How Covenant Theology Can Order Our Reading of Evolution and Genesis

[John Bauer]

My understanding of the relationship between Scripture and nature, and between our theological and scientific interpretations of each, could be described in the following way:

There are different views of history, some of which are consistent with each other. For example, in addition to an evolutionary view of natural history, I maintain a covenantal view of redemptive history. Natural history and redemptive history are not one and the same thing. Natural history is a matter of general revelation, the meaning and purpose of which is rooted in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation. Scripture is written in the language of redemptive history and covenant theology, not natural history and modern science.

On this view, the Genesis 1 creation account is a liturgical text describing the inauguration of redemptive history, not natural history, God’s covenant relationship with mankind originating with Adam and Eve—who were real, historical figures existing less than ten thousand years ago (and therefore not the first humans to ever exist). Scripture describes them as the first archetypal humans theologically but nowhere does it say that they were prototypical humans biologically.

Related side note: It should also be understood that “Adam” is a Hebrew word, a language that did not exist during his time. “Adam and Eve would not have called each other by these names because, whatever they spoke, it was not Hebrew,” John H. Walton explains. “Hebrew does not exist as a language until somewhere in the middle of the second millennium BC.” As the meanings reveal, the names Adam and Eve are archetypal names that have been assigned to this couple for the purpose of conveying their significance. Our attention should be driven to the fact that these names are packed with archetypal meaning and significance—a man named Human (federal head of mankind) with a spouse named Life (whose seed will be the Savior). These possess important covenant relevance and Christological hints of the gospel, facts which transcend the mere characters to whom the names refer.

 

[CrowCross]

My understanding of the relationship between Scripture and nature, and between our theological and scientific interpretations of each, could be described in the following way:

There are different views of history, some of which are consistent with each other. For example, in addition to an evolutionary view of natural history, I maintain a covenantal view of redemptive history. Natural history and redemptive history are not one and the same thing. Natural history is a matter of general revelation, the meaning and purpose of which is rooted in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation. Scripture is written in the language of redemptive history and covenant theology, not natural history and modern science.

On this view, the Genesis 1 creation account is a liturgical text describing the inauguration of redemptive history, not natural history,

My understanding is that Gen 1 and 2 were not redemptive history. Gen 1 and 2 are an account of the creation up till the 7th day pertaining to a very good creation that didn't require any redemption.
Gen 3 tells of the fall of Adam and Eve...which is the account of why we need redemption.

Gen 1 and 2 showed the general revelation of the supernatural creation and when creation was completed the natural began.

God’s covenant relationship with mankind originating with Adam and Eve—who were real, historical figures existing less than ten thousand years ago (and therefore not the first humans to ever exist). Scripture describes them as the first archetypal humans theologically but nowhere does it say that they were prototypical humans biologically.

"but nowhere does it say that they were prototypical humans biologically."...I beg to differ.

Gen 2:23 And the man said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man she was taken.”
Sounds pretty much like the biological process God used to make the prototypical first couple of all mankind. You can read verse 21 and 22 for more details of the creation of woman.

Gen 3:20 ...The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
If Eve had a mother then she was not the mother of all living.

1 Cor 15:45...Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Adam wasn't the second, tenth...hundreth man but rather the first. That's pretty prototypical unless you want to distort the meaning of prototypical and first.

Related side note: It should also be understood that “Adam” is a Hebrew word, a language that did not exist during his time. “Adam and Eve would not have called each other by these names because, whatever they spoke, it was not Hebrew,” John H. Walton explains. “Hebrew does not exist as a language until somewhere in the middle of the second millennium BC.” As the meanings reveal, the names Adam and Eve are archetypal names that have been assigned to this couple for the purpose of conveying their significance. Our attention should be driven to the fact that these names are packed with archetypal meaning and significance—a man named Human (federal head of mankind) with a spouse named Life (whose seed will be the Savior). These possess important covenant relevance and Christological hints of the gospel, facts which transcend the mere characters to whom the names refer.

Should it be "understood" the way you present it? A quick search shows your presentation doesn't corner the market on this topic.
From what I understand it is very probable that in Genesis Moses is giving a Hebrew equivalent of whatever language Adam and Eve spoke.
This doesn't negate Adam and Eve from being the first prototypical humans.

