The rise of the final world empire: the different views

Most Christians believe that God inspired the Biblical prophets to speak about future events, some of which will only happen during the "end times" shortly before the second coming of Jesus Christ. If this is correct [1], some of the paradigmatic events mentioned in these prophecies could signal the onset of that period to those living at that time. In this article I focus on one such event which many Christians consider to be of utmost importance, namely the rise of the final world empire. Although Bible prophecies provide many details about this empire, there are various interpretations possible. Some place the relevant events in the past, others in the future: seeing the rise of various regional economic blocks around the world, the rise of militant Islam (following the Arab Spring) or the rise of the European Union as the precursor to this empire. But who is correct?  

When it comes to Bible prophecy, it is easy to be drowned by lots and lots of Bible verses referring to this or that event. For the reader who is not familiar with these passages and its possible interpretations, this could be an overwhelming experience. In this article I therefore keep things simple and restrict the discussion to one particular prophetic image that is widely considered as referring to the final world empire which will rise in the period before the second coming of Jesus Christ. This is the image of the great and terrible beast depicted in the Book of Daniel (chapter 7) [2]. Of special importance to our discussion is the meaning of the ten horns found on the head of this beast. I will give a short overview of the prophecy and then discuss various interpretations thereof, some (but not all) of which place the fulfillment of this prophecy in the end times.

The beast: past or future events?

According to the Book of Daniel, the prophet saw this beast in a vision that he had in the first year of the reign of the Babylonian king Belshazzar (son of Nabonidas). He saw four beasts in this vision, namely a lion, a bear, a leopard and finally, a “dreadful and terrible” beast (they are called "beasts" and not animals because they are all composite figures). This is one of those prophecies where there are general agreement among all interpreters that these beasts refer to various kingdoms (and kings), and that it should be read in geopolitical context. Although interpreters differ as to the precise meaning of these beasts, they all agree that it refers to various kingdoms or empires that appeared or will rise in the Middle East. Since it is a prophecy concerning the people of Israel, it seems that all these empires or rulers have reigned or will reign over the people of Israel.

Some interpreters, mainly from the Biblical Criticism tradition, are of the opinion that these beasts refer to events that happened before the date when the text was written (in their estimation some time after 164 BC). They believe that, although the author of the book gave the impression that the prophecies concern the future, these were in fact written after the events took place (see my article Bible Prophecy: predicting the distant future? for a detailed discussion of this approach). Although they agree with other commentators that the period under consideration starts with the Neo-Babylonian Empire (626-539 BC; depicted as a lion), they believe that it ends with the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV (175-164 BC; depicted as the terrible beast). They acknowledge that their interpretation implies that there are substantial differences between the details in the text and the real historical events. Although they ascribe this to the author's limited knowledge of that history, it could in principle also be the result of them trying to force everything in that passage into the period before 164 BC. 

There are reasons to believe that the prophecy of of these beasts refers to events beyond 164 BC. First of all, in broadening the period under consideration to include later events, and therefore accepting that the text could in fact include divinely-inspired predictions about the future, a remarkable correspondence between the prophecy and historical events could be attained. In this case the beasts refer to the Neo-Babylonian Empire (626-539 BC; the lion), the Achaemenid Empire (538–330 BC; in the Book of Daniel this is referred to as the Empire of the Medes and Persians; the bear), the Macedonian Empire (359-323 BC; divided into four after Alexander the Great's death; the leopard) and the Roman Empire (27 BC- 393 AD; the terrible beast). Because of the many detail correspondences between the prophecy of the beasts and these historical events, many interpreters have been emboldened in their view that this prophecy discloses details about the future (for a detailed discussion of these correspondences see Die nuwe toring van Babel).

The ten horns on the head of the beast

But what about the ten horns on the head of the terrible beast? According to the prophecy these refer to ten rulers who will rise out of the Roman Empire. The authors of both the Books of Daniel and Revelation (The Apocalypse of St. John) regarded the appearance of these ten rulers as a very important event. We find that these ten rulers are also depicted elsewhere in the Book of Daniel (chapter 2), namely as the ten toes of a large metal statue - where the same empires are now depicted as the different metals out of which the statue was made. In this case the head was of gold (corresponding with the lion), the breast and arms of silver (corresponding with the bear), the belly and thighs of brass (corresponding with the leopard), the two legs of iron (corresponding with the terrible beast, which also had “great iron teeth”) and the feet as well as the ten toes partly of iron and partly of clay.

In the Book of Revelation the same ten rulers are also depicted as ten horns on the head of a terrible beast which is clearly based on the depiction in the Book of Daniel. In this case the beast is a composite figure which includes all the beasts of Daniel 7. The author of the Book of Revelation says that the ten horns refer to ten rulers who “have received no kingdom as yet” (Rev. 17:12) i.e. in the time when the book was written (~96 AD). He therefore accepts that the Book of Daniel contains true prophecies (as referring to future events) and seems to agree with the interpretation that the great and terrible beast of Daniel 7 refers to the Roman Empire.

Some interpreters are of the opinion that the ten horns refer to ten rulers of the Roman Empire. Others believe that it refers to ten kingdoms that appeared in the period after this empire (especially the western part) disintegrated (they typically mention various European kingdoms who in later centuries accepted the authority of the Roman Catholic pope). The problem with these interpretations are that their proposed identification is not really convincing. In his The Second Coming Bible, William E. Biederwolf writes regarding the last mentioned view: “No one has ever found the ten-fold division of the [Roman] empire. Twenty-eight different commentators have named sixty-five different kingdoms, reckoning only once the kingdoms common to the different lists”.


The ten horns and the future

If the prophecy in the Book of Daniel about the beasts is indeed a true prophecy, we expect that its fulfillment will be more definite and clear. The fact that the rest of the prophecy has been fulfilled accurately (with the Roman Empire, which appeared only after the book was written, corresponding remarkably with the depiction and description of the fourth and terrible beast) forces us to consider the possibility that the part of the prophecy about the ten horns will also be fulfilled accurately. Since it has not happened so far, many interpreters believe that its fulfillment lies in the future. 

There is good reason to agree with this: according to the prophecy the rule of these ten rulers (who reign together with another, even more powerful, ruler) will come to an end at the time when “one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven” (Dan. 7:13). Now, Jesus Christ mentions this event (this expression is only used once in the Old Testament) as referring to his second coming: “then shall appear... the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matt. 24:30, see also Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27).

This is also how the author of the Book of Revelation understands the prophecy in the Book of Daniel, namely that the kingdom of these ten rulers (in his depiction they also rule together with another powerful ruler, called the “beast”, to whom they give their power and strength) will come to an end when they fight against the Lamb (Jesus Christ) when he returns (Open. 17:14; 19:19). The reign of these ten rulers is then followed by the “kingdom” of the Son of Man (Dan. 7:14) or the kingdom set up by the “God of heaven” (Dan. 2:44) or that of the King of kings (Rev. 17). This strongly suggests that this empire will appear just before the second coming of Jesus Christ and can indeed be an important signal that the end time is on hand.

In the light of this interpretation of the prophecy about the beasts in the Book of Daniel one can understand why many Christians, who suspect that the end times are approaching, analyze the world situation with the purpose of distinguishing events which could be the first signs that this empire of the ten rulers is about to appear. In the last few decades various views regarding the appearance of this empire have gained ground among Christians. I will discuss three of these, namely the view 1) that the rise of various regional economic blocks around the world, 2) that the rise of militant Islam (following the Arab Spring) and 3) that the rise of the European Union, is the precursor to this empire.

Ten regional blocks

This view originated with the second report of the elite Club of Rome titled Mankind at the Turning Point (1974), in which the future world was envisioned as divided into ten economic regions. For many Christians, always on the outlook for some confirmation of the fulfillment of Bible prophecies, this seem to be more than coincidence. They assume that these ten regions would together constitute a global world government, which will then correspond with the final kingdom of the ten rulers. Now, as mentioned above, the interpretation of this empire as consisting of ten countries is not new (some tried to find this kingdom among the countries who came forth after the disintegration of the Roman Empire) – only in this case, this has been extended to include the projected regions into which the future world will supposedly be divided.

