Some modern interpreters argue that Genesis 1–11 should be understood primarily, or even exclusively, as allegory rather than as an account of real people and events. But is that how Jesus and his apostles understood Genesis?
The New Testament consistently refers to the creation of humanity, the fall, Adam and Eve, Abel, Noah, and the Flood as realities within biblical history. This does not mean Genesis contains no symbolism, literary structure, or theological depth. Historical events can also carry typological meaning. But that is very different from saying the events themselves never happened.
When questioned about divorce, Jesus appealed directly to the Genesis creation account:
“Have you not read that the One who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” Matthew 19:4
Jesus grounds marriage in what God did “from the beginning,” and Mark records him saying:
“From the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” Mark 10:6
His argument assumes that the creation account describes a real divine act with continuing significance for human marriage. This same pattern is reflected in Luke when he includes Adam within Jesus’ genealogy, tracing the line back through “Seth, the son of Adam” (Luke 3:38).
Jesus treats Abel as a real righteous man whose blood was shed (Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:50–51). Jude likewise identifies Enoch as “the seventh from Adam” (Jude 14), placing Adam within a genealogical sequence. The New Testament repeatedly appeals to these Genesis figures in ways consistent with historical reference.
Paul is even more explicit. He calls Adam “the first man” and says that he was “from the earth” (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). In Romans 5:12–19, Paul traces sin and death to the transgression of “one man,” Adam, and contrasts Adam’s disobedience with the obedience of the one man Messiah Jesus. The argument depends upon a deliberate Adam–Messiah parallel: through one man came sin and death; through another man come righteousness and life. Paul also accepts the creation order in Genesis, saying:
“Adam was formed first, then Eve.” 1 Timothy 2:13
He then refers to Eve being deceived (1 Timothy 2:14; compare 2 Corinthians 11:3). He also appeals to the fact that woman came from man in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9. Whatever conclusions one draws from Paul’s application of these passages, his reasoning clearly assumes that the Genesis account conveys real events, not merely fictional symbols.
Jesus treats Noah and the Flood in the same way. He compares his future coming with “the days of Noah,” describing people eating, drinking, marrying, entering the ark, and then being overtaken by the Flood (Matthew 24:37–39; Luke 17:26–27). His future coming is not allegorical, and his comparison naturally treats the Flood as a real past judgment. Peter does likewise. 1 Peter 3:20 refers to the eight people preserved through the water, while 2 Peter 2:5 speaks of Noah and the ancient world being judged by the Flood. In 2 Peter 3:5–7, Peter places creation, the ancient world, the present heavens and earth, and future judgment within one continuous framework. The writer of Hebrews similarly lists Abel, Enoch, and Noah alongside Abraham and other figures of faith in Hebrews 11:4–7.
Genesis itself also presents continuity rather than an obvious break between “myth” and later history. Genesis 5 begins, “This is the book of the generations of Adam,” and proceeds from Adam through Seth and later descendants toward Noah. Genesis 10–11 continues genealogically toward Abraham. Luke’s genealogy follows the same basic continuity backward from Jesus through Abraham and Noah to Adam.
This does not mean every element of Genesis must be stripped of symbolism. Scripture regularly gives historical events typological significance. Paul uses Sarah and Hagar allegorically in Galatians 4:21–31, yet they were real women. He treats Israel’s Exodus typologically in 1 Corinthians 10:1–11, yet he plainly regards the Exodus as historical. The biblical pattern is therefore not symbolism instead of history, but often history with symbolic and theological meaning. That distinction matters when modern theories are used to reinterpret Genesis.
We should be cautious about assuming that the biblical authors meant something fundamentally different from what their words naturally communicate merely because later scientific models create pressure to reread the text. If God had intended to communicate that humanity gradually developed from earlier life forms, He was perfectly capable of expressing that idea in ordinary language. Ancient people did not possess modern scientific terminology, but they were not intellectually incapable of understanding the basic concept that one form of life could gradually give rise to another over many generations. The Bible itself never says that Genesis was written in a deliberately misleading form because ancient people were too unsophisticated to understand what really happened.
The more important point, however, is that Jesus and his apostles never reinterpret Genesis that way. They appeal to the creation of male and female, Adam’s priority, Eve’s deception, Abel’s murder, Noah, the Flood, and the early genealogies as realities that ground theological arguments about marriage, sin, death, judgment, resurrection, and salvation.
The best Christian approach is therefore to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture and to read Genesis in harmony with Jesus and his apostles: as real history, and foundational to the biblical story of creation, sin, judgment, redemption, resurrection, and the coming Kingdom of God on a restored earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment