This will be the last post in this series. To download the entire paper click here. Download

Potential Stumbling Blocks to Sailhamer’s View

A variety of areas, or potential shortcomings, in Sailhamer’s view of creation exist that need some clarification before one could wholeheartedly embrace his historical view. The items that seem like stumbling blocks are the following: (1) Why does the reader need to be a Hebrew scholar to understand Moses’ intent? (2) Why can days one through five be an ordering of the “land,” but suddenly on day six God is creating again? (3) Why is there death before the fall? (4) How should the reader understand other Scriptures that speak of creation, such as Ex 20:11?

Why a Hebrew Scholar?

At the core of Sailhamer’s argument is the idea that the English Bible has been mistranslated and has been misunderstood for centuries. He frequently disagrees with the way in which Hebrew words and phrases are used and offers his own understanding. This argument begs the question, “Should every person reading the Bible need to know Hebrew and Greek to understand his/her Bible?” Whatever happened to the perspicuity of Scripture? Sailhamer does not address these questions, but his argument does leave the reader asking them time and time again.

There is an ever-present reality in translation where interpretation is translated into the text. There is also the reality that there are words and phrases in the Hebrew language that are difficult to translate into English because there is no suitable word in English. Even with these two realities, it does come across as a little abundant to see the claims Sailhamer is making with the translations of words and phrases that he points out.

Creating Again on Day Six

It seems peculiar how Sailhamer argues for days one through five to be an ordering of the land for mankind; then on day six God creates again. A normal reading of the text in English simply does not give any explanation for this. Sailhamer does give a short argument about the use of the word “בָּרָא” (create) in which he says it can also be understood as “shaping” or “cutting out” and can be tied to the notion of blessing.[1] This, however, does not explain Sailhamer’s stark dichotomy between the use of “בָּרָא”in Gen 1:1 and the rest of the chapter. To make his position more legitimate he needs further explanation on this topic.

Death Before the Fall

The idea of death before the fall is perhaps one of the hardest stumbling blocks to overcome because Sailhamer does not give even a nod to explaining how death can come before the fall if everything (but man) were created in Gen 1:1 in “the beginning.” Many explanations exist; however, these explanations are all normally tied to some sort of theistic evolution instead of a literal creation time period. If Sailhamer had a compelling argument of how death could exist before sin and the fall, his argument for historical creation could be much more convincing.[2]

Other Scriptures on Creation

The act of creation is not only spoken of in Gen 1-2, but it is also spoken of throughout the canon of Scripture. Unfortunately, Sailhamer does not give much attention to the other Texts that speak of creation. One passage that is of particular interest to this conversation is Ex 20:11: “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Regarding this verse, Sailhamer does give some explanation on how this seems to say God created in six days and with what Sailhamer believes the verse to actually say.[3]

According to Sailhamer, Ex 20:11 is not referring to the same time period in which Gen 1:1 is referring to. The “heavens and the earth” phrase of Ex 20:11 should not be understood as a merism. Sailhamer’s argument seems to rest in this statement; “Why does God have to ‘make’ the sky, land, and seas during the following week if He has already created them ‘in the beginning’?”[4] The problem with such a statement is that it presupposes he is correct on his understanding of Gen 1:1. His defense is similar with Ex 31:17 where Moses says; “it is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.” His understanding here comes down to a difference in the word “create” and “make.” To make something in Sailhamer’s opinion is to “put something in good order, to make it right.”[5]

Conclusion

There are many things Sailhamer should be commended for as he has sought to interpret the text of Genesis. Unlike many contemporary scholars,[6] Sailhamer seeks to maintain biblical authority without compromising any part of it. He also seeks to relate Gen 1 and 2 to modern scientific viewpoints rather than interpret Gen 1 and 2 with modern science.[7] At the end of the day, Sailhamer is essentially asking, “What does the text say?” with the understanding that science has sought to pervert the Text’s meaning. He is very careful to be text-driven versus popular opinion-driven. He is very literary in his understanding of Genesis and the Pentateuch as a whole—which is not necessarily bad. It is this very literary approach that contributes to some of his understandings of the Text. Given some of the answers Sailhamer could give to the questions posed under the potential stumbling blocks, his view could have some merit. However, the stumbling blocks mentioned above are large enough where this author will continue to remain committed to a young earth, six-day creation.

Understanding the Garden of Eden

The garden of Eden has drawn many references from recent scholarship as a parallel to the tabernacle and ultimately to the temple.[1] Sailhamer agrees with this parallel and sees within the context of the Pentateuch the garden of Eden as a foreshadowing of the tabernacle; however, he takes it one step further than other interpreters.[2]

As the Promised Land?

The parallel of the garden of Eden and the tabernacle makes sense when one looks at the parallels that exist between them.[3] The two Sailhamer draws attention to are first, the garden, a place where Adam and Eve would meet with God just as the tabernacle was a place where Israel would meet with God, and second, that obedience to the will of God would allow retention of God’s good provision while disobedience would mean being cast out eastward—for Adam and Eve and for Israel (toward Babel).[4]

Aside from these parallels, other textual evidence can be found in Gen 1:2b-2:4, according to Sailhamer, that identifies the garden of Eden with the promised land. The first of these identifiers is in the phraseology of Gen 2:8a: “And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east.”[5] The “east” in Genesis is typically associated with separation from God (Gen 3:24; 11:2; 13;11), a separation which was seen when Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden to the east where cherubim were placed to guard the entrance (Gen 3:24). This situation gives the striking impression that the garden itself was not in the east itself. The site where the garden was placed was larger than the actual garden itself. The speculation is that the garden in Eden was placed in the same land as the promised land.

One of the primary objections the reader will see is Sailhamer’s lack of evidence to answer the question, “If God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden and sealed it, why would he let others back into the garden at a later point?” Sailhamer says that many others have believed this as well but this unfortunately goes undocumented.[6]

Location of the Garden

The location of the garden might not be that important to some people, but it practically holds together Sailhamer’s claims of it being the same land as the promised land. The actual physical location of the garden is not as important as the textual clues that are in Genesis. The garden of Eden, or the garden in Eden, is described as being surrounded by four rivers, or rather, four rivers flowed out of the garden (Gen 2:10-14). The rivers are specifically named, which is important when identifying other rivers in the Text.

The second river named is the Gihon River, which flowed around the land of Cush (Gen 2:13). The land of Cush in Genesis is identified as being linked with Egypt (Gen 10:6), and Sailhamer claims that this link connects the Gihon textually with “the river of Egypt” as they are one and the same river.[7] This connects directly to Gen 15, where the land is promised to Abraham. Here the promised land to Abraham is marked off by two familiar rivers, the Euphrates and the river of Egypt (Gen 15:18). This area is the same region marked off by the garden of Eden in Gen 2. Sailhamer contends that Moses’ intent is to identify these two locations as one and the same.[8]

Understanding the Context

It has often been championed in biblical studies that “context is king.” Understanding the Scriptures in their context is of the utmost importance, which means one must read the first two chapters of Genesis in the context of Genesis as a whole and the Pentateuch as a whole. Sailhamer supposes, “When viewed within the literary context of the whole Pentateuch, the Genesis account of creation not only makes good sense but also fits well with current and long-standing scientific views of the world.”[9] Regarding context, three foundational questions must be answered: (1) What is its central theme? (2) In what way do Gen 1 and 2 help one to understand that theme? (3) How do these early chapters prepare the reader for understanding and appreciating all that follows in the Pentateuch?[10]

What is the Central Theme of the Pentateuch?

It has already been noted in an earlier section that Sailhamer and other scholars believe that the central theme of the Pentateuch is God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai. The covenant God entered into with Israel was a relationship in which He promised to be their God and make Israel his people. His promise to Israel was the land he promised to their forefathers.

The Covenant is grounded in the events of creation. The author of Genesis 1 wants to show that the stretch of land which God promised to give Israel in the Sinai Covenant — the land where Abraham and his family sojourned, the land of Canan — was the same land God had prepared for them at the time of creation. It was in that land that God first blessed mankind and called upon men and women to obey him.[11]

Through this covenant, the theme could be stated in many ways. Ultimately, Sailhamer summarizes the theme of the Pentateuch and the entire Bible as “creation and redemption.”[12]

How do Genesis 1 and 2 Connect to the Central Theme of the Pentateuch

Sailhamer believes that Gen 1 and 2 connect to the central theme of land in the Pentateuch which he backs up with this statement: “The primary purpose of Genesis 1 is to show that God made ‘the land’ and prepared it as a place for the man and woman to dwell in peace.”[13] Moses is drawing a line that connects the God of the fathers and of the Sinai Covenant with the same God who created the universe. The other point Moses draws attention to is that the original intent of creation was the Sinai Covenant and God’s call to Abraham. It was God’s intention from the beginning to have a people, bless them in the land, and provide for them in the land.

