decreed by Enlil, took several successive forms, culminating in the Deluge but, as in other flood-stories, its purpose was frustrated by the survival of the flood-hero, here called Atra-hasis (“exceeding wise”), through the intervention of Ea, the divine friend of humanity. The problem of over-population is resolved by other means in a concluding aetiology. The composition is nearly complete in a Late Old Babylonian recension in three tablets (chapters), and is known as well in various fragmentary later recensions (Hallo 1997: 450).
The Gilgamesh Epic is the Babylonian myth of early history (Carson 1994: Gn 6:9–9:29). It is a “legend, which emerged from the first Babylonian dynasty…, (and) was discovered in the palace library of Ashurbanipal (669–627 BC) at Nineveh” (Elwell 2001: 532). Further, “the epic consists of eleven tablets composed ca. 2000 B.C. and a twelfth which was added somewhat later; other copies were discovered at Megiddo (dating to the fourteenth century) and Ugarit as well as fragments of Hittite and Hurrian versions, from Boghazköy” (Myers 1987: 418). Again, a copy of this epic can be seen at the British Museum. The Epic of Gilgamesh:
tells of how a strong ruler, Gilgamesh, became friends with Enkidu, a hunter the gods had created to overthrow him. Together the two killed the monster Huwawa. Ishtar, the goddess of love, made advances to Gilgamesh. In resisting her, he killed the sacred heavenly bull. Enkidu died as a punishment for that crime. Gilgamesh, overcome by grief, traveled the world seeking the source of immortality, finally arriving at the homeland of Utnapishtim. In Tablet XI Utnapishtim describes a devastating flood that drowned a large area of Mesopotamia. Through his piety Utnapishtim was saved and given immortality by the gods. The final tablet contains an expression of sadness over Gilgamesh’s mortality (Elwell 2001: 533).
The ties between these two documents and Genesis are seen in many areas, but we want to focus on two, 1) the sin, and 2) the consequences. First, what constitutes the actual sin committed in the different accounts? Connected to this, what constitutes the “knowledge of good and evil?” In some accounts, is the deed actually seen as sin from the author’s perspective? What may be seen as the basis of the sin? Second, what are the consequences or results? What is gained or lost on the part of mankind? These questions will form the basis upon which we will do the comparison between Genesis 3 and the ANE literature.
What Constituted The Actual Sin?
In Genesis 2:16–17 we find the command concerning the tree in the middle of the garden. God says, “from any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”1 When this command is considered in light of our question, we first look at the phrase “knowledge of good and evil.” This is taken to mean different things by different people. The traditional understanding would be that this has to do with knowledge that is inclusive of everything possible. “Most of the parallel OT passages in which ‘good and evil’ occur point to it meaning ‘everything possible,’ the two opposites good and evil being employed not for their own sake but to express a totality (what lies between the two) – a case of merism”2 (Bailey 1970: 146). We would agree with this position only in part because there would be more involved than just “everything possible.” Good and Evil are two opposite extremes. “Everything possible” would have some things lying somewhere in the middle which may be neither good nor evil, but neutral. Evil would be anything and everything that is opposed to God and His nature and will. Good would be everything in harmony with the same. Again, this is the traditional understanding of “the knowledge of good and evil.”
However, one other possibility is advanced by several in the scholarly community. This other possibility, at least for some, has its basis in the Gilgamesh Epic. In this story, as was seen above, a man named Enkidu was created to be a companion to Gilgamesh. Enkidu lives with the animals, talks with them, and protects them. He protects them from a hunter and his traps. With the help of Gilgamesh, the hunter devises a plan to thwart Enkidu’s attempts to help the animals. The hunter takes a harlot to the watering place at which Enkidu and the wild animals drink. When Enkidu arrives with the animals the hunter has the harlot expose and offer herself to Enkidu. He is taken in by this and spends six days and seven nights with her. The story at this point is as follows:
When he was sated with her charms,
He set his face towards the open country of his cattle.
The gazelles saw Enkidu and scattered,
The cattle of open country kept away from his body.
For Enkidu had stripped; his body was too clean.
His legs, which used to keep pace with his cattle, were at a standstill.
Enkidu had been diminished, he could not run as before.
Yet he had acquired judgment, had become wiser.
He turned back, he sat at the harlot’s feet.
The harlot was looking at his expression,
And he listened attentively to what the harlot said.
The harlot spoke to him, to Enkidu,
“You have become wise Enkidu, you have become like a god” 3
From this story scholars make a connection to the Genesis account, in part, because of the last phrase. Wisdom was bestowed upon Enkidu and he became “like a god” because he had engaged in physical intimacy.4 The parallel is supposedly found in Genesis 3:22, “Then the Lord God said ‘Behold the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil’” (NASB95). Another connection is seen in the fact that Enkidu is given clothing by the harlot which supposedly corresponds to Genesis 3:21 where God makes garments for Adam and Eve.
This connection between gaining wisdom and physical intimacy is also made on other grounds. In the Genesis account the prohibition that is made concerns the eating of fruit. Some look to the texts of the ANE for the many examples where eating and fruit refer to physical intimacy. Some even point to such imagery in the Song of Solomon (2:3; 4:12–13, 16) and Proverbs (30:20). Thus, the Genesis passage is analyzed in light of these ideas and many see the same imagery and meanings. The couple enters chapter three naked and unashamed. After eating the fruit (engaging in physical intimacy), they are aware, and ashamed, of their nakedness. Nakedness is compared to sexuality by those who hold this view: “They were in a state of sexual innocence, they ate the fruit, and all of a sudden they were aware of the sexuality” (Veenker 1999–2000: 67).
It must be noted at this point that a distinction is made by some concerning the actual nature of this idea. Some, as noted above, see the actual act of physical intimacy as constituting the eating of the fruit, i.e. Veenker, Bailey, and others. But others see it as simply knowledge about the act, and not the act itself. Only later, using this knowledge, would the people commit sin by engaging in the act (Hartman 1958: 35–38).
