Some of the most controversial chapters in the Bible are found within the first book of Genesis. In Daniel C. Harlow’s essay Creation According to Genesis: Literary Genre, Cultural Context, Theological Truth, he reiterates just how contentious Genesis can be (even among different branches of the Christian church). Harlow’s purpose in writing this essay is simply to educate others. He writes, “I intend to offer a… teaching document for Christian academics and their students who may not be well acquainted with… the results of mainstream biblical scholarship” (Harlow, 164). When writing this essay, Harlow modestly intended for it to be a teaching tool—instead of a piece full of ground-breaking new information—for those who aren’t as familiar with scripture and how to interpret it.
In this essay, Harlow develops and supports his claim that, “Genesis intends primarily to teach theological truths about God, the world, and the human race” (Harlow, 164) by bringing the ideologies of divine accommodation and progressive revelation to relate to a genre-sensitive reading of Genesis 1 and 2 in their early Near Eastern setting.
Harlow points out that Genesis 1 and 2 are prose narratives—ascertaining what genre of literature a text is, is key to studying it well. A prose narrative in this context simply means that Genesis is a recount of something that happened in the past. Genesis is also divinely accommodated— Harlow explains this attribute best by saying, “In the case of biblical writers, this means that God… inspired them within their culture-specific frameworks of understanding, meeting them where they were” (Harlow, 167). The Bible was written for us today, but it was also greatly influenced by the time period in which it was written, and we should take that into account. Harlow notes that Genesis is also progressively revealed; God’s self-disclosure unfolds over time (Harlow, 167). When describing the Bible, this phrase asserts that God did not give the whole text to the biblical authors at one time, but he did so gradually. When taking context into consideration, Harlow notes that it is important to, “read [Genesis] in light of ancient Israelite history and religion, alongside other ancient Near Eastern accounts of creation” (Harlow, 168). Different culture means different symbolism, imagery, metaphors, etc. throughout a text. Harlow reminds us that the truth behind the words is ultimately from God, but its neighboring source is the enculturation of the author.
In addition, Creation According to Genesis opposes synching Genesis with the findings of modern science, but affirms that the book’s message is compatible with a Christian explanation of evolution. Harlow disputes the scientifically-praised theories of the universe such as the day-age theory and the gap theory by noting, “The days pictured in Genesis 1 are regular, twenty-four-hour periods of time” (Harlow, 177). The ancient Israelite author and his readers would have no knowledge of geological ages; saying that the twenty-four-hour periods of time were actually representative of some billion-odd years would make no sense given the context in which Genesis was written. Harlow goes on to say that, “If Genesis 1 were intended by God…to provide a timelessly factual and scientifically valid depiction of creation, we should expect it to describe the world in a way that agrees with the way nature actually works” (Harlow, 177). Harlow doesn’t exclude an evolution-type narrative—he simply supports one that is divinely inspired.
In conclusion, Daniel C. Harlow’s essay outlines how to interpret the book of Genesis, taking into account genre and context, and considering modern scientific beliefs about the creation of the universe. Harlow develops and supports his claim that, “Genesis intends primarily to teach theological truths about God, the world, and the human race” (Harlow, 164) by bringing the ideologies of divine accommodation and progressive revelation to relate to a genre-sensitive reading of Genesis 1 and 2 in their early Near Eastern setting.