The problem with this view is that, although such regions are in fact developing all over the world, these do not correspond with those envisioned in the report of the Club of Rome. The world has become a very different place from the one envisioned in that report. Although globalization forces countries to combine their economic efforts, and it is not impossible that ten such economic regions would eventually emerge, it seems very unlikely that all of these regions will also develop into political blocs who together will “give their power and strength” to the “beast” (taken to be the final Antichrist; Rev. 17:13) as part of a global world government.  I can't see Russia and China doing this. It is surely true that some prophecies in the Book of Revelation mentions that “the (whole) world wondered after the beast” (Rev. 13:3) and that he will have power over “all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” (Rev. 13:7), but other prophecies show that he will also have powerful enemies. Although commentators differ in their interpretation, most of them agree that the world of the end times will be a very divided world, one of enormous conflict. 

It seems to me that this interpretation is primarily based on the correspondence in the number ten. But is this enough to make it a viable interpretation? Should we not take all the details given in the prophecy into consideration? The one detail of utmost importance in the prophecy is that this final empire will rise in the geographical area of the old Roman Empire (although it will not necessarily be restricted to it). There is nothing that give us reason to believe that this will ever be a worldwide empire – even though people from all over the world could worship the “beast” and be part of a particular global economic system. It is in the geographical area of the old Roman Empire that we should look for the emergence of this empire.

Ten militant Islamic countries

This view developed quite recently. These interpreters believe that the Arab Spring is not going to develop into an Arab Renaissance as many expect, but into an Arab Winter. Many Christians are alarmed by the rise of political Islam in North Africa and the Middle East after the Arab uprisings. They refer to various Old Testament passages which mention some conflict between Israel and the surrounding nations and assume that these refer to the end times. They believe that in some way this could lead to the establishment of the future caliphate which many Muslims (especially radical Muslims) work and fight for. 

It is within this framework that they propose that ten Muslim countries would group together in a geographical political block which would correspond with the empire of the ten rulers. Among the nations mentioned are Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Turkey. Closely connected to this view is the idea that the final Antichrist (the "beast" of Revelation 13,17) would be a Muslim leader who will come as the long awaited Mahdi (Messiah) that the Shiites (one of the two main factions among them) expect. He would come to power in Iran and would eventually become the ruler over all the above-mentioned countries. 

This view might have emotional appeal in the light of the rise of political Islam, but there are various reasons why it is very unlikely to happen. In any discussion of the Muslim world (see my article Islam's role in the upcoming world order) it is important to notice that the two main groups among the Muslims, namely the Sunnis and the Shiites, are very distrustful of each other and in some cases even open enemies. Countries where the Sunnis are a majority (Saudi Arabia and most of the Arab countries) have for centuries stood in opposition to countries where the Shiites are the majority (Iran, Iraq). It seems very unlikely that they would ever group together in one political block, not even to mention all follow a Shiite leader.

Although it seems unlikely that this view could become a practical reality, it is nonetheless true that most of these countries are situated in the geographical area of the eastern part of old Roman Empire. And we can envision that the empire of the "beast" (Rev. 13, 17) could eventually include the geographical area of all the empires mentioned in the prophecies in the Book of Daniel (all the area from the old Roman Empire to the Persian Empire) since it is depicted as combining them all in one image. The problem for this view is, however, that the empire of the ten rulers is depicted as evolving from both parts of the old Roman Empire. We can see this clearly in the depiction of the statue in the Book of Daniel (chapter 2), where the western and eastern halves of the old Roman Empire are depicted as the two iron legs of the statue which end in the ten toes (clearly on both feet). We expect the empire of the ten rulers (depicted as ten horns/toes) to be more closely connected to the heartland of the old Roman Empire since this is where it will appear according to the prophecy.

The rise of the European Union

This view originated with the establishment of the European Economic Community (the forerunner of the European Union) after the Second World War. These interpreters recognized that the establishment of this community could (in principle) be the first step towards the appearance of the long-awaited empire of the ten rulers for the simple reason that it appeared exactly where the prophecy predicted (within the geographical heartland of the old Roman Empire). What is important about this view, is that it can explain the long time lapse between the old Roman Empire and the appearance of this new entity. In this regard it refers to the feet of the statue depicted in the Book of Daniel, which fits in between the two iron legs (the two parts of the Roman Empire) and the ten toes. The two feet refers to the two empires that came forth out of the two parts of the old Roman Empire, namely the Byzantium Empire (306-1460 AD) in the east, and the Holy Roman Empire (800-1806 AD) in the west. The feet consisted of iron and clay, which is taken as symbols for the Latins (descendents of the Romans) and Germanic peoples.  

The problem with this view is that the European Economic Community soon included more than ten countries. The European Union (EU) has since grown to a massive block of 27 (soon 28) countries, representing the largest economic union in the world. Does this mean that this view fails? Not necessarily. There is a way to reconcile the rise of the European Union with the prophecy of the empire of the ten rulers. It seems that the European Union is slowly developing into a complex structure which could eventually include various layers of countries which are integrated to a different degree.

We already find a smaller grouping of 17 countries who have accepted the Euro as common currency and which have also integrated (and are still integrating) other aspects of their economies (through the fiscal pact, the banking union etc.). One can maybe envision that the future EU will look something like the "tower of Babylon" painted by Pieter Breugel (in 1563) and included on an official EU poster some years ago (for an in dept discussion of the possible future structure of the EU read Britain and the EU: what future?). If a core group of ten countries proceed to a full political union this could in fact be the ten rulers who's appearance the prophecy predicted.

The growth of the EU to become a massive economic block has been a slow but steady process which proved many skeptics wrong. Although many predict that the present financial crisis will in some way permanently dis-empower the EU (in the same way that they previously predicted the break-up of the EU, see my article Gaan Griekeland in the Eurosone bly? - 'n eskatologiese perspektief) this is most probably wrong. The economic restructuring taking place at the moment all over the union could reinvigorate the EU. In the EU crises are viewed as opportunities to further integrate. The present EU has not only integrated to a remarkable degree, it has spread to include a large part of the geographical area of both the western and eastern halves of the old Roman Empire. 

Conclusion

I discussed the various views about the great and terrible beast depicted in the Book of Daniel (chapter 7). It does not seem that the prophecy has been fulfilled as yet. If this prophecy is indeed divinely-inspired, we can expect that it will eventually be fulfilled. Interpreters who believe that this will happen in the future believe that it refers to a future empire ruled over by ten rulers (out of which the final empire of the Antichrist is expected to rise when they hand their power over to him). They connect the possible fulfillment of this prophecy with various emerging situations in the world. These are viewed as possible precursors to this empire. It is clear that none of these correspond at this stage with the details in the prophecy, but it is possible that the leaders of a core group of countries in the EU could eventually be the ten rulers that the prophecy spoke about.  We will have to wait and see [2].

[1] Bible Prophecy: predicting the distant future?
[2] Sketch from facelikethesun.com. Design by Steven Phyffer: www.divinewebdesign.co.za
[3] The skeptic can make a note to carefully observe the future direction of developments in the EU. Although it is my opinion that the empire of these rulers will probably not appear in our life time, one will none the less be able to discern whether the geopolitical situation unfolds in the required direction.

Articles referred to in this essay
Die nuwe toring van Babel

Islam's role in the upcoming world order
Britain and the EU: what future?
Gaan Griekeland in the Eurosone bly? - 'n eskatologiese perspektief

Other relevant articles
Die tien horings van Daniël 7 - waarna verwys dit?

The euro countries move towards a fiscal union - an eschatological perspective

The Priory of Sion is back

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. www.wmcloud.blogspot.com)

Die profeet

"En die profete-seuns wat in Jerigo was, het dit op 'n afstand gesien en gesê: Die Gees van Elia rus op Elisa!" (11 Kon. 2:15)

Daar is al verskeie artikels oor die Israelitiese profetiese tradisie en sekere spesifieke profesieë op hierdie blog gepos. Al hierdie artikels het 'n intellektuele inslag. Alhoewel hierdie artikel oor die profeet dus op die vorige artikels volg, verskil dit tog in die sin dat dit 'n geestelike artikel is. Dit is dan ook die eerste geestelike artikel wat op hierdie blog verskyn. Ek vertrou dat lesers dit van waarde sal vind.

Wanneer ek aan 'n profeet dink, dan dink ek aan Elia. Daar was natuurlik baie Bybelse profete, maar om een of ander rede dink ek aan Elia as die Bybelse tipe van die profeet. Elia was 'n baie besondere mens – en daar word weer later in die Nuwe Testament na hom verwys. Ons lees dat Johannes die Doper, wat die weg vir Jesus se bediening voorberei het, in die "gees en krag" van Elia opgetree het (Luk. 1:17). En Jakobus, die broer van die Here, skryf dat Elia 'n mens soos ons was (Jak. 5:17, 18). Hiermee wil hy ons uitdaag dat die Here ons ook soos Elia kan gebruik.

Wat is dit omtrent Elia wat vir my uitstaan? Dit is nie soseer een of ander daad wat Elia gedoen het nie. Dis eerder sy hele profiel – die profiel van die profeet. Hy was vreesloos, afgesonder, absoluut gehoorsaam aan die Here. Hy het "voor die aangesig van die God van Israel gestaan" (1 Kon. 17:1; 18:15). Dit beteken dat hy besonder naby die Here gelewe het. Hy was 'n "man van God" (1 Kon. 17:18, 24). Hy het God se stem duidelik gehoor en was bereid om dit sonder vrees uit te voer. Hy was 'n man van gebed – sy afsondering het sekerlik met sy gebedslewe te doen gehad. Hy was 'n man van geloof – hy het vas geglo dat die Here dit wat Hy gesêhet ook sal doen. Dit is asof Elia niks en niemand anders gevrees het as die Here nie.

Maar wat is die rede dat Elia so 'n besondere man, so 'n besondere profeet, was? Dit is waarskynlik dieselfde vraag waaroor sy dienaar Elisa gewonder het. Wat het van Elia die profeet gemaak wat hy was? Toe Elisa die kans kry om iets van Elia te begeer voor laasgenoemde se wegvoering, toe weet hy wat hy wil hê. Hy wou daardie selfde Gees hê wat op Elia rus. Dit is wat Elia van die res onderskei het: die Gees van Here het met groot krag deur Elia gewerk. Hy was bowenal 'n man vol van die Gees van die Here. Dit was sy geheim: die Gees van die Here. Ja, al die ander dinge soos afsondering, gebed, gehoorsaamheid, vreesloosheid het uiteindelik daartoe gelei dat die Gees van die Here 'n besondere instrument in hom kon vind. Maar dit alles sonder die Gees van die Here sou weinig beteken. Hy was vol van die Gees van die Here.

Wat my verder oor die verhaal van Elia en Elisa opval, is dat Elia se werk en bediening uiteindelik deur Elisa voortgesit is. Elisa het "'n dubbele deel" van die Gees van Elia van God ontvang (2 Kon. 2:9). Dieselfde Gees wat op Elia was, was later op Elisa – en baie later op Johannes die Doper. En daar sal moontlik ook in die eindtyd 'n man opstaan waarop die Gees van die Here so sal rus (Open. 11:3, 6). Ons vind dus dat die Gees van die Here ook na Elia se wegvoering op Elisa gerus het. Die profete-seuns wat ver weg gestaan het tydens Elia se wegvoering, het opgemerk dat die "Gees van Elia" op Elisa rus. Elisa word dan ook baie maal daarna 'n "man van God" genoem. Die Here het magtiglik deur hom gewerk.

Hoe raak dit ons? Ek glo dat die Gees van die Here steeds vandag in krag deur mense se lewens kan werk. Daar is soveel verhale van godsmanne wat oor die afgelope paar eeue gelewe het. Wanneer ek sulke verhale lees, dan spoor dit my aan om God met hernude ywer te dien. In ons eie land staan Dr Andrew Murray uit. Hy was 'n baie besondere man van God en was ook God se instrument in die destydse geestelike herlewing in die Kaap. En daar was andere wat in sy voetspore gevolg het. Dink maar aan Dr Kolie Kotze en andere.

Nader aan myself... Ek was bevoorreg om verskeie sulke manne en vroue te ken. As ek aan die Bybelse profiel van die profeet dink, dan dink ek veral aan my eie pa. Hys nou al oud – het onlangs 79 geword. Hy was deur sy lewe, vir die tyd wat ek hom geken het, 'n man van God. Hy was 'n man van gebed. Hy was 'n man van geloof. Ek onthou hoedat hy en 'n groepie van sy vriende naweke gaan afsonder en bid het. En die Here het wonderlik deur hom gewerk. Toe ek per geleentheid op Upington gepreek het, het verskeie van die ouer garde aan my vertel van die goddelike tye wat hulle destyds onder sy bediening ervaar het. Hy het 'n geweldige impak op my eie lewe gehad. Ek dink deesdae baie terug aan sy lewe. Wat my die meeste bybly, is daardie bewustheid van God se teenwoordigheid. My begeerte is dat dit ook in my eie lewe sal wees.

Deesdae is als vinnig, maklik, goedkoop, moeiteloos. So ook die godsdiens. Daar word baie gearbei, maar daar gebeur ook nie veel nie. Ons samelewing verander. Mense se waardes verander. Alles gaan agteruit. Ek wonder of God weer in ons tyd met krag sal werk. Of daar weer ware profete soos van ouds sal opstaan. Manne wat vol van die Gees van die Here is. Manne en vroue wat in die voetspore van die vroeëre godsmanne sal volg. Soms lyk dit asof daar geen erns meer is nie. Geen bereidwilligheid om op te offer nie. Om af te sonder, om te bid tot God werk. Miskien sal die Here wel weer sulke mense vind. Persone wat deur die Gees van die Here gedryf, met Hom sal ontmoet en in ons tyd 'n ware verskil sal maak. Mag die Here dit doen.

Skrywer: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. www.wmcloud.blogspot.com)

Kontak my: wmcloud@yahoo.com

Bible prophecy: predicting the distant future?

In this essay the focus is on Biblical prophecy, even though I also discuss prophecy in the wider Middle Eastern context. Three important characteristics of the prophet are discussed, namely that he/she was an oracle of God (the gods), a preacher of ethics and a preserver of tradition. A close connection, going back millennia, existed between prophets (or court diviners) and the written tradition. But what does “prophet” mean (or meant)? This calls for an hermeneutic (interpretative) approach. Scholars should not force their own paradigmatic perspectives onto the text, but listen to the voices in the text. Both the voices of the individual prophets as well as that of the age-old prophetic tradition are of importance. Certain prophetic themes, like that about the messiah, can only be appreciated once the ancient Israelite manner of understanding their own prophecies is considered. This also throws light on the possibility of future fulfillment of prophecy.

Prophecy constitutes about a third of the Bible. This shows how important prophecy was in the communal life of Israel and also later in the early church. But what is meant by "prophecy"? To what extent does it concern the future? Does the so-called "messianic" prophecies really foresee the appearance of Jesus Christ? And is it correct to assume that some Biblical prophecies could even have a bearing on current world events? The answers to these questions would differ according to the theological background of the reader. Biblical scholars from different schools of thought would give widely different answers to these questions. But who is correct? In this essay I will discuss this matter, with special focus on this predictive aspect of prophecy. I do not try to prove that certain prophecies were fulfilled; I am concerned with a more basic question, namely the validity of the claim that Biblical prophecy have a predictive component.

In the study of Biblical prophecy, it is important to establish what was meant by the "prophet" in Israelite times. To explore this, we must study the role of the prophet in both the Israelite as well as the wider ancient Middle Eastern context. From this three important characteristics of the prophet are discernible, namely that they operated as oracles of God (or the gods), made ethical pronouncements and preserved the ancient traditions of their people. In current critical scholarship the ethical aspect is strongly accentuated – but is this justifiable? Is it not a reductionist approach which distorts the ancient context in which the prophecy was given? These and other related issues are discussed. I show that it is of utmost importance that we listen to the Israelites themselves (and not force our views on them) to gain some understanding as to how they understood prophecy, especially “messianic prophecies”. After a discussion of these I formulate some conclusions as to the Israelite view regarding the predictive aspect of prophecy.

The role of the Israelite prophet

Prophecy seems to have had a long tradition in Israel. Although scholars typically focus on the later prophets, the prophetic tradition is said to be much older than that. We, for example, find that some of the very early figures in the history of Israel were called "prophets" - Abraham (Gen. 20:7), Moses (Deut. 18:18; 34:10), Aaron (Ex. 7:1), Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Eldad, Medad and others (Nu. 11:26), Deborah (Jg. 4:4) and others (Jg. 6:8), Samuel (1 Sam. 3:20) and others (1 Sam. 10:5), Nathan (2 Sam. 7:2), Gad (1 Sam. 22:5) etc. When we study the Hebrew prophet, it is important that we do not automatically assume that the prophetic tradition was a late development in Israel, but that we consider the possibility that it was part of a continuous tradition going back to earliest times (although the later prophets are characterized by more extensive prophecies, typical of that period). This forces us to consider the wider ancient Middle Eastern context in which prophecy operated. Although the Israelite prophetic tradition had certain distinguished features, it was nevertheless part of a wider Middle Eastern phenomenon. So, what were the particular characteristics of the "prophet"?