Another idea that is supposed to validate this line of thinking is put forth by Hartman. He holds that Adam and Eve were to remain childless, having been commanded to not take part in physical intimacy.
There remains the possibility that their sin consisted in having conjugal relations against God’s orders. This possibility is not to be excluded on account of God’s command to be fruitful and multiply as given in 1,28, for this is a distinct creation story, not connected with the story of the Fall. So, also, 2,24 is an extraneous masal (proverb, paradigm, model – JG) concerning later men who had fathers and mothers…their deed need not have been evil in itself, but wrong only because of the divine prohibition….Nowhere in the story does God say to Adam, “This garden I will give to you and your descendants.” A garden which was small enough for Adam to “guard”…was presumably not to be filled with an ever increasing progeny. Like Utnapishtim and his wife, of the Mesopotamian myth, who had no children to share their undying bliss, Adam and his wife were apparently to live on indefinitely in blessed childlessness (Hartman 1958: 35).
Hartman goes on to speak of how this idea of childlessness does not contradict the fact that Israelites understood children to be a blessing from God. He states that while children were needed for “strengthening the clan against enemies and for support in one’s old age,” they also provided the parents “quasi-immortality” through their seed. So, when Adam and Eve are considered, they already have immortality with the opportunity to eat of the tree of life. If they already have immortality personally, even though it meant childlessness, it follows then that they were deceived by the serpent into attaining immortality through children (Hartman 1958: 35–36).
At this point several observations should be made concerning the ideas previously discussed. We will begin with the last first. Hartman has to have several presuppositions to come to the conclusions that he does. First, he has to assume that the command in Genesis 1:28 is totally separate from the Fall in Genesis 3. He evidently does this through source criticism, even though he never says that. Second, he argues from silence concerning the lack of a statement about giving the garden to Adam and his descendants. Third, he makes a huge assumption concerning the size of the garden. Fourth, he makes a comparison to the story of Utnapishtim which may or may not be warranted (this point goes to the whole idea of comparing ANE literature with the biblical account, which we will deal with in the last part of this article). Fifth, and finally, he speaks to this supposed state of childlessness as “blessed.” This point flies in the face of the rest of Scripture which portrays children as gifts from God that are to be brought up in His ways (Ps 127:3–5; Eph 6:4).
Next, Veenker wants to make a comparison between the literature of the ANE and Genesis 3 based on eating and fruit as metaphors for physical intimacy. Why is eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil singled out as being such a metaphor? Why is eating of the tree of life not seen as such? In Genesis 2:16–17 man is told that he may eat of every tree (obviously their fruit) in the garden except one. If eating and fruit are metaphors for physical intimacy, then why is it that eating of the fruit of these trees is left out of the exegesis and the metaphor? If it does contain the same ideas, how does it fit into the interpretation? Then, in Genesis 3:22, the opportunity to eat of the fruit of the tree of life is taken away. What if the tree of life is supposed to be used as the metaphor and the tree of knowledge of good and evil means something else? Following this line of reasoning, physical intimacy is commended before the fall, but is condemned afterward. If not, why not? The context, which includes the two chapters before this one, as well as every other chapter in Scripture after this one, goes directly against these ideas, ANE literature notwithstanding.
The Bible upholds the uprightness and beauty of physical intimacy within the boundaries of the marriage relationship. In Matthew 19, Jesus upheld the idea of a man and woman becoming “one flesh.” In Hebrews 13:4, marriage is “held in honor” and the marriage bed (koitē – the physical act) is “undefiled” (NASB95). Again, the Song of Solomon speaks to the beauty of the relationship, both emotional and physical, between a man and his wife. It cannot be that physical intimacy, or even the knowledge of it, is to be taken as constituting the event that resulted in the fall, i.e. sin. Along these same lines we saw that Hartman says that eating of the second tree is simply knowledge about the act and not the act itself. It should then follow that eating from the first tree is knowledge about immortal life and not immortal life itself. The extreme unlikelihood of such an idea is evident given the context.
What Were The Consequences/Results?
In the Genesis account we find that God said that Adam and Eve, or Man and Woman, would die in the day that they ate of the tree. We know from the rest of the context that physical death did not occur when they violated the command. So, did God never intend physical death when He set the punishment? Was it meant to be spiritual death all along? Or, was He simply merciful toward Adam and Eve, not following through with the punishment of immediate death but giving instead another punishment? Whatever the answer, the ANE literature supposedly offers one.
In the Atrahasis Epic the fall is referenced, at least in this author’s mind. The story states, as we have already seen, that the lesser gods had to do the work on earth. They grew tired of this and one of them is sacrificed in order to create man. Man is created from his blood mixed with clay. The work of the gods is then given to man. This works well for a while. But after about 1200 years the population of man grows and so does the noise that man makes. This interrupts the sleep of one of the gods, Enlil, and this makes him angry.
The country was as noisy as a bellowing bull
The God grew restless at their racket,
Enlil had to listen to their noise.
He addressed the great gods,
“The noise of mankind has become too much,
I am losing sleep over their racket.
Give the order that surrupu-disease shall break out.5
Therefore the sin here is simply being noisy and the consequence is the death of man through disease. When the same thing occurs twice more, each 1200 years apart, the second punishment is drought that brings about a famine and the third punishment is a flood. Thus, physical death is the consequence.
In the account of Enkidu and the harlot there is not so much a consequence as a result. Enkidu’s normal way of living, prior to being with the harlot, is to live with wild animals. He has relations with her and when he tries to return to the animals they do not accept him, but run away. This has been proposed to mean that he became civilized. In other words, there is an ascent of knowledge (Veenker 1999–2000: 69–75), or a fall upward, as mentioned earlier. This is brought out by the line which says that the animals would not accept him because “Enkidu had stripped; his body was too clean.” Evidently Enkidu has washed his body either before or after he had been with the harlot. He therefore may have lost the smell of the forest and animals with which he had been. As a result the animals were afraid of him. Enkidu is then brought by the harlot to the city of Uruk and further educated in the ways of civilized man. He even goes to the opposite extreme concerning the wild animals. Previously he had protected them from the hunter. Now, he protects the shepherds and their sheep by driving off the lions and wolves.