How do Genesis 1 and 2 Prepare the Reader?

The theme of land not only occupies the reader throughout Genesis, but it also pervades the entire Pentateuch. The land was lost during the fall, and throughout the Pentateuch is the story of God’s people being restored and given back the land. This restoration happens though covenants: Noah (Gen 9), Abraham (Gen 15), and Israel (Ex 19).

Genesis 1:1 is a twofold statement: it explains the origin of the world, and it identifies the Creator. This understanding is important because it prepares the reader for the rest of Genesis, the Pentateuch, and the entirety of the Scripture. This statement shows that God is at the center of all things, and only He is the one who could have created ex nihlo.

Understanding the Days of Creation

Having already dealt with Gen 1:1 and all that is encompassed in the word “יתרֵאשִׁ” and the phrase “הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ,” one should next turn to the days of creation and see how Sailhamer uses his arguments exegetically. Since Sailhamer believes all was created in the “beginning,” he must have an answer for what takes place on the six days laid out in Gen 1:2-2:4, which he explains.

The First Day – Genesis 1:2-5

Traditional biblical creationists look at Gen 1:2-5 as God creating light and ordering day and night. Sailhamer objects to this view because he believes light was created in the “beginning.” God is not reinventing light, but is actually ordering the day. In fact, Sailhamer believes Gen 1:2 is a central verse in Gen 1 because it sets the stage for God’s actions and turns the reader’s attention from the creation of the universe to the promised land.[14]

According to Sailhamer, this first day of the week, God is preparing the promised land as a suitable place for man to dwell.[15] Moses’ intention in Gen 1:3, Sailhamer asserts, was to proclaim a sunrise, not a creation of light. There was darkness over the “the face of the deep” because it was nighttime when God first began to speak.[16]

The Second Day – Genesis 1:6-8

The key to understanding the days is largely trying to see them from the author’s perspective. To understand the second day, one must understand what Moses meant by the Hebrew word translated “expanse” (רָקִיעַ). Sailhamer agrees with Calvin that this expanse should be understood in a limited context, as the sky overhead: “the clouds suspended overhead.”[17]

Another clue Sailhamer turns to is the expanse named “the sky.” This term as it is used throughout the chapter is the place where God placed the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:14). It is the same place where birds fly (Gen 1:20). Therefore, “as a general term, the Hebrew word “expanse” thus denotes the place where birds fly and where God has placed the lights of heaven. It is most similar in meaning to the English word ‘sky’.”[18]

Another clue in the text to support Sailhamer’s view is that the second day was declared as “so,” not “good.” After each of the other days, the reader is told explicitly that God saw what he had done and declared it “good.” According to Sailhamer, the change directly relates to the primary meaning of the word “good” in Gen 1. “Throughout Genesis 1, the phrase ‘and God saw that it was good’ is the author’s way of saying that what God made was beneficial for mankind. The whole creation account is oriented toward God’s creation of the man and the woman on the sixth day. That which is ‘good’ in Genesis 1 is that which will benefit the man and woman.”[19] On the second day, nothing was directly made or ordered that beneficially impacted mankind; therefore, the absence of “good” and the presence of “so” makes perfect sense to Sailhamer.

The Third Day – Genesis 1:9-13

Traditional biblical creationists interpret the third day to mean God created the land that would separate the seas. Sailhamer sees God carrying out two specific acts on this day: preparing “the land and the seas” for mankind and placing fruit trees in that land.[20] Again, the acts of this day point back only to God preparing the land for man to dwell.

The Forth Day – Genesis 1:14-19

The forth day is typically one of the harder days for biblical creationists to explain since it appears God is creating light as He did in day one. According to Sailhamer, a simple reading of the Text in English would lead almost anyone to conclude that this is the day in which God created the sun, moon, and starts.[21] This would be problematic if true because it shows God creating all there is in the universe in Gen 1:1 and creating some of these same things again in Gen 1:14-19.

Sailhamer explains the forth day in a couple of different ways. First, one must make sure his/her starting point is in Gen 1:1 with an understanding that God created the sun, moon, and stars in the “beginning.” Therefore, these celestial items could not be created again on the forth day. Secondly, when one looks at the actual Hebrew grammar and syntax, the reader should get the distinct impression that the narrator of the Text was stating the purpose of the lights, rather than a creation of them. The lights were to order the days and the seasons and to bring something beneficial to the land; therefore, the day was pronounced “good.”[22]

The Fifth Day – Genesis 1:20-23

Sailhamer believes God created everything, including animals, in the “beginning.” So he believes that in Gen 1:20-23, God is filling the promised land, the garden, with various sorts of animals that have been around since the beginning. The entire focus of the fifth day is to populate the promised land and to continue to prepare it for the benefit of mankind.

The Sixth Day – Genesis 1:24-31

Two distinctions are made in regard to what is created or ordered on the sixth day: “living creatures,” such as beasts of the field and creeping things, and mankind. One of the major distinctions between these two is clarified when one understands Gen 1:12. Genesis 1:12 shows that the land is that which brings forth vegetation; however, it is God is the one who brings forth the animals and mankind. The marked difference is that God is the one who brings forth life. Though the distinction seems subtle, it is important.[23]

The Seventh Day – Genesis 2:1-4a

The seventh day was set apart as a sanctified day of rest. The seventh day was “blessed” and “sanctified”—God neither worked nor spoke this day.

Analyzing the Particulars of Sailhamer’s Argument

A variety of points that Sailhamer makes do not agree with contemporary biblical creationism. However, although his views are in the minority, they are necessarily wrong. Many will disagree with the views he is trying to unfold in Genesis Unbound, but just like any other views, they must be weighed and measured against the Text of Scripture. In this section, each of his main points will be further analyzed with an effort to conclude whether or not his conclusions are compatible with the Text. Many of his points of contention surround the translation and understanding of particular Hebrew words and phrases in English. An analysis of these words and phrases will accompany this analysis.

Understanding the Word “יתרֵאשִׁ”

The first place Sailhamer detours from a “traditional” understanding of Gen 1:1 is in understanding the Hebrew word יתרֵאשִׁ, typically translated in English Bibles as “beginning.” Sailhamer does not believe יתרֵאשִׁ has been understood correctly because of an inaccurate translation in English. Sailhamer contends that a fuller meaning of יתרֵאשִׁ has the essence of a period of history rather than a point in history. With this understanding, Sailhamer posits there are actually two time periods in Gen 1. The first time period is “יתרֵאשִׁ” (Gen 1:1), in which God has created the universe and everything in it. Then the second time period (Gen 1:2-2:4a) is God’s preparing the garden of Eden for man’s dominion.[1]

An undocumented argument Sailhamer makes is that there is no way to actually limit the time frame of what “יתרֵאשִׁ” actually means. He thinks it could mean anything from a few days to billions of years—the reader cannot know.[2] One of the convenient byproducts of such a view is how it coincides with contemporary theories on the age of the earth. Sailhamer is contends that since the period of time represented by יתרֵאשִׁ cannot be fully known, it very well could be billions of years as modern science has proclaimed. According to his view, that which encompasses the “beginning” is the time span in which the numerous geological ages, ice ages, and differing climatic shifts take place. Sailhamer even believes that dinosaurs were created during this “beginning” and were most likely extinct before man was even on the planet.[3]

To Sailhamer’s credit, he is consistently asking himself, “What did Moses mean by choosing a particular term? What does the term literally mean?” In the case of “יתרֵאשִׁ,” ‘What did Moses have in mind?” Sailhamer says exegetically, in the Bible, the word “יתרֵאשִׁ”

always refers to an extended, yet indeterminate duration of time — not a specific moment. It is a block of time which precedes an extended series of time periods. It is a ‘time before time.’ The term does not refer to a point in time but to a period or duration of time which falls before a series of events.[4]

When the usage of “יתרֵאשִׁ” is checked against the rest of Scripture, this meaning does seem like a legitimate understanding of the word. The lemma appears in the Hebrew Old Testament fifty-one times. Of those fifty-one times, it is translated as “beginning” seventeen times. Many of these times are in the context of the beginning of the reign of a king (Jer 26:1, 27:1, 28:1, 49:34). Sailhamer points out that in ancient Israel, it was normal to begin counting the years of a king’s reign from the first day of the year. If a king were to take office before the first day of the year, which was quite typical, the period of time before the first of the year was not accorded to his reign. This was the time referred to as “beginning” (יתרֵאשִׁ).[5] Likewise in Job 8:7, the word “יתרֵאשִׁ” refers to the early part of Job’s life, not a point in time but a period of time. Genesis 10:10 is another good example of how “יתרֵאשִׁ” is used as a period of time to describe the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom.

Ultimately, it is dangerous to say, “In the Bible the term [יתרֵאשִׁ] always refers to an extended, yet indeterminate duration of time.”[6] Sailhamer overlooks many verses in which יתרֵאשִׁ is translated as “firstfruits,” “first,” “best,” or a variety of other words. So while it does seem that a majority of the uses fall in line with Sailhamer’s proposition, he probably should have been clearer with his statement.

One of the final arguments alluded to by Sailhamer is this: if Moses meant to describe a point in time rather than a period of time, he could have used other vocabulary instead of יתרֵאשִׁ. “The author of Genesis was a master wordsmith. He chose his words with care and used them with precision. It was no accident or mere happenstance that he picked the Hebrew word reshit [יתרֵאשִׁ] to begin his narrative of God’s dealings.”[7]

Understanding the Word “אֶרֶץ”

In nearly every English translation of the Bible, including the oldest ones,[8] the Hebrew word “אֶרֶץ” is translated as “earth.” Sailhamer recognizes the possibility of this translation in Genesis, but he does not think it gives the clearest understanding of the term in Gen 1 or 2.[9] Sailhamer supposes a clearer understanding of “אֶרֶץ” would be to translate it as “land” in Gen 1:1. All throughout Genesis, the term “אֶרֶץ” typically refers to the dry ground where Adam and Eve were to live once they were created. Genesis 1:10 is one such example: “God called the dry ground ‘land’ [אֶרֶץ].”[10]

Looking at “אֶרֶץ” exegetically is no easy task. The word is used 2493 times, translated as “land” or “lands” in the ESV 1639 times and translated as “earth” 664 times.[11] The best way to look at this exegetically is the same way one would look at any other textual issue, by asking what the author meant by using a particular word. Sailhamer is making his case for his understanding primarily from Gen 1:10, which also deals with the sea and sky. “Land” to the Hebrew reader primarily extended to what one could see of the earth around him/her. All throughout Gen 1 אֶרֶץ is used to describe the dry land, which is in direct opposition to a body of water (Gen 1:10).[12] The seas do not cover the land (Gen 1:10), which would be the situation if indeed אֶרֶץ meant, “earth.”

With what becomes a much larger theme of Genesis Unbound, Sailhamer is also teaching that in many cases, “אֶרֶץ” not only means “land” but also frequently refers to the land promised to Abraham in Gen 15:18. This reference is certainly not dogmatic, but frequently throughout Genesis and the Pentateuch, אֶרֶץ is referring to the promised land. This argument could be valid considering the importance of land and the theme of land that ties the Pentateuch together.[13]

Understanding “Heavens and Earth” as a Merism

To reinforce his argument about how “אֶרֶץ” should be understood, Sailhamer looks at how the two words “שָׁמַיִם” and “אֶרֶץ” are used frequently together in Gen 1. The case has already been made that “אֶרֶץ” should be understood as “land” instead of “earth;” now Sailhamer wants to understand “שָׁמַיִם” as “sky” rather than “heavens.” The understanding of “sky” is potentially within the bounds of how “שָׁמַיִם” is used throughout the Bible; however, it is such a small sliver (4 of 418 usages in the ESV) that is very hard to be dogmatic. Sailhamer thus would rather translate the phrase as “sky and land.”

