Sailhamer’s View of Creation Summarized and Critiqued | Part 1

For the past couple of months I have been studying and researching the view of creation that John Sailhamer teaches in his book, Genesis Unbound. This assignment was to help me complete the requirements for a DMIN course, Biblical Creationism. Over the next few weeks I will post my paper in chunks and then at the end I will post it as a complete paper. I am doing it in smaller chunks because it is about 35 pages long. I would be glad to interact with any of the material with you, just leave a comment in the comments section. Today we simply start with the introduction.

Introduction

The necessity of understanding Gen 1 and all that surrounds the origins debate is one that any Christian should take seriously. Part of the confusion that is prevalent in the church and in society in general is all the different points of view on the matter. Many of the views try to look at Gen 1 literally, but many of them try to make the Bible and science compatible. The truth of the matter is that the Bible and science are absolutely compatible, but only if one interprets science through the lens of the Scriptures.

One such theologian who attempts to reconcile science, most specifically the age of the earth, with the Bible is John Sailhamer. [1] Perhaps reconcile does not actually do justice to what Sailhamer is actually trying to do. This reconciliation is surely his outcome, but is probably not his intended purpose.[2] The view that Sailhamer teaches and believes is unique, at least among contemporary views of creation. His view is so unique he had to title it himself; Historical Creation.[3] Others have called his view the Promised Land view.[4]

One of the reasons such a study on Sailhamer and his book is important is the recent “Ask Pastor John” segments John Piper did. Piper was asked, “What should we teach about creation?” and answered that he agreed with John Sailhamer.[5] With Piper’s status in evangelical Christianity, the church must understand what Sailhamer is teaching and what others are teaching about Sailhamer. This paper will summarize[6] and analyze Sailhamer’s view on Gen 1 and 2 to see how it fits within contemporary interpretation and if his approach is valid.


[1] Sailhamer is an Old Testament scholar and professor who has written at length about Genesis, the Pentateuch, and the corpus of the Old Testament. He has taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and is currently a professor of Old Testament studies at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. Sailhamer’s first published work relevant to this topic was his commentary on the book of Genesis (Genesis, in vol. 2 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990). He later went on to produce The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), Genesis Unbound (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1996), and The Meaning of the Pentateuch (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009). For a more extensive list of Sailhamer’s books and articles, please reference the blog of Ched Spellman, “The Writings of John Sailhamer (An Online Biography)” (18 Dec 2009) [on-line], accessed 30 January 2011, available from, Internet.

[2] Sailhamer says at the beginning of the second chapter, “The view presented in Genesis Unbound helps us better answer the central questions raised by the intersection of Genesis 1 and modern science: the age of the universe, the origin of life, and the validity of the theory of evolution” Genesis Unbound, 26.

[3] Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound, 14, 44-5.

[4] Terry Mortenson, “Biblical Creation: Exegetical Considerations & Objections Refuted” (lecture, Northland Graduate School, Dunbar, WI, January 16, 2011).

[5] Tyler Kenney, “What Should We Teach About Creation?” (31 May 2010), par. 10 [on-line], accessed 17 January 2011, available from http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/what-should-we-teach-about-creation. Internet.

[6] For the most succinct defining of John Sailhamer’s view, see (Old Testament History [Zondervan, 1998], Kindle edition, 316-331).

  • JPB

    Greg,
    Thanks for posting this. I’m looking forward to seeing how you worked through this topic. Obviously this will emerge as you develop it, but from the beginning the point you made about where you begin has a significant impact on your outcome. If he begins with the assumption “science is true…is the Bible?” it will lead you down a different path than “the Bible is true…what about science?”

    • http://gadietrich.com G. A. Dietrich

      Part of the drawback in posting something like this drawn out in six posts is that at times the reader will be looking for clarity, which will come later in the paper, but not until a different post. I think Sailhamer does well to read the Bible through the lens of authority and look at science through the lens of Scripture as well. I won’t say too much more yet because I don’t want to add any presuppositions to your reading yet. Thanks for the comment.

      • JPB

        Thanks for the reply. When I looked at it again part of my initial impression came from misreading the quote you included in footnote 2. “Genesis Unbound helps us better answer the central questions raised by the intersection of Genesis 1 and modern science: [...] and the validity of the theory of evolution.”

        I initially interpreted that as him assuming the validity of evolution…when in reality he is saying that is just another of the questions raised by the interaction of Genesis 1 and science.

        On to part 2 :-)

  • Scott Cline

    Been curious about this myself. Looking forward to the rest.

  • http://blogs.bible.org/blog/26077 Stevey-D

    Looking forward to reading this, Greg. I’ve been caught in the middle of many of these debates. I’m unfamiliar with Sailhamer, so I’m interested to see what he has to add to the debate.

    Steve

    • http://gadietrich.com G. A. Dietrich

      Steve: You will find that Sailhamer has a unique view but a very literary view. I won’t give away yet my total impression of it, but just say that it is “interesting.”