1. An oracle of God (or the gods)

The Hebrew word "prophet" means "inspired man". It is derived from the word "prophecy" (nâbâ), which mean "to speak (or sing) by inspiration (in prediction or simple discourse)" [1]. What distinguishes the “prophet” from poets, singers and others of human inspiration, was the idea that these persons operated as spokesmen for the oracles of God, under divine inspiration. In Israel these were further distinguished from other diviners, the spokesmen of other gods (for ex. Baal) or spirits (for ex. “of the groves”), who were called “false prophets” (see I Ki. 18:19, Deut. 18:14). It was believed that the overshadowing power of the “Spirit of God” produced “true” prophecies (I Sam. 10:6). In all cases, the one important feature that characterized these oracles were its predictive nature.

Since early times – even before Israelite times – such prophets were mentioned in the western Semitic literature of the ancient Middle East. We, for example, find them operating in the eighteenth century BC in the city of Mari in Western Mesopotamia. Among them were both men and women, who went into a trance-like state and recounted their visions and the speech of the gods. Some used certain beverages to induce the prophetic state. Their utterances were in brief, poetic language, and made vague predictions regarding state-affairs and matters affecting the king [2]. (They operated very similar to the Delphian priestesses of Greek tradition).

Such trance-like states are also mentioned in the Hebrew prophetic tradition (1 Sam. 19:24 – Saul was laying naked for a whole day and night). The Hebrew prophets also used poetic language and made predictions (the old name for prophet was “seer” - 1 Sam. 9:9), some regarding state-affairs and matters affecting the king (1 Sam. 22:5, 1 Ki. 11:29-31 etc.). It was expected of the true prophet to give details concerning future events, which enabled others to discern if the predictions were right and whether or not that person was a true prophet (Deut. 18:22; Jer. 28:8,9). This predictive nature of Biblical prophecy is visible in many prophecies concerning future events (1 Sam. 10:7; 16:1; 1 Ki. 11:30-36; 1 Ki. 13:2; 1 Ki. 22:20 etc.). Of special importance in this regard is the “messianic” prophecies (to be discussed in more detail below).

2. A preacher of ethics

The Israelite prophets' role as pronouncers of oracles not only concerned future events. It was closely connected to their role as preachers of ethics, as the ones who gave the divine perspective on right and wrong. The prophets spoke for God in matters concerning moral and ethical matters. This is the one aspect in which the Hebrew prophets differed from the earlier prophets from Mari – those prophecies lack the ethical content associated with the Biblical prophets [2]. In Hebrew tradition this aspect of the prophetic ministry also goes back to early times (Jg. 6:8; 1 Sam. 12:14 etc.) and continues right through Israelite history until the time of Jesus Christ (it ends with John the Baptist's ministry).

An important aspect of this moral dimension of the Israelite prophetic tradition concerns the worship of God – what type of worship was acceptable to God. In this regard the prophets were the ones upholding the Yahweh-alone tradition. They warned the Israelites against the worship of other gods (Jg. 6:8; 1 Ki. 18:18 etc.), especially against the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth, which were part of Israel's popular religion until the Babylonian exile. In this regard the predictive aspect often included warnings about future punishment if the people do not come back to God (Jer. 35:15; Matt. 3:6-10), but it also (especially during and after the Babylonian exile) included a message of hope and future restoration. Some of these concerned the not-to-distant future (for example the prophecies of Jeremiah concerning the exile and restoration of Israel) and others the distant future (Daniel's prophecies typically fall in this category – Dan. 8:26; 12:4).

3. A preserver of tradition

Another important aspect of the prophetic ministry concerns the preservation of tradition. The prophets were the persons who wrote down both the oracles (or made sure that it was written down) as well as the wider context in which these prophecies were pronounced. The reason for this was clearly connected to their view concerning the divine origin of these prophecies as God's revelation to His people.

This tradition of writing down the oracles goes back to the prophets of Mari, who's prophecies were preserved for us exactly because it were written down. In fact, the tradition of writing down the oracles of the gods goes back even further, to the Accadian period in Mesopotamia (~2450-2200 BC), when both the intestines of the sacrificial animals together with the pronouncements of the diviners who “read” them during the campaigns of these Semitic kings (who ruled over all of Mesopotamia) were written down (most copies of these date from Old-Babylonian times) [3,4]. It was not only these royal oracles that were written down. The great deeds of both the Accadian kings – which often mention the context in which the gods were consulted – as well as the deeds of the later rulers of Mari, were also orally transmitted by court poets (and later written down) [5]. Among the same poets who told the stories about these rulers, were those who pronounced the oracles (in the case of the Mari prophets). It is possible that those early poet-diviners were shamans, who all over the ancient world were the ones who preserved the traditions of their peoples.

These examples show that the Israelite prophets stood in a prophetic tradition going back millennia in the ancient Middle East [6]. According to Hebrew tradition they were the ones who preserved the oracles of the Hebrew God since the earliest of times. In this regard the oracles of God given to Abraham (which is the reason why he is called a "prophet") appear in a totally new light: the age-old western Semitic tradition of preserving the oracles in written form suggests that this was also the manner in which the Abrahamic oracles were transmitted. And the Accadian (and later Israelite prophetic) tradition of providing an historical context for these oracles, suggests that these were embedded in the wider context of the history of the patriarchs since the time when they were first given. The fact that Abraham is said to have received these oracles and is also called a prophet strongly suggests that he was in fact the one who wrote down these oracles and history in the first place. He is said to have come from Mesopotamia (the route westwards went through the area of Mari) and would have stood in the ancient Western Semitic tradition of writing down such oracles.  This also suggests that he could have been the one who preserved the older Sumerian traditions of his family (Gen. 4-11) [7].

According to the Hebrew Bible there was a close connection between the prophets and the written tradition (especially regarding the oracles) throughout Israelite tradition. Among the earliest prophets who are said to have written down these oracles were Moses (who is said to have written down the oracles (Ex. 17:14; 24:3, 4; 34:27, 28; 31:7-9; Nu. 11:26; Jos. 8:32), the history of the exodus (Nu. 33:1, 2) and a poem (Deut. 31:22) – his disciple Joshua also wrote down some of these oracles, Jos. 8:32; 24:26), Samuel (I Sam. 10:25), Nathan (1 Ch. 29:29; 2 Ch. 9:29); Gad (1 Ch. 29:29; 2 Ch. 29:25), Ahijah (2 Ch. 9:29), Shemaiah (2 Ch. 12:15), Iddo (2 Ch. 12:15; 13:22), Elijah (2 Ch. 21:12), Isaiah (2 Ch. 32:32) etc. The author of Chronicles mentions histories written by the prophets Samuel (who operated in the time of king Saul), Nathan, Gad (from the time of king David), Ahijah (from the time of king Solomon), Shemaiah, Iddo (from the time of king Rehoboam), and other writings by Elijah (from the time of king Ahab) and Isaiah (from the time of king Hezekiah). 

The impression that one gets from reading this is that great care was taken to correctly transmit the earlier oracles and accompanying history - all of which were carefully written down during the time when the oracles were first given. This is in accordance with the millennia-old western Semitic tradition of preserving oracles in written form - which gives further credibility (over and above the obvious care that was taken to correctly transmit those traditions) to the Biblical literary tradition. Clearly the Israelite prophets stood in the ancient western Semitic tradition of poets who not only pronounced (and made sure it was written down) the oracles of the gods (God) concerning the king, but also composed, sang and recorded the royal deeds of those kings [8].

Interpreting the prophetic tradition

With this short background on the role of the Israelite prophet, the next question to ask is: What exactly is “prophecy”? Although the answer to this question may seem simple, namely that it is an oracle, this does not do justice to the complexity of the issue. Why? Because there are various contexts from which this question could hypothetically be answered. The ancient prophets who were part of that centuries old tradition, or an Israelite who were part of that culture in which the prophets operated and who held a wide range op popular ideas about prophecy, would answer the question in a different way from any scholar who come from a particular scholarly tradition or person who participates in a traditional form of Christianity. The problem is that we do not have access to the ancient Israelite paradigm (this would only be possible if we were part of that community during that time). Our only access to them is through the Biblical texts.