In Gen 1:1, “heavens and earth” or “sky and land” should be understood as a merism—a literary device that communicates an “antonymic pair that expresses unity, wholeness, or totality.”[14] Sailhamer uses this argument because Hebrew does not have the vocabulary to communicate with a single word what one today would understand by the meaning of “universe.” Thus, the merism of “sky and land” is used to communicate two extremes and all that exists within them—the sun, the moon, the stars, the seas, the dry land, animals, plants, and anything unseen within the universe.[15]

With the understanding of what is meant by “beginning” now coupled with the merism of “sky and land,” the picture is starting to fill out a bit. According to Sailhamer, God created the entire universe in Gen 1:1, and in the rest of Gen 1, the focus is then on “the land.” Genesis 1:2-2:4 is all about how God is preparing the “land” for his people.[16]

Understanding the Phrase “תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ”

One of the drawbacks of contemporary translations of the Bible in English is the baggage that can come from earlier times and earlier translations when the Bible was made to conform to certain conceptions of specific cosmologies. An example of this baggage could very well be evidenced in Gen 1:2 as translators have rendered “תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ” as “formless and void.” Tyndale was the first translator to express “תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ” as “void and empty”—he would not be the last. Tyndale would have a lasting effect on English translations through the ages.[17]

When phrases and words are translated from one language to another, there is always the unfortunate by-product of interpretation infiltrating the translation. According to Sailhamer, this is no different with Gen 1:2 throughout the ages. The earliest translators of the Bible into English used the expression “formless and void” to maintain compatibility with the Greek cosmology of creation.[18] By using this vocabulary, translators were meaning to say that God did not create the world in which they lived in the condition in which they were living in it. “In effect, these translators saw two creations. In the first creation of Genesis 1:1, God created the raw materials for the universe. In the second creation of Genesis 1:2-2:4a, God gave shape and form to the earlier primeval mass.”[19]

Sailhamer suggests that in order to gain a better perspective, one should turn to the Septuagint, which was translated some 1500 years before Tyndale, to garner a better understanding of “וָבֹהוּ תֹהוּ.” The translators of the Septuagint rendered the phrase “ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος,” which means “unseen and unformed” or “unseen and not properly prepared.” This understanding is starkly different than the understanding one would get in reading any modern translation today.

Sailhamer believes the most natural reading of the Hebrew text means “the land was simply an ‘uninhabitable’ or ‘inhospitable’ stretch of ‘wasteland.’ The land was not a ‘formless and empty chaos.’”[20] This view fits nicely with the rest of how Sailhamer understands Gen 1. Throughout the chapter, the focus is on the preparation of the land for man to inhabit it—the “wasteland” of Gen 1:2 is going to become the promised land, the garden of Eden, as described in the rest of Gen 1.

According to Sailhamer there was no reason to explain the meaning of this phrase by the author because the understanding of Gen 1:1 was so clear to the reader it needed no explanation. Because the view would go unchallenged for centuries it would become more and more meaningful and relevant.[21] One of the problems though, as Sailhamer explains these things, is his lack of evidence. He continually says people through the ages have believed this or that, but he gives very little if any evidence to show who these people are.

Sailhamer also points out a wordplay at work in Gen 1 that is interesting and potentially a vital piece of information for interpretation.  The wordplay comes between the words “תֹהוּ” and “בטוֹ,” “deserted” and “good.” The primary context of Gen 1 seems to indicate that Moses used “תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ” to describe the condition of the land before God made it “good.”

Summarizing Genesis Unbound

Genesis Unbound is divided into four sections. In these unequally divided sections, Sailhamer discusses some of the contemporary views of Gen 1 and 2, refutes other views for Gen 1 and 2, and ultimately unfolds for the reader his own understanding for how Gen 1 and 2 should be understood in light of the Pentateuch. For the sake of the argument to come, it is appropriate to summarize each of these four sections here with little comment and without correcting what this author believes to be in err.