 

[EarlyActs]

@John Bauer wrote:
Scripture is written in the language of redemptive history and covenant theology, not natural history and modern science.

Problem samples:
1, the 'shama' is merely the local objects and those which move enough to make 'messages' that can be read from season to season, 1:15. 'kavov' is the distant objects which do not have this function, and only show the vast number of believers--of Abraham's eventual seed. This is consistent with reference to a 'spreading out' event earlier, which we know to be earlier by a careful reading of the utter darkness before the first starlight arrived on Day 1. It is therefore a natural history narrative, and actually some type of covenant theology is nowhere, because the image of God is about kingship and territorial boundary.

2, in a few verses, the 'shama' will be hyphenated with 'raqia' the vault. That is because of the similarity of the 'raqia' to water on earth, and to its function, and it is an admitted departure from the ordinary sense of 'water.' But this is the exception not the rule for the passage.

3, the uplifting of continents is a natural history feature, v9. The question is whether what we see at the moment in any given spot is due to tectonic collision in the cataclysm vs original. So is the singular 'dry land' because we know there was pangea. Early cartographer Schneider-Martinelli had already concluded this from what early information was reaching him in the 1700s.

4, in 2:8-10, we have geographic reference. Given the span of Adam's life, he is applying names back on to places he knew anonymously when younger that now have names. But he knew enough information to distinguish types of gold. The river titles do not advance the story but sound like footnotes. In one study I read from a student here, the location also was evidence of mass sedimentation movement events like the cataclysm indicates. The name of the place was a mystery until modern oil drilling. The Enuma Elish has a similar feature by describing the original paradise as 'far down, close to the deep.' There is more geography in 4:17.

5, There is a covenant, finally, in ch 6, but it is not to be seen as some 'eternal' reference nor omnipresent subtext in chs 1-5; rather it is a promise to extend human life past the cataclysm that would otherwise end life on earth. The rainbow would be the accompanying symbol. If that is supposed to be an explanation for why the earlier chapters of Genesis are not to be read in the most ordinary sense possible, then I think fish need bicycles.

Speaking of master themes, the theme would be that God is king of this created place. This is already known from ch 1, and in ch 3, the first couple is tempted to seize that position. This is echoed in the Psalms; 'the earth is the Lord's and all it contains.' It is the climax of the 1st teaching by the apostles after the Resurrection; that God had made Jesus Lord and Christ, and the honor due him in Ps 2 was an obligation on all men. In the Rev, we hear that the 'kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our God and His Christ.' I do not know why this would not also be declared about the resurrection, because the resurrection was the enthronement, Acts 2-4, Phil 2, Eph 1, Heb 1, Rom 1.

 

[EarlyActs]

@John Bauer wrote:
Scripture is written in the language of redemptive history and covenant theology, not natural history and modern science.
This is made up. See the above post. There is no such division as Mr Bauer presents.

If it helps, the Hebrew 'swarm with swarms' can explain something that might puzzle the reader when other places are mentioned as early as they are; for ex., other cities of people like the one that Cain founded. The expression is specifically meant to indicate a massive burst of life. So there were other humans, but this historic couple the man and the woman (regardless of their self-named titles) were the ones tempted about the divine tree. And their failure did effect everyone else adversely.

As for the related note below this line:
No one is saying that Hebrew dates back to Adam! They are saying that propositional communication that was transmitted by verbal recitation dates back to that beginning. As far as that goes, no one is saying that the idea of letter-based language in the ancient middle east (ANE) existed until the interchange between the NW semitic peoples, inc the Hittites, and Phoenicians, and thus exposure to Greek. (To be clear, this means letters --written marks representing phonics--not glyphs.)

Further:
On this view, the Genesis 1 creation account is a liturgical text describing the inauguration of redemptive history, not natural history, God’s covenant relationship with mankind originating with Adam and Eve
Cassuto does not find much of Genesis to be liturgical; worship-purposed. One exception might be the v27, as typeset by the NIV, because of kingship.
Another at the end of 8, confirming that a cataclysm of water will not take place again. A whole 'stream' of Psalms and prophet's passages celebrate the control of God over the deep this way.

