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.