This brings us to the possible contradiction mentioned in the last section (Endnote 4). The text of this document gives the reason for what happened: “When he (Enkidu) was sated with her charms, he set his face towards the open country of his cattle. The gazelles saw Enkidu and scattered, the cattle of open country kept away from his body. For Enkidu had stripped; his body was too clean.” In addition, the account goes on to point out that Enkidu had never eaten some foods common to man or fought with weapons like mankind:
He used to suck the milk of wild animals. They put food in front of him. He narrowed his eyes, and looked, then stared. Enkidu knew nothing of eating bread, of drinking beer. He had never learned. The harlot made her voice heard and spoke to Enkidu, “Eat the food, Enkidu, the symbol of life. Drink the beer, destiny of the land.” Enkidu ate the bread until he had had enough. He drank the beer, seven whole jars, relaxed, felt joyful. His heart rejoiced, his face beamed, he smeared himself with…his body was hairy. He anointed himself with oil and became like any man, put on clothes. He was like a warrior, took his weapon, fought with lions. The shepherds could rest at night; he beat off wolves, drove off lions. The older herdsmen lay down; Enkidu was their guard…6
This leads this author to believe that the act of physical intimacy was not the only thing that separated Enkidu from the animals. He also cleaned himself up, dressed himself, and did other things like a normal human being. Therefore, is wisdom acquired through the sexual act? Or is it acquired through knowledge of what it means to be with humans, which would include physical relations between men and women, but also much more, e.g. bathing, wearing clothes, eating the foods of mankind, using weapons, etc.?
This brings us back to Genesis 3. The punishment promised was death. If that was to be physical death, it did not happen, at least, not immediately. Again, this possibly was due to the mercy of God. But, it may not originally have been physical death, but spiritual. Death is simply separation. It can be separation of the soul from the body or separation of man from God (Eph 2:1, 12). When it comes down to the bottom line, what resulted from this event is that man’s relationship with God was broken. The order of things between God and his creation is upset (Walsh 1977: 177). Prior to the fall, man was on speaking terms with God without any need for a mediator or any kind of appeasement through sacrifice. God would walk in the garden with man and converse with him. They had fellowship together. When man sinned that fellowship was broken and sacrifice was then required, as seen from Genesis 4, to continue some form of the relationship. Again, relationship or fellowship with God is all-important to our understanding of this passage, especially as it relates to our comparison with the literature of the ANE. When these comparisons are made, all too often the relationship between God and man in the Genesis account is set aside and the comparisons are made on other grounds (Fretheim 1994: 148). This quality of relationship or fellowship in the Genesis account is not found in the ANE literature. Man is created simply to do “work that is essential for the continuing existence of the gods, and work that they have tired of doing themselves” (Walton 2006: 215). But, when Genesis 3 is analyzed, carrying that analysis over into chapters 4–6, we see that one of the themes of the text is relationships. What is seen is not a metaphor for physical intimacy or the knowledge of it, but metaphors of “estrangement, alienation, separation, and displacement, with ever increasing distance from Eden, each other, and God” (Fretheim 1994:153). Another author puts it this way:
Their ease with one another is shattered, for they cover their nakedness (3:7). Their communion with God is broken, and they hide from the One who created them in his image (3:8–9). Their grasp of truth is weakened as they blame others for what they each have done (3:10–13). Fractures in friendship, fellowship and integrity are all casualties of sin (House 1998: 65).
Before leaving this point, we would add that there is another “relationship” which is damaged. That is man’s relationship with the earth. Moses recorded God’s words concerning the curse that He would put upon the earth itself:
Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return (Gn 3:17-19).
In Romans 8:19-22 Paul indirectly goes back to the events of Genesis 3 to show that even the creation suffered because of the Fall.
For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
This passage is seen by most as a commentary on Genesis 3:17-19. Thorns and thistles will grow and man will have to work hard in order to grow the things that will be his to eat. The “futility” to which creation was subjected in Genesis 3 has to do with the idea that it would not do that for which it was designed or intended. (Dunn 2002: 470). Prior to the Fall it was fruitful and abundant. After the Fall it not only produced thorns and thistles, but there are also destructive storms, pests, disease, viruses, etc., that affect humans, plants, and animals (Smith 2007: 77-81). Scientists are constantly working to prevent, reduce, or control the last three problems in this list (Hendriksen 1980: 268).
When all of these things are considered, i.e. the broken relationship between God and man, and mankind and the earth, it is clear that we are looking at more than just a fall downward. In other words, there is also the falling out, of which we spoke earlier.
Taking this one step further, God does everything possible, short of going back on His word or doing something against His nature, to recapture this relationship. He immediately speaks of the seed of woman that would crush the head of Satan and his offspring. In fulfillment of this passage the future found Jesus Christ coming to this earth to provide a way for fellowship to be restored between God and man. But, still, there is something more in the immediate context. Besides the sacrifices and the implied forgiveness given as a result of obedience to these things, God will speak to Cain in 4:6–7 and remind him that he can rule over the sin that is waiting to ensnare him. In Genesis 6, God will choose one man and his family to carry on the human race after the flood. Throughout this context, and the context of the rest of Scripture, God is constantly working to bring man closer to Him. He pleads through His leaders, priests, and prophets, for the people to remain faithful to Him or return to Him. Again, this is not found in the ANE literature, because there is no relationship of the same quality between the gods and mankind.
Another aspect of relationship needs to be discussed before we leave this point. It is Naidoff who speaks of it. He believes that the serpent brings about uncertainty in Eve by his question and statement. This uncertainty pertains to God’s intentions. God has provided everything that is needed for mankind to abundantly survive by giving him access to all trees of the garden except one. God then can be seen as the Supreme Provider. He has limited their choice of the tree in the middle of the garden for their own best interests, which is implied by the succeeding consequences. But, according to Naidoff, the serpent causes Eve to doubt that, as well as God’s intention of truly providing everything they need. God is seen now to be withholding something from them and thus, in contrast to the Supreme Provider, He now becomes God the Withholder (Naidoff 1978: 8).