This is much different from imagining the passage to be so removed from history as to be a 'theology.' That's last. You might even call the entire thing a very weighted morality drama: the generosity of God creating an abundance of food and the excitement of procreating is lost on the breath-taking insidious decision to break one rule, needlessly--for practical purposes.

These so-called typologicals had sex. But they were also tempted to be 'the king.' We know this because 'to know good and evil' meant to be the person in charge of deciding one from the other--the king.

Thus the passage presents as a unified historical theology, without any innocent humans existing long before, and without 'covenantal theology' as such, but certainly with the long-term redemptive promise of defeating the enemy-accuser.

It is best if we let the text speak in its most ordinary sense, and best if we learn about the Hebrew word choice through transliteration and through verb tense charts. I find John Bauer's post to keep some distance from doing so.

After a recent year and a half of work on the most significant word choices, here is a list that I think will be a good start:

GLOSSARY

Of transliterated terms used from other languages. Transliteration is unfamiliar words in familiar lettering.



Aletheias (Greek): truth

Anothen (Greek): above, again, ‘from the top’

Aoratas (Greek): unseen, submerged

Asat (Hindi): unformed

Bab-El (Assyrian): (man-made) gate to God

D’bar (Hebrew): destructive event

Deucalion (Greek): mythological cosmology that includes a world cataclysm

Ekteinon (Greek): to spread out; the LXX choice for Hebrew _____ (spreading out of seed; of the universe)

Habet’na (Hebrew): to look/gaze (at the stars)

Hosek (Hebrew): darkness

Kai (Greek): a connector that can indicate continuity or contrast or sequence

Kataklysmos (Greek): world-wide destructive event

Kavov (Hebrew): distant stars

Lehair (Hebrew): to shine upon

Maji (Aramaic): trained in astronomy/astrology, vizier

Nathan (Hebrew): to place things by plan, design

Nayala (Hebrew): general light, even starlight

Oth (Hebrew): a mark (on a person, animal, or in the sky); a sign

Ouranos (Greek): the heavens; also, Orion as a marker constellation

Owr (Hebrew): distant starlight

Ra (Egyptian): the major Egyptian god

Raqiy (Hebrew): the realm from our atmosphere up to any moving objects; not distant stars

Saphar (Hebrew): to read/account the stars or a story; interpret

Sat (Hindi): formed

Shama (Hebrew): local celestial objects

Shama-raqiy (Hebrew): local celestial objects and the firmament containing them

Shema (Hebrew): a blessing; the verbalizing of one

Sophrunes (Greek): rational, sensible

Stoicheian (Greek): a ‘sacred’ earth movement in 1st century NE Mediterranean area that had moral similarities to Judaism

Tartarus (Greek): a location in Greek mythology where evil giants/angels are held for punishment

Tohu wa-bohu (Hebrew): Hebrew idiom about an unformed, desolate place

Wayach’sh’veha (Hebrew): to regard or consider someone a certain way other than apparent; to regard an account other than apparent status.

W’heemin (Hebrew): to believe

Yahas (Hebrew): to make

Yiten (Hebrew): to place objects deliberately





I think one evidence of this is that many more scholars have trouble with ch 1 vs ch 2 about natural history conflict statements rather than have trouble with both because they are natural history.

 

[EarlyActs]

There shouldn't be any 'ordering of reading.' The text is plain enough; always go by what the text is actually saying in original word choice and structure. Never go by a theology first. Never go by a theology where its proponent belittles the text as mere liturgy and says that science is elsewhere. It is a science to handle the text correctly!!! There is first-hand evidence in the text, if you know what you are reading. There is a custody that is tight.

I have posted the full platform of my view which I call the young, local creation week view and instead of a rational response to it, all I get is what is prohibited by Dr. Schaeffer as the neo-orthodox 'liturgically true but historically false Genesis.' Imagine what that does to gender studies. It puts trans males acting as women in US congress and it has on Oregon state representative saying that mutilating children sexually saves lives.
Mod Hat: The strike through is a violation of rule 2.2 as it refers to the argument being presented by the other poster and misrepresents his view.

