Not surprisingly, I have difficulties with Glenn's views. To begin with a
conclusion: I find his embrace of a non-textual distinction
(proclamation/realization) as difficult as he says the "allegory" view is.
We'll have to look more closely to see which view is better suited to the
text.
Let me clarify one thing here. Allegory is not divorced from truth. It is a
WAY to DELIVER truth. That is what Genesis 1 does, by its very terms, in my
view. Here, I disagree with our friend Russ Maatman's definition of
"allegorical," which he holds is the view of liberal scholars. Perhaps it is
only semantics, but I am a biblical conservative and would hold to Russ's
"framework" view (see his marvelous book, The Impact of Evolutionary Theory),
but without giving up use of the word "allegory." My dictionary calls allegory
the "veiled" presentation of an "implied meaning." The key to understanding is
to find the MEANING, not ignore the form.
Let's take a look at some items:
1. The Moses "Commentary" Assertion
Here, Glenn states that what Moses reports God as SAYING is "journalistic" (my
term) and what he reports God as DOING is "commentary." I don't see any
support for this dichotomy in the text. How, from the Hebrew, do we
distinguish "journalism" from "commentary"?
This view sounds similar to Alan Hayward's (see Maatman, above, pg. 175), and
suffers from the same potential problem--assumption. Maybe Russ can jump in
here on this point.
2. The "No Time Frame" View
Glenn states:
<<Genesis 1:6 "And God said, 'Let there be an expanse between the
waters to separate water from water.'
Genesis 7 "So God made the expanse and separated the water under
the expanse from the water above it and it was so." (NIV)
Verse 6 is the proclamation. Verses 7 and 8 are the commentary by
Moses that yes indeed this was accomplished. BUT THERE IS NO
REPORTED TIME FRAME IN WHICH THE ACTION WAS COMPLETED!>>
But there IS a reported time frame, and it is chronological. That time frame
is "evening and morning, the Nth --yom--." However you interpret "yom," you
have explicit "frames." These cannot be ignored.
3. The Sequence Issue
To avoid a "nasty problem," Glenn states:
<<There is no problem raised by the Genesis account in relation
to the time of creation of the sun/plants or sun and moon/day-
night, or insects after the plants or anything at all. God merely
proclaimed the future existence of these animals and plants in the
order he chose fit. He did not create them necessarily in the
order he proclaimed them.>>
There really isn't a nasty problem here. By thinking it is so, perhaps Glenn
has been more motivated to create a "view" which deals with the perceived
problem.
Here I quote one of our leading OT scholars, Gleason Archer: "[I]n broad
outlines, the sequence set forth in the Hebrew account is in harmony with that
indicated by the data of geology. It is true that the mention of the
fashioning of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth creative day does not
correspond with the quite conclusive evidence that the planet earth appeared
subsequently to the creation of the sun. But inasmuch as the creation of light
on the first 'day' indicates the priority of the sun even in the Mosaic
account, we are to understand on exegetical grounds that the emphasis on the
fourth day was not the original creation of the heavenly bodies as such, but
rather their becoming available for the purpose of regulating time and cycles
of the rotation and revolution of earth and moon. The specific verb for
'create ex nihilo' (bara) is not used in Genesis 1:16, but rather the more
general term, 'make' (asah)." (Archer, Survey of OT Introduction, Rev. Ed.,
pp. 193-194)
4. Reproduction After Kind
Glenn states:
<<To continue with verse 1:11, "The God said, 'Let the land produce
vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear
fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.' And it
was so."
The second very important point here is that contrary to almost all
Christian exegesis this verse does not teach that the plants were
commanded to reproduce according to their various kinds. The land
was commanded to "produce plants and trees...that bear
fruit...according to their various kinds." This is merely saying
that there were supposed to be various kinds of fruit which is
quite different from saying that fruit could only reproduce fruit
after their kind. There is a big difference between the two.>>
I don't think proper exegesis allows for this interpretation. Proper grammar
compels us to link "their" with the last subject, plants/trees. There is no
other way to soundly view this passage, IMO.