Genesis in Controversy

It seems Genesis has seen more interpretation and reinterpretation in the last century then in all the time leading up to this century since Moses wrote the book. Sailhamer does try to show that even during the times of the reformation, this topic was not settled. Luther is quoted as having said that the only thing one can be sure of in the first two chapters of Genesis is “that the world began, and it was made of God, out of nothing.”[1]

Sailhamer tries to help readers see that most people think their view is the “traditional” view of creation; however, in actuality, there are so many different nuances of creation, the term “traditional” hardly even describes any view, let alone a specific view. He does, however, offer a definition for traditional—that the world was created “out of nothing.”[2] Interestingly, Sailhamer does believe the world was created from nothing, but his view is far from that of being “traditional.”

Sailhamer also answers the question, “What difference does it make what one believes about the view of origins?” The main answer and argument he makes is that everyone needs to have a solid and informed view of Gen 1 and 2 before he/she can try to relate the Bible to modern science. Doing this in reverse, relating science to the Bible, inevitably will result in undermining biblical authority. Sailhamer also asks six key questions which he thinks are most important that have frustrated people. Some of his answers to these questions are respectable, while others remain undocumented hypotheses.[3]

Genesis Reconsidered

The second section in this work delves further into the fundamentals of Sailhamer’s view. Much of the thought behind the historical creation view centers upon the understanding and meaning of the word יתרֵאשִׁ in Gen 1:1. Sailhamer questions whether interpreters truly understand why Moses chose this very word and what the word actually means. Sailhamer makes note of the term’s usage in the Bible:

In the Bible the term always refers to an extended, yet indeterminate duration of time   not a specific moment. It is a block of time which precedes an extended series of time periods. It is a “time before time.” The term does not refer to a point in time but to a period or duration of time which falls before a series of events.[4]

From this explanation, he describes other uses of יתרֵאשִׁ in the Old Testament and shows how they also have the sense of beginning as an indeterminate amount of time—not a point in time but a period of time. He then adds some other vocabulary Moses could have used had he tried to communicate a specific point in time.

Concluding his introductory remarks regarding יתרֵאשִׁ, Sailhamer moves to discussing the meaning of the term אֶרֶץ. Predictably, he does not agree that אֶרֶץ should be translated as “earth” as it has been translated historically, but he instead claims that it would rather have been better understood as “land.” A few pages in chapter four are given over to the reason אֶרֶץ is better understood as land—not just as land, however, but as the land promised to Abraham (Gen 15:18).[5]

Sailhamer points out that the phrase translated “heavens and earth” in Gen 1:1 should be understood as a merism, encompassing the entirety of creation. He makes this claim partially on the basis that Moses did not have a word to describe universe, and in his attempt to describe the creation of the universe, he used the terms ימַשָׁ and אֶרֶץ in a merism. The author mentions this is not simply unique to Gen 1:1 but is seen throughout Scripture as writers try to describe the land, the sun, the moon, and the stars.[6]

Continuing down the road of misunderstanding in a translation, Sailhamer turns his attention to the phrase תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ.[7] He thinks this phrase in the Hebrew language is probably better understood in English as “uninhabitable land.”[8] In his exegesis, he shows how a history of interpretation has morphed how one understands this word in English today and traces this interpretation issue all the way back to the first English translation of the Bible by William Tyndale.[9] Sailhamer also looks at the LXX and how it was translated as ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος (unseen and not properly prepared). Perhaps the most interesting point he makes with this argument is that “the immediate context of Genesis 1 (1:2a, 9) suggests that the land was described as ‘formless and empty’ primarily because ‘darkness’ was upon the land and the land was ‘covered with water.’ For those reasons the land was ‘uninhabitable.’”[10] Sailhamer concludes that the modern English translation was most likely chosen and has remained the translation of choice because it serves best to identify the phrase “heavens and earth” with a primeval chaos.[11]

In the chapter to follow, Sailhamer works to demonstrate that the physical location of the garden in Eden[12] is the same location of the promised land. Part of his rationale in drawing this parallel is that when the reader gets to Gen 15, the land that is promised to Abraham, noted in the text as the “promised land,” is described with the markings of the same two rivers that are also named to mark of the garden of Eden.[13] Multiple parallels are drawn between the two described pieces of land, and ultimately Sailhamer shows how these two pieces of land are actually one in the same. In this same chapter, he also draws some parallels between the garden and the tabernacle, calling the garden of Eden a deliberate foreshadow to the description of the tabernacle.[14] The final item of note in this chapter is that Sailhamer again does not think the English rendering of some Hebrew words has done justice to their actual meaning. Genesis 2:15 uses the phrase לעָבדָ֖הּ וּלשָׁמרָֽהּ, which is often translated “to work and to keep,” which Sailhamer thinks is better understood as “to worship and obey.”[15]