Using the insights of the philosopher of hermeneutics, Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002), we can view our interaction with these texts as a conversation. Readers and scholars from our generation are in conversation with the authors of those texts (and with many others who have already throughout the ages participated in this conversation). We, who are imbedded within particular traditions (paradigm's [9]) converse with those authors, who are imbedded in their own tradition. For an open conversation to take place, we must listen to those ancient Hebrew authors. We cannot force our views on them. If we force our views on the text, we show a total disregard for their views - we "destroys the true meaning of this tradition" [10]. Often we do this without knowing that we do – our particular paradigm (the tradition which formed us in the views that we hold) unconsciously provides us with glasses which direct our reading of the text. It is this complicated conversational process between ourselves and the voices from the text that result in interpretation.

1. The critical scholarly paradigm

When Biblical Criticism scholars first approached this problem, they did not have these insights available to them. They were primarily concerned with the “real” historical situation – and mistrusted much of the information in the texts (contra what I have shown above). They believed that all references to the supernatural – of which the divine origin of the oracles is an example – should be taken with a pinch of salt. They believed that it was possible to gain access to the “real” objective situation, going beyond the "primitive" ideas which those people held regarding their own situation. In the opinion of these scholars their own viewpoint was therefore much better than the primitive views of the ancient Israelites. Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932), who greatly influenced this discipline in this regard, wrote in his book Genesis [11]: "Following our modern historical world-view, truly not an imaginary construct but based on the observation of facts, we consider the other view entirely impossible".

This approach postulated that the scholar must reconstruct the Sitz im Leben ("setting in life") in which the prophet operated – this is the historical context in which he presented his message within the social circumstances of the time. In this view the ethical dimension of the prophet's message are of special importance. The predictive aspect were considered as secondary – at most it could have included some vague predictions (these scholars accept that in reality nobody can correctly predict the future). Where bold statements about the fulfillment of prophecy is found in the text, this should be interpreted either as vaticinia ex eventu (foretelling after the event) or that the author created fictional events to give the impression that some prophecy was fulfilled (some mention, for example, events from the life of Jesus in this regard). In this way it was believed that the scholar could clear the text from all unhistorical data. It is in this tradition that critical scholars writing about prophecy operate [12].

The problem is, however, that the people of that time did believe that the oracles were God-given and this influenced their whole perspective on life. Once this aspect is removed, we do not arrive at some “objective” point of view – we arrive at a reductive view with no correspondence to the historical situation. The fact is that they held those beliefs. The prophet, as well as those who listened to him, believed that these oracles came from God. This was part of their worldview; it determined their whole concept of life and the place of major (especially catastrophic) events therein. This is the historical situation!

To reduce the prophetic message to a mere ethical message, and prophecy to mere poetry, is not only reductionist – it creates a new idea about that reality which is totally divorced from the true historical reality. It forces a certain rational view, typical of the modernist perspective, onto Biblical times without any concern for the views of the people who lived during that period. It gives the false impression that this is an “objective” view – the only one that is valid (so typical of the colonial spirit of modernism) – whereas it is in fact a total distortion of the real situation. Without doing so consciously, these scholars force their own paradigm onto the text which totally overshadow the voices therein. If we want to know something about the real situation, we have to listen to the voices present in the text and allow them to tell us something about their world.

2. The prophetic tradition

We should not only listen to the individual prophetic voices in the texts; we should also listen to the voice of the long-running prophetic tradition behind those voices. In the same way that scholarly tradition (paradigm) colors the view of individual scholars in their conversation with the voices of the past, the voices of the prophets were formed by the prophetic tradition to which they belonged.

The impact of tradition on people (especially those from past generations) have been demonstrated by philosophers like Martin Heidegger and Thomas Kuhn, who has demonstrated the impact of scholarly tradition (called “paradigm”) on individual scholars [9]. As I showed above, the prophets were the keepers of a centuries old prophetic tradition – which clearly had a profound effect on all the prophets who stood in that tradition. They preserved the older prophetic writings (which they studied), interacted with each other, operated in groups and attended prophetic schools since their youth (1 Sam. 10:5; 19:20; 1 Ki. 18:13; 20:35; 22:10; 2 Ki. 2:3-5; 4:38; 6:1-7 etc.). At times there were hundreds, even thousands of them, operating during the same period (1 Ki. 18:4; 19:18). All the true prophets upheld the Yahweh-alone tradition – and many of them mentions the millennia-old concept of the council of the gods (Micah (1 Ki. 22:19-22), Isaiah (Is. 14:13, 14), Jeremiah (Jer. 23:18), Ezekiel (28:16)). They all had very similar prophetic experiences (even though the details often differ) – all prophesied under the power of the Holy Spirit. They also prophesied about similar themes – the messianic theme is present since the earliest times.

The Biblical Criticism approach to a large extent overlooks the importance of this age-old prophetic tradition in ancient Israel. The focus on the Sitz im Leben ("setting in life") places the particular circumstances of the prophet at the center; it effectively isolates the individual prophet from the tradition in which he/she operated. This is very problematic – its overall effect is to minimize the role of those prophetic themes that is not directly applicable to the social situation of the individual prophet (the messianic theme, for example).

This negligence of the prophetic tradition could be ascribed to the general mistrust of tradition in modernist circles since the time of the Enlightenment. The modernist mind was in reaction against the one tradition that it knew all to well, namely the Christian tradition. And this rejection seems to have influenced the way in which these scholars [13] read the texts – it colored their own approach to the texts. The close association between the Christian tradition and the Biblical prophetic tradition seems to have influenced their approach to the latter – in a certain way it represented a tradition which most modernist scholars opposed. This implies that their approach to the text could not have been completely honest (even if they themselves did not recognized it); their own paradigm were in conflict with the paradigm presented in the text. This can be the reason why they so forcefully imposed their own paradigm on the text and ignored the historical paradigm within which the prophets operated - effectively "destroying" the meaning of that tradition (to quote Gadamer).

The messianic prophecies

The most important prophetic theme that transcends all the individual prophets were the messianic theme. If such a prophetic theme existed (which we know was the case) it was predictive in nature since the long awaited messiah was expected to come some time in the future. Most prophets said something that was taken as messianic in Israelite circles. The Israelites carefully studied the prophetic works to determine when the messiah would come and what he would be like. Various views regarding the messiah developed, based on the accentuation of different prophetic passages and different readings thereof. In this respect, the prophetic tradition had a great impact on the wider Israelite culture and paradigm – and the prophecies concerning the future messiah had a formative impact on the Israelite perspective, especially in the post-exile period.

There are basically two important groups of texts that provide us with insight into the ancient Hebrew thinking in this regard. The one is the Qumran texts, which date for the most part to the centuries directly before the time of Jesus Christ. It depicts a traditional Israelite (Jewish) community who regarded the messianic writings of the prophets with utmost respect – they could even be called a “messianic” community. They developed certain ideas as to what the messiah's ministry would be like – and expected a “priestly messiah” together with a political messiah. The other texts are those included in the New Testament. They reflect the thinking of a Jewish messianic community who stood in a very long tradition of Israelites who expected the messiah and who believed that Jesus was that messiah. They participated in the church which developed from those early beginnings. In this essay I focus mainly on their interpretation of the prophetic texts.

In Biblical Criticism there is a strong current of thinking that most (if not all) the messianic passages mentioned in the New Testament, actually refer to people and events in the time of the prophet and that the messianic allusions found there are in fact unfounded later interpretations that contemporary scholars should discard [14]. This approach to the messianic prophecies assumes that the scholarly view about the prophecies is more correct than the view held by the people of those times, i.e. in the early church (their modernist view is in effect the only correct view)! I have already commented on this arrogance which forces a modernist perspective onto the text. 

We should rather listen to those people themselves and try to understand what they said in this regard. How did they interpret those prophecies and why did they do so? Since they stood in the same Hebrew paradigm which was formed from the earliest times, of which the age-old prophetic tradition was a part, they would know much better than us how the prophecies were understood and how it should be interpreted. The early church, and all the Biblical authors, were Jewish and stood in continuation of the centuries old Israelite tradition in which a certain way of understanding and interpreting prophecies evolved. The New Testament texts clearly contain important material that could help us understand the ancient approach to those prophecies – even if one do not agree that Jesus was in fact the messiah.