The KJV has it as "the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind," explicitly
opposed to Glenn's view.
<<Thus the Bible is perfectly in accord with the concept of
evolution, i.e. that animals do not have to reproduce according to
their kind. They are free to reproduce anyway they want.>>
I agree with Glenn that the "LAND bringing forth" is what is emphasized, but I
would conclude the Bible is perfectly in accord with the concept of
MICROevolution. Large scale change is not indicated here, nor even implied.
5. Adam
Glenn states:
<< Adam does not have to fit into the sixth day of Genesis 1. In Genesis 1
that was the proclamation of man's existence; Genesis 2 was the actualization
of man's existence billions of years after Genesis 1.>>
This is, I think, explicitly precluded by Genesis 1:31: God SAW everything
that he had made...And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Now
perhaps Glenn will argue that God, being omnipotent and timeless, "saw" all
this as future realization. But I would say that is eisegesis, not exegesis.
The text is quite to the contrary: God "blessed" man on the sixth day (v. 28)
and "spoke" (proclaimed!) to man on the sixth day (vv. 29,30). It would seem
that being consistent about the "present tense" use of proclamation (Glenn's
test), we would have to conclude man was indeed created on the sixth day!
6. The Lay of the Land
I think this has possibilities. I'd like to do further study on this view.
7. Origin of Man
Glenn writes:
<<The
biggest piece of evidence in my mind connecting us to the apes is
a) the extreme similarity in DNA (99%) and b) the existence of
pseudogene insertions at the same locations in man, chimp, gorilla
and gibbon.>>
I would say that a. is as much an argument for a common designer as it is for
common descent. I have the same problem with b. as I do with the vestigial
organ argument. The "psudogene" argument is one from ignorance. Because we
don't know the function doesn't mean it doesn't have a function.
Regarding the formation of Adam Glenn says: << A dead body is "dust.">>
I don't find any textual or linguistic support for this assertion.
<<I would contend
that humanity is anyone made in the image of God, even if they look
different from me (e.g. pigmy, chinese, Swede, homo erectus
Australopithecus or even my wife {for she looks different from me
in interesting ways.})>>
Leaving the matrimonial aspects aside, I would conted the key is not LOOKS,
but ACTIONS, which give us the best indication of ancient man. How do we find
actions? Through cultural evidences. There is an ABRUPT appearance of culture,
relatively speaking, that distinguishes man from ape, and points rather
dramatically to special creation. Indeed, the incredible gap CULTURALLY
(forget about DNA) between man and ape cannot be accounted for by either
gradualism or punctuationism, IMO.
8. The Flood
I don't have a problem with Glenn's local flood view. This was the view held
even by the staunch conservativeS Bernard Ramm and Hugh Ross. Archer (above)
has some cogent Scriptural arguments against this view, however. Here,
Christians can disagree agreeably, can't they?
9. Heremeneutics
Glenn writes:
<<My epistemology requires that historical events either be true
or false (e.g. they either happened or they didn't). To treat the
early part of Genesis as allegory was very unsatisfactory for me.>>
We've covered this ground before, but in essence this is not about
epistemology. It is about interpretation, hermeneutics. What is the text
purporting to convey? It looks to me like God's special, sequential creation
is rendered in a form so as to inspire awe and ultimate meaning. THAT is the
truth being conveyed. It is much richer than a detailed scenario of stark
"journalistic" facts. If Moses wanted to write a newspaper story, he would
have used that style.
This appears to be a limitation placed by Glenn on the text, and I would
rather not limit God or his revelation in this fashion.
Conclusion: I have trouble with some of Glenn's interpretive moves (but not
all!). Outside the Bible, I have more problems with Glenn's interpretation of
the physical data. But that is the nature of this subject and this discussion.
Jim