Context is everything, which is what Sailhamer turns to next. It is one thing to understand words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs, but understanding the context in which the words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs are used is an entirely a different situation. All of the Bible must be understood within an appropriate context, and this idea of context is what Sailhamer is trying to point out to the reader of this chapter. Sailhamer is trying to figure out the appropriate way to read Gen 1 and 2 in context—either in an ancient Near Eastern[16] view or within a literary context—the world in which the Bible describes. Sailhamer clearly accepts the latter way as most appropriate since he believes the first two chapters of Genesis were not meant to be read in isolation outside of the context of the whole Pentateuch.[17] It is then through this literary context that Sailhamer looks to see how Gen 1 and 2 fit within the context of the Pentateuch.

The final chapter of this section, according to Sailhamer, develops the central themes of the Pentateuch: creation and covenant. He develops these themes by discussing “land” in the context of the garden of Eden and the covenant made with Moses on Mt. Sinai. An interesting point that recurs a few times in Sailhamer’s discussion is that dwelling in a land is always tied to obedience. Adam was dismissed from the garden for disobedience, and the same would happen with Israel if the people disobeyed (Deut 4:25-26). Having said that, Sailhamer then ends the chapter and this section of his book by giving a defense of how Gen 2 is a more in-depth account of the sixth day of creation. By making this claim, he connects the “land” of Gen 2 to the creation of “land” in Gen 1, which then lends credibility to his conclusion that the garden of Eden and the promised land are one and the same.

Genesis Unbound

The third section in Genesis Unbound is an exposition of each day of creation, starting with the first act of creation in Gen 1:1. Sailhamer’s goal is primarily hermeneutical, trying to answer the question, “What does the biblical text say about creation?”[18] At this point, it is not necessary to examine each chapter and each day’s exegesis—this examination will come when his arguments are directly dissected in a section to come.

One of the arguments Sailhamer uses is that the six days of creation were specifically for preparing the promised land. With this understanding, he believes the earth had already been populated with animals, plants, and such during “the beginning.”[19] So in these texts regarding the six days of creation, the reader is reading only what God did to prepare the promised land for humanity. “God did not ‘create’ the land or anything the land during that [first] week. He ‘ordered’ the land making it a place where the man and woman could dwell.”[20] These verses and the first two chapters of Genesis, according to Sailhamer, should be seen “as a preparation for and a preview of the Sinai Covenant.”[21]

The Roots of the Problem

The fourth and final section of Sailhamer’s book expresses the fact that his view is not all that unique outside of contemporary theology. He says his view “is both faithful to the biblical text and connected to a long line of scholarly interpretations that span the centuries…In fact, before the rise of the modern scientific mind-set, the precursors to the view dominated the field.”[22] He purports that simply because an interpretation is old, it is not necessarily right. This trap is one that many in contemporary theology are falling into. Understanding what people have historically believed about the Text is important because it does affect the way a modern reader interprets the Text.

Differing cosmologies, according to Sailhamer, have challenged the world with respect to the interpretation of Gen 1 and 2. He believes understanding the contemporary views of interrupted Gen 1 and 2 is impossible without first understanding the various cosmologies through the ages.[23] He examines the three primary cosmologies that have existed throughout the ages, and tries to determine the impact these various cosmologies have had upon the interpretation of Gen 1 and 2 throughout the ages.

The other question that the author is trying to answer is not only how the varying cosmologies have affected one’s interpretation of Gen 1 and 2 throughout the ages, but also how they continue to affect one’s understanding of Gen 1 and 2 still today. At the core, Sailhamer is continually trying to get back to the foundational question he has asked time and again: “What does the text itself say about God’s creation of the world?”[24]

The last couple of chapters are an examination of what Sailhamer calls the “classic” view of creation, in whish God created ex nihilo on the first day, creating an unusable lump which He would form over the period of the next six days. He explains this “classic” view and then offers his own revised view on the “classic” view.

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.