The main problem that scholars have with the predictive aspect of prophecy, especially messianic prophecy which is said to have reference to events far beyond the horizon of the prophet, is that the prophet himself could not have viewed it in that way. The prophet was part of a particular community who had a certain set of circumstances which directly impacted on their lives, and the prophet's message was concerned with these circumstances. He did not have particular events in the distant future in mind. But this view totally negates the basic Hebrew understanding regarding prophecy, namely that it was oracles given by God. In the Hebrew perspective the divine inspiration was such that the prophet foretold things that was even beyond his own understanding. The apostle Paul wrote in this regard: “the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets” (this refers to the inclusion of converted heathen within the framework of God's people, but illustrates the point, Rom. 16:25, 26; see also 11 Pet. 1:19-21).

This idea that a prophecy could refer to distant events beyond the view of the prophet, and that this aspect of the prophecy could be hidden within some prophecy concerning events from the time of the prophet, could be amply illustrated. Take, for example, the prophecy of Isaiah about the virgin who shall conceive and bear a son, named Emmanuel (Is. 7:14). This had reference to the prophet's time (Isaiah 8:3), but had also been applied to the virgin birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:22, 23; Lu. 1:31-34 do not mention the prophecy, but mentions both the virgin birth and that Jesus was the son of the Highest, the “son of God”). The followers of Jesus clearly believed that the divine origin of the prophecy allowed for an application beyond the view of the prophet. It is easy to see why: in the Septuagint, (which they used and) which represents a very early understanding of the wording in the prophecy (going back to the second century BC), the Hebrew word “almâh” (veiled) have been translated as “virgin” - and Jesus is said to have been born to a virgin. Furthermore, Jesus was accepted to be Emmanuel, not only in the figurative sense as “God in our midst”, but as the embodiment of God among mankind (“the son of God”). For them the expression “Son of God” referred to one greater than the angels, but beneath the Father (Marc. 13:32).

This way of interpreting prophecy was not unique to the Hebrew tradition. We find the same among the ancient Greeks, where the interpretation of the prophecies of the priestess at Delphi also went far beyond her own understanding of the matter. Take, for example, the prophecy concerning the return of the sons of Heracles, whose wish would be granted after “the third harvest”. This was at first wrongly interpreted (the intention of the priestess was unclear) in a straightforward manner. Only later was it “correctly” understood as referring to the third generation. This clearly shows that such oracles were typically interpreted as being beyond human invention (it originated with the god Apollo) and could therefore be fulfilled long after the time of the prophetess herself.

When we study the way that the New Testament authors interpreted the messianic prophecies, it is clear that there is no exact rule – something that upsets the scientifically inclined mind. But prophecy is not scientific prediction – it is mostly given in poetic form and are typically understood as metaphors which allow for various levels of interpretation, both in the time of the prophet and in messianic times (prophecies regarding Israel or the king is taken to also refer to the messiah, for example Hos. 11:1 and Matt. 2:15; Ps. 2:9 and Rev. 2:27). Many messianic prophecies were beforehand (i.e. before Jesus' birth) recognized as messianic (this is clear from the Qumran texts as well as the way that they are used in the Biblical text, for example Matt. 2:4-6; 22:41-46 etc.) or assumed to be such (in Rabbinic literature 465 Old Testament passages are taken as referring to the messiah or messianic times [15]), although there was always the possibility the some would only become clear once the messiah appears.

The interpretation of prophecy was also – just as the prophecy itself – believed to be God-given (2 Pet. 1:20). It was therefore through the Spirit of God that the interpretation of the messianic prophecies were given – one can view it as a spontaneous and popular interpretation from the midst of the people themselves. What is clear, however, is that this did not apply to any single prophecy so much as to the whole collection of prophetic material, which in total provided the people of Israel with images of what the messiah would be like (Hand. 3:21; 10:43; Rom. 1:1-3) and the time when he would come (Lu. 2:26; 3:15; Joh. 1:19, 20). And these images, for example those found in the Qumran texts, are quite consisted with those applied to Jesus (even those about the messiah as great conqueror were applied to Jesus' second coming). In fact, there can be no doubt that Jesus' followers believed that his life fitted the prophetic image of the messiah perfectly.

What is clear, is that the Israelites themselves believed that the prophets spoke about events far beyond their own time – in the distant future. The early church even believed that some messianic prophecies still await fulfillment (those regarding Jesus' second coming) – these would only be fulfilled in the end times. This implies that some prophecies even predict what will happen in the distant future (for the prophet) and would go into fulfillment as the end times draw near. Even if one thinks (as some critics do) that Jesus purposefully fulfilled the prophecies to the extent that he could, that some events in Jesus' life were later fictitiously created by later authors in accordance with prophecies in that regard, that there are conflicts in the various accounts of the life of Jesus which show that the “real” Jesus' life did not fulfill certain prophecies ascribed to him, all of this show that those people had a strong belief that the prophecies of the ancient Hebrew prophets would one day be fulfilled in a messianic figure – and that Jesus was that figure. Any traditional Christian would add that Jesus was in fact the only real Messianic figure (in fact the greatest of all time) that Jewish culture ever produced and that he appeared exactly at the time when the messiah was most anxiously expected (Lu. 2:26; 3:15; Joh. 1:19, 20 – probably due to their interpretation of the prophecy in Dan. 9:20-27).

Conclusion

From this discussion of Hebrew prophecy we can derive certain conclusions. We cannot study the Hebrew prophet, or even the Hebrew prophetic tradition, in isolation. The Hebrew prophet stood in an age-old tradition which developed within western Semitic culture. They viewed the oracles of God (or the gods) as so important that they made sure that it was written down. This implies a strong connection between the prophetic and the written traditions, which is in fact what is found in ancient Israel. We have access to that tradition through the texts of the Bible.

When we study those texts, we should not force our own views onto the texts. Scholars who force a modernist worldview onto the texts (or some traditional interpreters who force a certain theological or contemporary perspective) show a disregard for the views of those ancient people regarding their own worldview and culture. When we want to define prophecy we cannot divorce it from the ancient world in which it functioned. Prophecy is what they understood it to be – and not any meaning that we want to impose on the word. For them, prophecy is oracles of God (or the gods), which is divinely given, and as such, is greater than the prophet, and applies far beyond his/her point of view. For them, prophecy – especially messianic prophecy – is predictive (not in the human sense) and could find it's fulfillment many centuries or even millennia after the life of the individual prophet.

The one prophetic theme that transcends all generations of prophets, is that of the coming messiah. The interpretation of the prophecies that refer to the messiah, is not something that can be entirely objectively understood. There are not any particular scholarly method that was used in interpreting those prophecies in ancient times. Rather, it was a matter of spontaneous and popular interpretation. In this regard, it was not so much the single prophecy (even though some of these were extremely important) but the whole collection of prophetic material which provided the image of the coming messiah. And this image corresponds to a remarkable degree with the narrative told about Jesus of Nazareth. For those who believe that he will return, there are again many prophecies which together provide an image of the world situation in the end times. We will have to wait and see if (and when) they go into fulfillment.

[1] Strong, James. 1980. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon (Thirty-eighth printing)

[2] Foster, Benjamin R. 2007. “Mesopotamia”, John R. Hinnells (ed.). Penguin Handbook of Ancient Religions. London: Penguin Books.

[3] Edwards, I. E. S. 1971. "Early History of the Middle East", in The Cambridge History. Vol I Part 2. . Cambridge: Cambridge University.

[4] Horowitz, Wayne. 1998. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

[5] Tinney, Steve. 1995. A New Look at Naram-Sin and the “Great Rebellion”. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 47:1-14.
[6] Any understanding of the prophetic tradition in Israel should give credible arguments as to how it arose in the first place. Trying to isolate this tradition from the age-old Western Semitic tradition (which clearly impacted on the writing of the Abrahamic oracles) is clearly wrong.

[7] There is remarkable archeological evidence which substantiate the Biblical account of events that took place during the time of Abraham, suggesting that he was in fact an historical person and that the traditions associated with him is trustworthy. See Mc Loud, Willie. 2012. Op soek na Abraham en sy God. Kaapstad: Griffel.

[8] This shows that the literary tradition is more secure than is often assumed. In fact, the scholarly tradition of requiring substantial archaeological “evidence” to confirm the information in the text before it is viewed as trustworthy, is quite problematic since such data is for the most part sparse and open to many possible interpretations. Instead of a qualified acceptance of the textual tradition, this approach resulted in the unsupported opinion that the textual tradition could not be trusted due to lack of “evidence”.

[9] Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago.

[10] Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1994. Truth and Method (translation revised by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, second, revised ed.). New York: Crossroad.

[11] Gunkel, Hermann. 1901. Genesis. Gottingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht.

[12] Hoffman, Yair. 2003. Review of Martin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds). The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twentieth Century. RBL 07/2004.

[13] The modernist perspective is clearly visible in their writings – they were children of their time.

[14] Soggin, Alberto. 1989. Introduction to the Old Testament: From Its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon (transl. John Bowden, 3rd ed.) Philadelphia: Westminster.

[15] Ebersheim, Alfred. Prophecy and History in Relation to the Messiah (Warburton Lectures for 1880-1884, 1885).

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)

Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?

In this essay I discuss the three most important views on the creation narrative of Genesis 1. These are the young earth view, the old earth view and the polemical text view. Each of these reflect the context of the community in which these views originated. Each view has a different approach in dealing with the relation between this creation narrative and the current scientific view about the origins of the cosmos. Each view has its own problems. I also develop a new approach which deals with the issues in a different way. The three uses of the word "day" (yom) in Genesis 1-2 are discussed. This essay is the first in a series on the Book of Genesis.

The creation narrative in Genesis 1 has been studied extensively for ages. It gives the Biblical account about the origin of the cosmos. Although there are many other ancient creation stories, this one is of special importance to Jews and Christians since it is found in the (Hebrew) Bible – which they regard as divinely-inspired. Most Christians believe that this narrative gives a "true" and correct account of the creation of the cosmos and more specifically, of the earth. But how does it compare with the current scientific view about the origin of the cosmos? Is it possible to subscribe to the Biblical account of creation in the face of scientific data that shows the earth to be billions of years old?

Any interpretation of Genesis 1 is confronted with the difference between the Biblical narrative of creation and the scientific narrative about the origin of the cosmos. Various strategies have been developed to achieve harmony between these narratives – some more successful than others. Any sensible interpretation should not only include good textual exegesis, taking the ancient worldview of the author into account; it should also – for those who believe in the divine inspiration of the Biblical text – be credible and believable.  For Christians who believe in the divine inspiration, the Biblical text has a certain integrity which transcends time – implying that although the creation account was written so long ago, it is valid even today. 

The most popular interpretations of the creation narrative of Genesis 1 could be grouped under three headings, namely 1) The young earth view, 2) The old earth view and 3) The polemical text view. Each of these follow a different approach to the text. What is interesting about these interpretations, is the extend to which they reflect the background of the communities who subscribe to these views. And all of them have some drawbacks – some more serious than others.

The young earth view

Some Christians believe that Genesis 1 teaches that earth is young. In their view the Bible (Genesis 1) teaches that the earth was created a few thousand years ago in six days of 24 hours each. This interpretation accepts uncritically that the days mentioned in Genesis 1 refer to solar days. They argue that not only the word "day" (yom) but also the expression "evening and the morning" which accompany each day of creation in Genesis 1 shows that solar days are spoken of since this expression reflects the Jewish way of reckoning days from sunset ("evening") to sunset.

This view is typically found in conservative communities who try to uphold a "literal" understanding of the Bible. Groups like the Answers in Genesis organization promotes this young earth creationism. Among these readers are those who follow a very simplistic approach to the text. Some of them do not even recognize that there is an unbridgeable distance between us and the original context in which the text was written. They think that they have in some way (through the Holy Spirit) access to the mind of the original author (Moses). They would typically argue: If the Bible says "days" then it is days. This is what the Moses meant by the word "day" and we should not doubt that. In this way they unconsciously establish their interpretation as the only valid view that is truly and uncompromisingly Biblical.

The truth is that we all interpret the text. Nobody have access to the mind of the original author. Nobody can boast of that. Even with the Holy Spirit in our lives, we are still humans who access the text with limited understanding and who bring our own particular background, insights and blind spots to the text. And once we understand this, that we are interpreting the text (as all humans do), then we recognize that our view is just one among various possible interpretations. Then we can be more open to acknowledge the weak arguments in our own position and consider the strong points of others.

There are various problems with the young earth view. It's interpretation of the word "day" as referring to solar days are particularly problematic. If it is assumed that the days in Genesis 1 refer to solar days of 24 hours each – days which exist because of the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun – then a fundamental contradiction arises, namely that we have to assume the existence of solar days without the sun! Why? Because the sun was only created on the fourth day. So one can ask: How is it possible to have solar days (the first three days) before the sun was created? It is not possible. How is it possible to have "evening and morning" without the sun? It is not possible.

Various proposals have been made to solve this problem. It is often assumed that the light that appeared on the first day have some connection to the sun which was created on the fourth day. But how could the gulf between the first and fourth days be bridged? Some have proposed that the first three days and the last three days (starting with the fourth day) of creation run parallel (there are some similarities between them). This view, however, contradicts another important feature of the Genesis narrative, namely that the days are not only numbered; they are consecutive. There can be no doubt that the reason for dividing the period of creation into seven days, was to establish creation as a model for the work week, with the seventh day (the Sabbath) as a day of rest (Gen. 2:2-3).

Another proposal is that the sun existed before the fourth day but that the atmospheric conditions made it impossible to see it. The sun therefore became visible only on the fourth day. This solves the problem to some extent because some brightening during daytime is now possible although the conventional meaning of "evening" (sunset) and "morning" (sunrise) has to be changed somewhat. But another problem is created, namely that it compromises the "literal" approach for which the proponents of this view are known – it assumes that the sun existed before it's creation is mentioned on the fourth day of creation (Gen. 1:16). If one allows for this, why not also allow for the word "day" to have a broader meaning? Some days seem to be longer – during the third day the land produced trees bearing fruit (Gen. 1:12)! And the seventh day during which God rested seems to be ongoing (Heb. 4:3-7). No literal interpretation should ignore the wider context of the text.

The most important problem with this view, however, is that it contradicts all scientific evidence. Scientists have demonstrated that the cosmos is billions of years old (findings in physics (radioactive dating), astronomy and geology affirms this). Surely God's revelation in Scripture would not contradict His revelation in nature. Why should the days of creation be taken as solar days when this interpretation creates such insurmountable problems? Why can't Christians accept an old earth? Surely God cannot be restricted to our limited conceptions of time (He is beyond time)!

Many evangelical scholars - most among those who produced the famous "Chicago Statement" on the inerrancy of the Bible (1978) - hold that the universe is millions or billions of years old. A similar situation existed a few hundred years ago when the geocentric view of the cosmos was still widely accepted. Christians found support for this view in the earth-centered perspective of the Biblical authors. But the Copernican revolution overturned this view. At that time Christians recognized that an earth-centered perspective does not necessarily imply that the earth is the center of the cosmos (even though the earth is of special importance in God's plan). It merely shows that those people described the world from their earthly viewpoint.

Some interpreters have tried to accommodate the scientific evidence for an old earth with the solar days view. C. I. Scofield propagated the view that there is a time gap between the first two verses of Genesis 1. According to his "gap theory" the earth was originally created perfect, but became "without form and void" with Lucifer's rebellion. In this scenario the creation narrative of Genesis 1 was in fact a recreation. But this interpretation does not solve the basic problems of the solar days view mentioned above. And there is no scientific evidence to support such total destruction of the earth or the reappearance of plants and animals a few thousand years ago.

The old earth view

Other Christians accept the scientific evidence that the cosmos is billions of years old and believe that Genesis 1 supports this. They affirm that the word "day (yom)" sometimes refer to long periods of time (see for example Gen. 2:4). In this interpretation the days of creation can in principle be billions of years long. Even though they acknowledge that the expression "evening and the morning" has reference to solar days, they view its usage here as metaphoric, referring to the "beginning and continuation" of each creation period. We can compare this usage with expressions like "the dawn of history" or the "evening of his life".

This view is especially popular among Christian scientists. They see a remarkable agreement between the creation narrative of Genesis 1 and the current scientific model of the origin of the universe (The Big Bang model). For example, in Genesis 1 the process of creation commenced when God said: "Let there be light". This appearance of light marks the beginning of the first period (day) of creation. According to the scientific view the cosmos came into being with the Big Bang some 13-15 billion years ago, when there suddenly (without any obvious reason) appeared a point of energy which rapidly expanded spatially to form the universe. The appearance of "light" in Genesis 1 corresponds with the sudden appearance of "energy" during the Big Bang.