While Naidoff, in the context of these statements, applies this almost exclusively to food, we want to take it to a deeper level. That is, that when Eve saw God was withholding something, if that is what is happening, she lost her trust in God. When Adam allowed Eve to take the lead in spiritual matters he showed his distrust in God’s plan. The idea is that trust is at the basis of every relationship that man has, especially man’s relationship with God. If this point has validity, then a corollary to that is that at the basis of every sin, at least in part, is a lack of trust in God, or, to put it another way, mistrust (House 1998: 64–65). Adam and Eve should have known that God had their best interests at heart. He does not withhold that which is good. He does not set boundaries around things that are good for us and right for us to do. Thus, when we sin, we show that we do not think that God is acting in our best interests. We do not trust Him. Again, bringing this in line with the purpose of this article, this idea of trust is not found in the ANE literature because there is no quality relationship between the gods and man and therefore there is no real trust to be had.7
Finally, there is another consequence that ties in with some things we have already discussed and which has a similar parallel in the ANE literature. We spoke earlier of death and the separation that is inherent in that. Tied to this is the fact that Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden. The text puts it this way:
Then the Lord God said. “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” — therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life (Gn 3:22–24).
If mankind remained in the garden they would have opportunity to eat of the tree of life and live forever, or be immortal.
The quest for immortality is seen also in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh went in search of an herb that, if eaten, could give him immortality. He could not find it until Utnapishtim gave him the location. The location was deep under the sea. Gilgamesh tied rocks to his feet and plunged into the sea. He found the herb and brought it back safely only to have it stolen by a serpent (Graves 1983: 79). In addition to this story, there is another known as the Adapa Story. Of this story, according to Andreasen, there are four extant fragments. Three (A, C, D) derive from the Ashurbanipal library (7th cent. B.C.), and the fourth (B) comes from the Amarna archives (14th cent. B.C.) (Andreasen 1981:180, n. 6). However, the British Museum website claims that the three fragments which they acquired were discovered at Sippar (?) and Kouyunjik (Nineveh).8
The story concerns immortality but is different in that it is not man who seeks it. The man Adapa is fishing and his boat is capsized by the south wind that is represented by a bird. When this occurs Adapa injures the bird’s wing. He is called to account for it by the gods. The gods plan to offer him the food and drink of death. But, Ea hears of this plan and warns Adapa not to eat or drink. The gods hear that Ea has warned Adapa and do not offer him the food and drink of death, but the bread and water of life. Not knowing that this is actually what is being offered, Adapa refuses to eat and drink. In this way, through the deception of the gods, he turns down immortality.
In addition to the above, there is a connection in this story with a serpent, as in Genesis. Walton and Matthews comment on this idea:
Of particular interest is the Sumerian god Ningishzida, who was portrayed in serpent shape and whose name means “Lord of the Productive/Steadfast Tree.” He was considered a ruler in the nether world and “throne-bearer of the earth.” He was one of the deities that offered the bread of life to Adapa (Walton 1997: 20).
Finally, there is another connection between this story and Genesis 3: “After Adapa loses the opportunity to eat from the bread and water of life, he is given clothing by the god Anu before being sent from his presence” (Walton 1997: 22).
Despite the similarities, there are striking differences between the Adapa Story and the account in Scripture. The ANE literature portrays the gods as being deceptive and selfish. They do not want man to have immortality. On the contrary, in the biblical account, God freely offered the opportunity to eat of the tree of life until the point when man disobeys. Then, God goes on to carry out His plan to give man the opportunity to have eternal life with Him away from the frail and fallen creation. Therefore, God is shown to always want the best for man and to offer the chance for man to acquire it through the grace offered in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Conclusion
The Pentateuch was not written in a vacuum. It was written in a particular place, time, and culture, and it partook of many things from its surroundings. The question we ask now is: Did it partake of the myths contained in the ANE literature? There certainly are many similarities between the creation and flood stories. There are also many similarities in the information concerning man’s loss of the state he was in at the beginning, i.e. the golden age or paradise. But, as noted in many instances, there are also differences. Aside from the particular differences that have been noted, there are more basic or fundamental differences that affect the material found in the ANE. These differences are several.
There is a basic difference that concerns the character of the gods portrayed in this material. They are too much like mankind. They fight, get drunk, engage in fornication, kill each other, etc. Too often humanity wants deity to be like him in order that the standards of life can be lowered. But, the God of the Bible is holy, without sin, because He cannot sin, and He calls man to a higher standard, a higher way of living. He clearly states that He is not like us (Ps 50:21). He does not need our service or sacrifices to be God. He does not need us to feed Him (Ps 50:9–13), as opposed to the gods of the ANE.
In addition, as noted above, God always wants and does the best for mankind. He is not some god who has no concern except for Himself. He does not leave man to fend for himself and make his own way on life. God provides for man everything that is needed to survive both spiritually and physically. John Walton sums up this whole discussion very well:
In Mesopotamia the cosmos functions for the gods and in relation to them. People are an afterthought, seen as just another part of the cosmos that helps the gods to function. In Israel the cosmos functions for people and in relation to them. God does not need the cosmos, but it is his temple. It functions for people (Walton 2006: 215).
In Genesis, and underscored in Psalm 8, man is the pinnacle, the crown, of creation. Man is the creature that God chose to make in His image. The fall of man was truly a fall “down,” as well as “out.” The ANE literature misses that in almost every respect.
Footnotes
1. All Scripture quotations are from the NASB95, unless otherwise noted.
2. “merism” is “a rhetorical term for a pair of contrasting words (such as near and far) used to express totality or completeness.”
( accessed October 31, 2013)
3. accessed October 31, 2013.
4. This is the conclusion of the articles mentioned in connection with this point. But, there is something in the text itself that may contradict this conclusion. We will deal with this possible contradiction under the section below concerning consequences/results.
5. accessed October 31, 2013.
6. accessed January 10, 2013.
7. This author realizes that sacrifices are offered to the so-called gods and pleas are made to have things accomplished by the gods, but the relationship is simply not the same. It is a relationship of manipulation and coercion. The gods themselves, at least as they are portrayed in these myths, are concerned mainly with their own well-being and man is simply a slave, with very few exceptions (e.g., Ea warning Utnapishtim of the impending flood).
8. Accessed October 31, 2013.
Bibliography
Andreasen, Niels-Erik
1981 Adam and Adapa: Two Anthropological Characters. Andrews University Seminary Studies 19.3: 179-194.
Bailey, John A.
1970 Initiation and Primal Woman in Gilgamesh and Genesis 2-3. Journal of Biblical Literature 89: 137-150.
Carson, D.A.
1994 The New Bible Commentary. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press.
Dunn, James D. G.
2002 Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 1-8. Dallas: Word.
Elwell, Walter A., and Comfort, Philip W.
2001 Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.
Fretheim, Terence E.
2005 God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
1994 Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story? Word and World 14.2:144-153.
Graves, Robert, and Patai, Raphael
1983 Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis. New York: Greenwich House.
Hallo, William W., and Younger, K. Lawson
1997 The Context of Scripture Volume 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. New York: Brill.
Hartman, Louis F.
1958 Sin in Paradise. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 20.1: 26-40.
Hendriksen, William
1980 New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker.
House, Paul R.
1998 Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic.
Lucas, E. C.
2003 Cosmology. P. 132 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, eds. T. Desmond Alexander and Davis W. Baker. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press.
Mitchell, T. C.
1996 Flood. P. 373 in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. D. R. W. Wood. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press.
Myers, Allen C.
1987 The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Naidoff, Bruce D.
1978 A Man to Work the Soil: A New Interpretation of Genesis 2-3. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 5: 2-14.
Ries, Julien
2005 The Fall. P. 2959 in The Encyclopedia of Religion 5, ed. Lindsay Jones. New York: Thomson Gale.
Smith, Henry B.
2007 Cosmic and Universal Death from Adam’s Fall: An Exegesis of Romans 8:19-23a. Journal of Creation 21.1: 75-85.
Veenker, Ronald A.
1999-2000 Forbidden Fruit: Ancient Near Eastern Sexual Metaphors. Hebrew Union College Annual 70-71: 57-73.
Walsh, Jerome T.
1977 Genesis 2:4b-3:24: A Synchronic Approach. Journal of Biblical Literature 96.2: 161-177.
Walton, John H., and Matthews, Victor H.
1997 The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press.
Genesis 1 and the Raqia
Author: Rick Lanser MDiv Category: Creation & Early Man ca. 5500 BC Created: 05 August 2009
Introduction
As we read the narrative of Genesis 1, we repeatedly encounter the word ‘expanse’ or ‘firmament.’ These words are used to translate the Hebrew term raqia, but carry baggage that tends to predispose how we English readers interpret these verses, hindering our ability to derive their meaning on purely contextual grounds. Let us, therefore, try to follow the narrative by using the term raqia instead; doing so will, hopefully, help us understand it without unduly influencing us toward a particular interpretation. (Unless otherwise noted, all verses below follow the NASB.)
To set the stage for this study, I suggest that if we read Genesis 1:1-10 as a straightforward narrative, it teaches that in the only ‘beginning’ that concerns us-a beginning separate from any other God may have initiated in eternity past, such as the creation of His abode, or the creation of the angels-God began by creating the Earth. Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement that succeeding verses elaborate on. He did not begin by first creating the universe and then placing the Earth into it; but in creating the Earth, God was at the same time creating our entire universe, with the Earth being its first manifestation.
A Great Ball of Water
With the understanding that Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement, Genesis 1:2 signals the actual inception of Creation. It begins with the formation of the Earth and its universe as a single great body of water, formless and empty at the outset but presumably in the general shape of a sphere. From God’s perspective external to His creation, darkness lay ‘upon’ the surface of the watery deep, but probably permeated the whole. Since God ‘dwells in unapproachable light’ (1 Tim 6:16), I suspect that this darkness ‘upon the face of the deep’ (KJV) was an integral part of the incipient universe, a darkness not existing as a separate entity; in other words, God was not doing His creating work in the dark.
Since this state of darkness upon the deep comes first, evening appropriately precedes morning. Then, in my mind’s eye, this formless body of water then begins to glow as God, whose Spirit hovers over the dark waters, creates light-light, like the darkness, existing within the waters, and which soon coalesces into a localized, radiant area of energy-filled plasma. With the completion of this separation of the light from the darkness comes the morning. ‘And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day’ (Gen. 1:5).
On the second day God says,
Let there be a raqia in the midst of the waters [Heb. mayim], and let it separate the waters from the waters. And God made the raqia, and separated the waters which were below the raqia from the waters which were above the raqia; and it was so. And God called the raqia heaven [Heb. shamayim]. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day’ (Gen. 1:6-8).
The raqia forms in the midst of the watery body, separating it into two parts and acting as a boundary between them. One part lies below the raqia, the other above it. God also defines the raqia, a term which describes the characteristics of this object, as being equivalent with shamayim, its specific name. (The same principle applies to how the Bible introduces the first human being. His characteristics are given by the Hebrew term for man, ish, which carries with it the concept of maleness, but his specific name is Adam.)
As for shamayim, this is a most interesting word, a plural form which in English is often translated by the singular term ‘heaven,’ but in every case it would be acceptable to translate it as ‘heavens.’ Hebrew actually uses no singular form of the word. The same is true of the word mayim, waters; only the plural (technically, dual) form is used in Hebrew. The two words are so similar that one suspects they are related.
A Closer Look at the Raqia
Before examining a possible relationship between mayim and shamayim, however, I would like to look more closely at the word raqia and comment on an alternative interpretation of it proposed by Dr. Walt Brown. He has done much careful, extremely detailed scientific research, set forth in his book In the Beginning, which helps us understand how scientific principles can illuminate the origin of the Earth, explaining many things we observe in geology and astronomy in a manner consistent with the Bible. He calls his model the Hydroplate Theory. Though I do not perfectly understand all of his points, he makes a very persuasive scientific case for many of them.