 

[EarlyActs]

Since I can’t accept your 3rd paragraph in the OP, please review “Two Lectures” by Lewis and give a summary in a couple lines. I don’t want your view of the topic which is already above, but your condensation of 2L in a couple lines. Thanks.

 

[John Bauer]

Since I can’t accept your 3rd paragraph in the OP, please review “Two Lectures” by Lewis and give a summary in a couple lines. I don’t want your view of the topic which is already above, but your condensation of 2L in a couple lines. Thanks.

You have already asked for this in another thread, and I provided an answer there. Why are you repeating this request within multiple threads?

 

[Hazelelponi]

My understanding of the relationship between Scripture and nature, and between our theological and scientific interpretations of each, could be described in the following way:

There are different views of history, some of which are consistent with each other. For example, in addition to an evolutionary view of natural history, I maintain a covenantal view of redemptive history. Natural history and redemptive history are not one and the same thing. Natural history is a matter of general revelation, the meaning and purpose of which is rooted in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation. Scripture is written in the language of redemptive history and covenant theology, not natural history and modern science.

On this view, the Genesis 1 creation account is a liturgical text describing the inauguration of redemptive history, not natural history, God’s covenant relationship with mankind originating with Adam and Eve—who were real, historical figures existing less than ten thousand years ago (and therefore not the first humans to ever exist). Scripture describes them as the first archetypal humans theologically but nowhere does it say that they were prototypical humans biologically.

Related side note: It should also be understood that “Adam” is a Hebrew word, a language that did not exist during his time. “Adam and Eve would not have called each other by these names because, whatever they spoke, it was not Hebrew,” John H. Walton explains. “Hebrew does not exist as a language until somewhere in the middle of the second millennium BC.” As the meanings reveal, the names Adam and Eve are archetypal names that have been assigned to this couple for the purpose of conveying their significance. Our attention should be driven to the fact that these names are packed with archetypal meaning and significance—a man named Human (federal head of mankind) with a spouse named Life (whose seed will be the Savior). These possess important covenant relevance and Christological hints of the gospel, facts which transcend the mere characters to whom the names refer.

My understanding is that the Bible is true. So we start there.

Scripture depicts Adam as the first and only man in Eden, specifically and specially created by God, and his wife from his rib, herself another unique creation.

Where does the text say Adam was drawn from an existing population and was simply archetypal and not a real and unique creation by God?

There's people later in the text, existing long after the fall when Adam and Eve clearly already had adult children but nothing in the Book of Genesis states Adam was drawn from a population.

Your argument relies on silence, because nowhere in Scripture does it teach that Adam was drawn from an existing population and wasn't a unique creation by God.

 

[JesusFan]

My understanding of the relationship between Scripture and nature, and between our theological and scientific interpretations of each, could be described in the following way:

There are different views of history, some of which are consistent with each other. For example, in addition to an evolutionary view of natural history, I maintain a covenantal view of redemptive history. Natural history and redemptive history are not one and the same thing. Natural history is a matter of general revelation, the meaning and purpose of which is rooted in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation. Scripture is written in the language of redemptive history and covenant theology, not natural history and modern science.

On this view, the Genesis 1 creation account is a liturgical text describing the inauguration of redemptive history, not natural history, God’s covenant relationship with mankind originating with Adam and Eve—who were real, historical figures existing less than ten thousand years ago (and therefore not the first humans to ever exist). Scripture describes them as the first archetypal humans theologically but nowhere does it say that they were prototypical humans biologically.

Related side note: It should also be understood that “Adam” is a Hebrew word, a language that did not exist during his time. “Adam and Eve would not have called each other by these names because, whatever they spoke, it was not Hebrew,” John H. Walton explains. “Hebrew does not exist as a language until somewhere in the middle of the second millennium BC.” As the meanings reveal, the names Adam and Eve are archetypal names that have been assigned to this couple for the purpose of conveying their significance. Our attention should be driven to the fact that these names are packed with archetypal meaning and significance—a man named Human (federal head of mankind) with a spouse named Life (whose seed will be the Savior). These possess important covenant relevance and Christological hints of the gospel, facts which transcend the mere characters to whom the names refer.

The bible pretty clear that Adam and Eve were special and direct creations of God, not born from parents

 

[atpollard]

Your argument relies on silence, because nowhere in Scripture does it teach that Adam was drawn from an existing population and wasn't a unique creation by God.