Despite the strength of his science, however, I do not believe the support he sees for his theory in the term raqia holds up under a close scrutiny. He states:
The word expanse (raqia) is used nine times in Genesis, all in the creation account, chapter 1. The first four uses are distinguished from the last four, to minimize confusion. Following each of the last four uses (in Genesis 1:14-20) is the phrase ‘of the heavens.’ Clearly, from the context, ‘expanse of the heavens’ means sky, atmosphere, outer space, or heaven. However, the first four uses of ‘expanse,’ in Genesis 1:6-7, do not use the phrase ‘of the heavens.’ That expanse was the earth’s crust. Surface waters (oceans, seas, lakes, and rivers) were above this crust, and subterranean waters were below. The subterranean waters burst forth, producing ‘the fountains of the great deep’ and the global flood (p. 365, my emphasis).
I am convinced that contextual considerations militate against the distinct uses of raqia Dr. Brown proposes. The claim that raqia in verses 6-7 refers to the Earth’s crust does not follow from the Biblical data, but was apparently made to provide supposed Scriptural support for the hydroplate theory. The context indicates it is far more likely that the expression ‘of the heavens’ was not used earlier in Genesis 1 simply because the name shamayim was not equated with the raqia until Genesis 1:8a. Until this name had been attached to the raqia, there was no reason to use the expression ‘of the heavens.’ Once the identification of shamayim with raqia was established in verse 8a, subsequent verses could use this expression to clarify the nature of the raqia without causing confusion. On the other hand, if shamayim had been connected with raqia prior to verse 8a, no one would have had a clue what it signified-it had not yet been defined.
Thus, there is no reason to propose differences in the meaning of raqia within the context of the first chapter of Genesis; the internal evidence indicates every instance of raqia in Genesis 1 refers to the same entity. Therefore, claiming that the phrase ‘of the heavens’ introduces a second kind of raqia into the picture, distinct from that in verses 6 and 7, is reading something into the text that is not really there.
In addition, if Dr. Brown’s reasoning were correct, we should expect the raqia ‘of the heavens’ in Genesis 1:20 to be precisely identical in every way with that mentioned in 1:14-17. But the raqia ‘of the heavens’ (which could equally well have been rendered ‘the heavenly raqia‘ in modern English) in 1:14-17 is the domain of the heavenly bodies, while in 1:20 the ‘face’ of the raqia is the atmospheric zone where the birds fly – a difference of localized characteristics, though not a wholly different type of raqia. This difference in localized characteristics of the single raqia makes it clear that the phrase ‘of the heavens’ is not a technical term precisely defining a particular type of raqia distinct from other potential types, but only serves as an adjective elaborating on its characteristics. If the modifying phrase was intended to exactly define one type of raqia, we would expect 1:20 to read ‘raqia of the air’ or something similar. Therefore, if the phrase ‘of the heavens’ does not support a very specific usage in 1:14-20, we have no firm basis for supposing that its lack in 1:6-7 means the usage there is substantially different. Since all the uses in Genesis 1 are in close association with each other, the highest likelihood is that they all refer to exactly the same thing.
The Great Stretch
To understand what happens next in Creation, we must gain additional clarity by going outside the book of Genesis and allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. Observe the following representative verses, there are some 17 in all:
Isaiah 45:12-It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens [shamayim] with My hands…
Isaiah 51:13-That you have forgotten the LORD your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens [shamayim]…
Jeremiah 10:12-It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens [shamayim]…
God stretched out the heavens. Since we already know that God called the raqia ‘heaven’ (shamayim), these verses speak of the great stretching out of the raqia. Let us again picture Creation taking place; the Lord places His hands upon the ball of water, draws them apart, the raqia stretches out in all directions-and outer space is created, with light years passing in a moment of time. The waters below the raqia become the primeval, water-enshrouded Earth, while those above the raqia lie outside of our experience, at the outermost boundary of this universe, beyond the reach of even the Hubble telescope. In the process of stretching out the raqia, the glowing plasma formed on the first day stretches out also, permeating the raqia as its boundary extends to the furthest reaches of the cosmos. Thus ends the second day.
As we continue reading Genesis 1, verses 14, 15 and 17 tell us that on the fourth day, the swirling eddies of plasma that stretched out with the raqia on the second day coalesce, becoming the galaxies and all they contain, while the plasma closest to Earth comes together to become our Sun. These verses, together with verse 20, give confirmation that the raqia deals with the atmosphere and outer space. The term cannot be used as evidence for subterranean waters within the Earth.
‘Fire in the Waters’
This brings up one other point made by Dr. Brown that deserves comment, given on page 374 of the eighth edition of his book. I remarked earlier I had observed a close resemblance between the words mayim, waters, and shamayim, heavens, and suspected they were related. Dr. Brown noted that
One of the most famous and revered Hebrew scholars of all time, Rabbi Solomon Yitzchaki (A.D. 1040-1105) of France, proposed that the correct translation of Genesis 1:8a is ‘And God called the expanse fire in the waters,’ instead of the normal ‘And God called the expanse heaven.’
He goes on,
Rabbi Yitzchaki, in his eleventh century Rashi Commentary, pointed out that with different vowel points [which are not part of the original, consonantal Hebrew text prior to about 700 AD] the original Hebrew we now think of as meaning ‘heaven’ in Genesis 1:8a would mean ‘fire in waters.’ While in Jerusalem on 28 June 1990, I met for two hours with Michael Kline, Dean of Hebrew Union College. My question was, ‘What did raqia (expanse) and shamayim (heaven) mean in Genesis 1:8a when Moses wrote Genesis?’ To my surprise, he suggested Rabbi Yitzchaki’s translation, which I had previously studied. Shamayim is a compound of the words fire (esh) and liquid water (mayim). After I briefly explained the hydroplate theory, Dean Kline said that raqia (as opposed to ‘raqia of the heavens‘) might well have been the earth’s crust-appropriately called ‘fire in waters.’ You decide.