What bothers me more is the rendering of what is actually stated in Genesis 1 as a false narrative (an untrue mythology) ... Adam (whatever he called himself) was not formed from the ground by the hand of God and Eve (whatever she called herself) was not created by God from the "side" of Adam. I have no problem with symbolism, poetic language and spiritual meanings, but if the plain text is unreliable in its narration, how can it be trusted in other matters? This is not an error by a scribe, but deception by God. That presents a problem for me.

I do not pretend to have an answer for Homo erectus or Homo hablis remains found in caves. However, I must in good conscience trust that a Bible that has gotten so much "correct" has the presumptive benefit of the doubt when it says God created the first man with his bare hands and personal breath and the first woman from the side of the first man.

 

[QVQ]

What bothers me more is the rendering of what is actually stated in Genesis 1 as a false narrative (an untrue mythology) ... Adam (whatever he called himself) was not formed from the ground by the hand of God and Eve (whatever she called herself) was not created by God from the "side" of Adam. I have no problem with symbolism, poetic language and spiritual meanings, but if the plain text is unreliable in its narration, how can it be trusted in other matters? This is not an error by a scribe, but deception by God. That presents a problem for me.

I do not pretend to have an answer for Homo erectus or Homo hablis remains found in caves. However, I must in good conscience trust that a Bible that has gotten so much "correct" has the presumptive benefit of the doubt when it says God created the first man with his bare hands and personal breath and the first woman from the side of the first man.

Moving right along:
Let's go to Exodus
Moses is archetypical and the entire story is apocryphal.
Moses carved the tablets and the burning bush is mere myth.
Next...

 

[Hazelelponi]

What bothers me more is the rendering of what is actually stated in Genesis 1 as a false narrative (an untrue mythology) ... Adam (whatever he called himself) was not formed from the ground by the hand of God and Eve (whatever she called herself) was not created by God from the "side" of Adam. I have no problem with symbolism, poetic language and spiritual meanings, but if the plain text is unreliable in its narration, how can it be trusted in other matters? This is not an error by a scribe, but deception by God. That presents a problem for me.

I do not pretend to have an answer for Homo erectus or Homo hablis remains found in caves. However, I must in good conscience trust that a Bible that has gotten so much "correct" has the presumptive benefit of the doubt when it says God created the first man with his bare hands and personal breath and the first woman from the side of the first man.

I’ve struggled to put this into words, because I’m aware there are theologians who argue that some form of evolutionary creation can be held in good faith, and I don’t doubt the sincerity of those trying to work through these questions.

That said, I keep coming away very unsettled feeling like this teaching undermines faith itself but without ability to articulate why.

You have perhaps hit the nail on the head.

 

[John Bauer]

What bothers me more is the rendering of what is actually stated in Genesis 1 as a false narrative (an untrue mythology) ...

That is a wild and indefensible accusation. A covenantal reading of Genesis 1 with a redemptive-historical hermeneutic does not render it a false narrative or untrue mythology. It explicitly affirms the truthfulness and authority of Genesis 1 and does so by reading the text according to its purpose, genre, and canonical function—consistent with the Reformed principles of analogia fidei and analogia scripturae.

For example, it says that God “formed the man from the dust of the earth.” But how are we to understand that? Did God, getting his hands dirty, make a human-shaped mud pie, as it were? The moment a person begins to answer that he is engaging in interpretation of the text, which involves a host of hermeneutic principles that are subject to critical scrutiny—such as whether it is consistently applied, for Adam is not the only one said to be formed by God from the dust of the ground, nor is man the only thing God has formed (Hebrew yṣr). Same thing applies to Genesis 2:21-22 and whether the Hebrew word ṣēlāʿ is translated consistently as “rib.” Or how about the term “deep sleep” (tardēmâ, from rdm)? There are seven occurrences of the noun form, and another seven of the verbal root from which it is drawn. Do we treat it differently in Genesis 2:21 from how we use it elsewhere in the Old Testament? And what Greek word did the Septuagint choose, and why?

The view to which I subscribe interprets all of these terms in a consistent manner across the canonical Old Testament according to their specific semantic domain as the original author and audience would have understood them; it does not arbitrarily invent new meanings for these things only in Genesis in order to support a traditional reading the way young-earth creationism does—which does not interpret it rightly, or interpret it at all, really.

I have no problem with symbolism, poetic language, and spiritual meanings. But if the plain text is unreliable in its narration, how can it be trusted in other matters?

The plain text—what, in English? That is not for me. Ad fontes! (To the source material.)

“The Old Testament in Hebrew … and the New Testament in Greek … were directly inspired by God and have been kept uncontaminated throughout time by his special care and providence. They are therefore authentic and are to be the church’s ultimate source of appeal in every religious controversy” (WCF 1.8). [1]

That presents a problem for me.

It is a problem for me, too—because it’s a strawman that reflects no one’s position (at least as far as I can tell).

---

[1] Evangelical Presbyterian Church, The Westminster Confession of Faith, 3rd ed. (Livonia, MI: Evangelical Presbyterian Church, 2010).

 

[makesends]

What bothers me more is the rendering of what is actually stated in Genesis 1 as a false narrative (an untrue mythology) ... Adam (whatever he called himself) was not formed from the ground by the hand of God and Eve (whatever she called herself) was not created by God from the "side" of Adam. I have no problem with symbolism, poetic language and spiritual meanings, but if the plain text is unreliable in its narration, how can it be trusted in other matters? This is not an error by a scribe, but deception by God. That presents a problem for me.

I do not pretend to have an answer for Homo erectus or Homo hablis remains found in caves. However, I must in good conscience trust that a Bible that has gotten so much "correct" has the presumptive benefit of the doubt when it says God created the first man with his bare hands and personal breath and the first woman from the side of the first man.

Would you also say that if God made Adam instantly 25 years old, it is a contradiction? You would have to say in appearance and maturity 25 years old, but only seconds in reality?

Let me present another example of God saying what we take one way, and him differently, or even in two ways: According to modern cosmology, there are those considering, even claiming, that all times exist concurrently. Further, there are claims that time moves differently in different regions of space and did so in different stages of development of the universe. Do we know enough to say that God would be lying to demonstrate both —he, the 'inventor' of time— to exhaust both 15 billion years, AND to do so in 6 days?

The law of non-contradiction says that contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Here we have both: not the same time, and not in the same sense.

I'd suggest not being too adamant here, about the apparent contradiction.

 

[atpollard]

That is a wild and indefensible accusation.

I'd suggest not being too adamant here, about the apparent contradiction.

The Bible (in English which I read) clearly informs me that God created man and HOW God created man was different from HOW God created stars and plants and animals. I can only assume that any nuances in the original Hebrew (which I do not read) were accurately conveyed by the many translators that all present the same basic TRUTH in their translations of Genesis.

Any claim like "there were many other 'people' before Adam and Eve" ... IS directly contradictory to the claim of Genesis. Adam and Eve were either the first Man and Woman and were a special creation of God (different from the creation of animals) ... or they were not. I think any "middle ground" is unlikely to prove stable.

You may accuse me of the fallacy of the "excluded middle" (false dichotomy) and I will not argue the point, except to state that I believe that True and False are also both real things and this sure looks to me like a quantum phenomenon (God did, or God did not) do as he said according to the Word of God.

I am not a YEC because I do not believe that, reading Genesis, the detailed 'HOW TO' OF CREATION was the intended goal of the book. However, when Genesis says GOD did something, I am inclined to believe Genesis, because explaining who God is and what God does is the apparent intended goal of Genesis. I may be wrong, but I choose to err on the side of believing God meant what he said (literal until proven otherwise).

 

[JesusFan]

I’ve struggled to put this into words, because I’m aware there are theologians who argue that some form of evolutionary creation can be held in good faith, and I don’t doubt the sincerity of those trying to work through these questions.

That said, I keep coming away very unsettled feeling like this teaching undermines faith itself but without ability to articulate why.

You have perhaps hit the nail on the head.

Just sems that those who would deny a special creation of God for Adam and Eve seem to be in some regards seeing genesis as more of a metaphor or Myth than ahistorical and literal account, as both Jesus and Paul seemed to see genesis as describing factual historical events