I find this understanding of Genesis 1:8a extremely interesting-but not for the same reasons Dr. Brown does. He finds in it support for the hydroplate theory, proposing that ‘fire in the waters’ referred to rocks glowing with heat in water-filled subterranean chambers beneath the Earth’s crust. Yet I believe my proposal, that God created a glowing plasma within the waters as the light source on Day 2, prior to the formation of the Sun, Moon and stars on Day 4, is even more consistent with this translation. Furthermore, this idea is given scientific support by Dr. Brown himself on page 425 of his book, where he shows a photo of burning taking place within supercritical water-water at extremely high temperature and pressure. I suggest that when God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters in Genesis 1:2, He was applying extreme pressure and heat to the infant universe, which ignited when God said, ‘Let there be light.’ Then when God placed the raqia in the midst of the waters and stretched it out, the glowing plasma stretched along with it, forming eddies that became the spiral galaxies we are so familiar with. (If you place your hands in a bathtub and rapidly pull them apart, this eddying behavior is readily apparent.) I think this explanation makes excellent sense from both scientific and Biblical perspectives.
Conclusion
I hope this brief study of Genesis 1 and the raqia helps us all to appreciate how proper interpretation of Scripture is crucial to gaining an accurate understanding of God’s revelation. To go beyond the basics, which are simple enough for a child to understand, is immensely facilitated by knowledge of the original languages the Bible was written in; awareness of other Scriptures which have a bearing on a passage; and a keen respect for context. Over everything is the need for prayer, that God will provide insight into the Scriptures. Though we sometimes need to think creatively to relate things revealed in Scripture to the world we live in, in the final analysis we must allow the Word of God to speak on its own terms, and not attempt to force it into saying something it does not. As Dr. Donald A. Carson of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School wrote in his book Exegetical Fallacies, ‘A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.’ We must beware allowing any pet theories we may hold to determine how we interpret Scripture. Since God is the ultimate Author of the Bible and has taken on the responsibility of guiding its writing and preservation, He is well able, through the illumination of His Spirit, to speak clearly through its context.
Reference
Brown, Walt
2008 In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. 8th edition. Phoenix AZ: Center for Scientific Creation.
Cosmic and universal death from Adam’s fall: an exegesis of Romans 8:19–23a by Henry B. Smith Jr
Paul’s theological treatise in the epistle to the Romans clearly teaches that the animal kingdom and the entire universe experienced a universal death sentence at the time of Adam’s fall in Genesis 3. This provides solid support for a young-earth understanding of the Creation/Fall narratives found in the early chapters of Genesis.
First, a detailed exegesis of Romans 8:19–23a1 demonstrates this. The Greek word for creation, κτίσις (ktisis), in this context refers to the entire sub-human created order. Second, ‘the one who subjected it in hope’ in verse 20 is God. Lastly, there is a direct connection between this passage and the universal death sentence caused by the fall of Adam in Genesis 3:14–19
Henry B. Smith Jr currently serves as the director of Outreach for the Associates for Biblical Research, a Christian ministry dedicated to upholding the Scriptures in the field of biblical archaeologu. In 1992, he graduated with B.A. in Economics from Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ. With a 13 year businnes background, he also earned on M.A. in Theology with an emphasis in apologetics from Trinity Seminary in Indiana. He is currently enrolled in the M.A.R. program at Westminister Theological Seminary, Glenside, PA. For References and the entire article in PDF File here: Cosmic-Death-in-Romans-8.pdf Originally published in the Journal of Creation, 21.1.
There Be Giants in the Earth
Author: Rick Lanser MDiv Category: Creation & Early Man ca. 5500 BC Created: 04 December 2005 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown’ (Gen. 6:4, KJV). With this verse in Genesis the Bible introduces to us the existence of giants. This article was first published in the ABR Electronic Newsletter, January 2004. Visit from adam to flood lies
With this verse in Genesis the Bible introduces to us the existence of giants. The Hebrew term Nephilim used here fundamentally means ‘fallen ones’ rather than giants per se, though the trait of huge size seems inextricably linked to the term. Present in the days of the antediluvians — ‘in those days’ hearkens back to Gen. 6:1, ‘when men began to multiply on the face of the earth’ — at first glance the expression ‘and also after that’ may lead one to think they reappeared after the Flood. This is by no means clear, however; the phrase may simply mean they continued to coexist with ‘normal’ humans for an indeterminate period of time. The additional phrase that further describes them as ‘mighty men which were of old‘ implies they were no longer extant at the time Moses penned these words. The identity of the Nephilim is much debated by theologians and Bible students, with a key issue being the identification of the ‘sons of God’ — but that is a topic for another day! Let us press on…
Continuing through the Old Testament, one finds numerous further verses touching on the subject of giants. Other passages dealing with them include Num. 13; Deut. 1, 3, 9; Josh. 11, 12; I Sam. 17; 2 Sam. 21; and I Chr. 20. As they undertook the conquest of the Promised Land under Joshua and continued to extend their dominion over it into the time of David, the Israelites reported a number of encounters with the enormous men known as the Rephaim and Anakim. It should be noted that Numbers 13:33 reports the spies saying that ‘the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim,’ but this is likely nothing more than their personal opinion which Moses simply reports, rather than a statement of fact. Most Bible translations include this phrase as part of the spies’ quoted words, not as a separate parenthetical observation by Moses; and further, the phrase is textually suspect, being absent from the Septuagint, and scholars such as Eryl Davies (commentary on Numbers in the New Century Bible Commentary) regard it as an explanatory scribal gloss rather than part of the original text. For these reasons, it is safest to understand Numbers 13:33 as simply expressing the opinion of some that the size of the sons of Anak brought the Nephilim to mind.
Regardless of whether the Anakim were actually related to the Nephilim, it is obvious that the Israelites were dealing with giants. If our understanding is correct that a cubit was approximately 18 inches, then Goliath, at ‘six cubits and a span,’ was somewhat over 9 feet tall. Og, the King of Bashan whose bed is described in Deut. 3:11 as being about 14 feet long by 6 feet wide, was thought to be 10 to 12 feet tall. As difficult as it may be for us to imagine such huge people today — Shaquille O’Neal is a mere stripling compared to them! — the clear impression one receives from these reports is that they record factual information, not mere legend. If we consider for a moment that from dogs we can breed not only toy poodles but also mastiffs, we ought to keep an open mind to the size possibilities incorporated by the Creator into the genes of the earliest humans.
But the skeptic has a right to ask: If the Bible is true, where is the EVIDENCE for these huge beings? Where are the displays in the museums? Where are the archaeological reports that record the discovery of their remains? This is a fair question. If one goes to any of the major museums, you will not find any exhibits of giant human beings. Search the Smithsonian galleries, for example, and you will see not a single giant bone or footprint cast on display. The clear impression given is that evidence of giants has never been found, and, intentionally or not, this tends to cast the Biblical record in an unfavorable light.
Yet concluding such evidence does not exist at all would be quite wrong! Reputable reports, found in the pages of older newspapers and magazines and given by credible witnesses, of the discovery of such remains HAVE come to light from time to time. The problem is, there is a reigning paradigm within the enclave of professional anthropologists which spills over into our museums, and which allows no place for such ‘anomalous artifacts.’ The gatekeepers of our major museums adhere to an orthodoxy which mandates that such oddities as giant skulls be kept under wraps, reserved for the eyes of insiders only, presumably lest the unsophisticated begin to doubt the officially-sanctioned history of humanity. As Joseph R. Jochmans has written (Strange Relics from the Depths of the Earth, online: ):
It is becoming increasingly apparent that not all facts from the past find their ‘proper’ place. Other discoveries have been made that [compellingly] contradict the accepted model. Yet these discoveries are largely ignored, since it is far easier for the majority of scientists and historians to uphold what is ‘established,’ than to try to build a new model based on the ‘exceptions.’
It is not unlike the end of the movie ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark.’ Having recovered the Ark of the Covenant from the clutches of the Nazis, Indy finds himself compelled in the end to leave it in the hands of the authorities, who promise to ‘take care of it.’ And what is the outcome? We find the Ark packed up in a nondescript crate and spirited away to disappear into the bowels of an endless warehouse, conveniently taking along with it all of the uncomfortable questions it might raise. Many feel that this is exactly what has happened to most of the giant artifacts dug up by past generations, and why newer discoveries receive no notice.
Contrary to the impression given by the museums, however, we HAVE discovered evidence that ‘there were giants in the earth.’ Space precludes listing more than a few mentioned in Jochmans’ article:
– Eureka, NV, 1877: ‘…the prospector was surprised to find a human leg bone and knee cap sticking out of solid rock….When the surrounding stone was carefully chipped away, the specimen was found to be composed of a leg bone broken off four inches above the knee, the knee cap and joint, the lower leg bones, and the complete bones of the foot. Several medical doctors examined the remains, and were convinced that anatomically they had indeed once belonged to a human being, and a very modern-looking one. But an intriguing aspect of the bones was their size: from knee to heel they measured 39 inches. Their owner in life had thus stood over 12 feet tall’ (Jochmans, p. 4).
– Carson City, NV, 1882: ‘…several human tracks were found. The tracks were in six series, each with alternate right and left tracks. The stride was from two and a half to over three feet, and the individual prints were from 18 to 20 inches in length – that of a giant. The straddle – the distance between the left and right prints – was 18 to 19 inches’ (Jochmans, p. 5).
– Carrizo Valley, OK, 1970’s: ‘The shoe prints…reveal their wearers to have been above normal size with the imprints averaging 20 inches long and 8 inches across the ball of the foot [suggesting a height of roughly 12 feet] (Jochmans, p 7).
I recently received a copy of an e-mail about a living missionary who, prior to becoming a Christian, was an anthropologist. It includes the following fascinating information, which I have not yet been able to verify firsthand, but has the ring of truth about it. (Not having been able to confirm the details, I am leaving out the missionary’s name.)
… She was privy to things that they don’t let the public readily see. They display anomalies for study. They don’t prohibit people from seeing them, but they do keep it real quiet and pretty much among themselves. …The thing I remember most out of the dozens of examples she gave, was that she professed to have seen and held in her hands, a DOZEN human skulls that were TWICE the size of a normal human skull. That would make a 12′ tall man, who might weigh over 1000 pounds.
She testified that when she was being witnessed to by the person who eventually led her to Christ, she was encouraged to read the Bible. She finally started to do just that, and opened a Bible to the beginning and started reading. She didn’t get six chapters into the book when she came across Gen 6:4 — ‘There were giants in the earth in those days …’She said a chill went down her spine, because she knew she had handled evidence that this verse was true. She knew that this was exactly the kind of thing the Bible is mocked for, except in this case, she knew the Bible was right. This gave her confidence that she could trust the Bible and doubt the skeptics, instead of the other way around. Shortly afterward she got saved, and the rest is history.
I think it would be an enormous help in setting the record straight if archaeological work could be done at Biblical sites mentioned in Scripture as being the home of giants. If remains of some of the Anakim or Rephaim were freshly unearthed by professionals who are not married to the reigning paradigm, this could go a long way toward getting the other skeletons out of the closet! Possible locations for such work include the sites mentioned in the Biblical passages alluded to earlier – Hebron, Debir, Gaza, Gath, Ashdod, Ashtaroth and Edrei, among others. Unfortunately, the continuing unrest in most of these areas makes formal research infeasible right now. But one way or another, hopefully the day will soon come when the wraps will be removed from this hidden facet of human history, and our museums will pull out of mothballs the ‘anomalous’ remains that have long been kept hidden.
In summary, there are giants in the earth… and some have been excavated, but not put on display for the public to see. I, for one, want to see them with my own eyes, for they are part of the ancient history of this world which the Bible so faithfully records, as it does all the matters of our fact-based faith in the Living God.
Sharing is caring
Share
+1
Tweet
Share
Share