There are also many other correspondences between the creation narrative in Genesis 1 and the scientific view about the history of the earth and the appearance of life on it. I mention some. 1) On the second day of creation the firmament of heaven was created. Similarly the cosmos expanded spatially after the Big Bang. 2)Water played an important role during the first few days of creation. Similarly hydrogen (which together with oxygen forms water) formed in the early stages after the Big Bang; hydrogen is the most basic and abundant element in the universe out of which all other elements (water included) came into existence.  Water was already present in the material from which the earth were formed. 3) The earth - dry ground surrounded by seas - only appeared after two creation periods. Similarly the earth formed some time after the Big Bang, about 4.6 billion years ago (as a planet of the sun - the planetary system formed from the debris of an earlier star). Over time a supercontinent (called Pannotia) came into existence; the water which originally accumulated in the atmosphere condensed to form the oceans. 

4) Life forms appeared on earth since the third creation period and became more complex in the following periods. During the third period seed bearing plants and trees appeared. Similarly the life forms that appeared since 3.6 billion years ago on earth became more complex with time - especially since the so-called Cambrian explosion (540-480 million years ago).  Land plants appeared about 500 million years ago.  More complex plants with seeds, flowering plants and trees appeared about 420-360 million years ago and trees with seeds about 300 million years ago. Great forests formed around the globe. 5) Water animals (and reptiles according to the Septuagint) and birds appeared during the fifth creation period. Similarly reptiles appeared about 300 million years ago, dinosaurs about 200 million years ago and birds about 150 million years go. This was the great age of reptiles and dinosaurs. 6) The mammals multiplied on earth during the six creation period. Similarly, the age of the mammals arrived after the extinction of the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago. 7) Humans were also created last during the six creation period. Similarly anatomically modern humans came into existence only very recently (about 200 000 years ago).

Although some groups like the Reasons to Believe organization believe that God was directly involved in creating the species (called old earth creationism), others view the Biblical process of creation as a process of theistic evolution. These readers find support for this interpretation in the ambivalent way in which the process of creation is described in Genesis 1. We for example read that God commanded the earth and the waters to bring forth the various species of plants and animals (Gen. 1:11,20, 24), which is then equated with God's acts of creating. Both the Hebrew words "made" (âsâh) and "created" (bârâ) are used in this regard (Gen. 1:21, 25). But how did the earth or water brought these species into being? Does it mean that the earth or water provided the milieu wherein new species were generated? Since this process of creation seems to have happened spontaneously, they argue that there is no reason why it could not have happened through the evolution of one species into another.

Does this mean that the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is accepted? Not necessarily. But it does mean that the unfolding process of biological evolution occurred according to the design that God built into the structure of the universe. Some Christians, like those from the BioLogos organization (evangelical Christians), believe that God worked through the Big Bang to create the cosmos and Neo-Darwinian evolution to form the species. They, however, do not support the "scientific" view of Genesis 1 described in this section; they support the polemical text view described in the next section.

This view also has its problems. A glaring problem is that in the Biblical account the sun was created on the fourth day of creation while in the scientific account the sun came into existence even before the earth formed. The answer given is that the sun already existed before the fourth creation period but that it, as well as the moon and the other stars, were not yet visible due to the dense atmospheric conditions (throughout Scripture the earth is taken as point of reference). It was the oxygenating of the air by the thriving plants (that appeared during the previous period) which changed the atmosphere from translucent to occasionally transparent. The fact that all the heavenly bodies became visible at the same time is in accordance with the interpretation that the sky cleared during this period. This interpretation solves the problem of life existing before the creation of the sun on the fourth day of creation.

Another point of critique is that this interpretation of Genesis 1 implies that the plants (created during the third period) existed long before the animals (created during the fifth period), which is impossible because of the interdependence between them. But which animals appeared during the fifth creation period? It seems that these were advanced species of animals, namely water animals and birds. Among the water animals mentioned are "great sea animals (whales in some translations) and every living creature that moveth" (Gen. 1:21), which the Septuagint gives as "great whales and every living reptile". This fits the overall pattern of creation according to which the more advanced species were created during the later periods. In this case there is no reason why the plants could not have existed long before these animals. (It is interesting that fish as such are not mentioned in Genesis 1. In the geological record, fish appear very early and became abundant about 420-360 million years ago. The well-known bone fish species, however, only became dominant at the time of the reptiles which corresponds with the fourth creation period.)

Genesis 1 does not give a full catalog of created things. It mentions some basic orders of things like seed bearing plants, trees, water animals (reptiles), birds, land mammals and humans. But elementary plants and animals like seaweeds, snails or insects are not mentioned. When were they created? If we take the overall pattern of creation into account (with more complex species appearing later), then these would have come into existence early during the third period of creation. What we find in Genesis 1 is only the most important features of each period (which were not of the same time length), namely plants and trees during the third period, the visible sun, moon and stars during the fourth period, water animals ("great sea animals" and reptiles) and birds during the fifth period and finally, land mammals and humans during the sixth period of creation. In this view the various creation periods overlap and could even merge into each other.

A more serious charge against this view is that it does not take the milieu in which the narrative was written into account. Although the creation narrative of Genesis 1 corresponds quite well with the current scientific view about the origin of the universe and the development of life on earth, the author had a very different worldview from our own. Even if we assume that divine inspiration accounts for this remarkable "correctness" in the Genesis account, we can still not divorce the text from the original world in which it originated. We should also study the text with that early worldview in mind.

The polemical text view

In contrast to the previous views, these students of Genesis 1 are especially interested in this narrative as ancient text. Their primarily concern is with the ancient situation in which the text originated – the world in which the author engaged with the people of his time. For them, it is first of all an ancient document speaking to the people of that time. Typical questions asked is: What was the purpose of the author in writing it? How is the issues of that time reflected in the text? For them the applicability of the text to our current concerns is secondary; they even argue that Genesis 1 is not in any sense a literal account of the creation of the world. They therefore do not see any contradiction between the Genesis narrative and the scientific narrative about the origin of the universe – these apply to different times, to different situations.

This view is especially popular among theologians and textual scholars - especially in Biblical Criticism circles. They are interested in the Hebrew author's concept of God and the way in which he defends his own view against that of the surrounding nations. To explore this, they study the surrounding influences found in this narrative. These provide the necessary information to gain a better understanding of the text. As theologians they are interested in theology, in the same way that the old earth view of Genesis 1 reflects the interest of Christian scientists.

Scholars holding this view believe that it is wrong to interpret this narrative as a "true and correct" account of the origin of the world. Some argue that it was not the intention of the author to present such a correct account in the first place. No, he only wanted to affirm that God created everything and that He is above all other gods. Some argues that even if he wanted to say something about the real origin of the world, he was obviously not in any position to say anything useful to us about it. His pre-scientific worldview excludes such a possibility. We should therefore not use it as a guide to the true origins of the universe, but acknowledge that it is a religious text that came into existence in a particular environment. Its value for us lies in the study of the author's view about God.

As expected, the creation narrative in Genesis 1 shows some agreement with other ancient Middle Eastern creation stories. The creation out of water (Gen. 1:2, 6-10) is an old theme in the ancient Middle East. In the Mesopotamian tradition it reflects the early human endeavors to create dry land in the southern morasses. Closely connected to this was the idea of creation as an act of ordering; of bringing order to chaos. In Genesis 1 God's acts of creation changed the original world, which was without form and void, with darkness upon the face of the deep (Gen. 1:2), into a place that humans could inhabit.

But why did the author of Genesis 1 placed the creation of the sun on the fourth day? This is a very important question that any sensible interpretation of Genesis 1 should answer. The typical answer given in these circles is that the author wanted to show that the sun and the moon, which some surrounding nations held as important gods, could not be compared with the great creator God of the Hebrews who brought all things into existence. God is so powerful that He could create light and let the plants grow even without the presence of the sun. According to this interpretation the Genesis 1 narrative is an ancient polemical text in which the Hebrew author was arguing his case against those who worshiped other gods.

On the face of things it seems to be a sensible answer. But is it correct? We have absolutely no way of knowing! We do not know what the intention of the original author was. There are even some reasons to reject this assumption. This answer, for example, does not make sense if we explore the context in which this narrative is supposed to have come into existence, namely during or after the Babylonian exile (in the six century). Scholars date this narrative to this period because the author uses the divine name Elohim which they associate with the so-called E (Elohim)-source used for the Pentateuch. This implies that the author wrote against the background of the Babylonian milieu. But the most important Babylonian god was Marduk, who was a weather god. The sun and moon gods did not play an important role in the Babylonian (or Mesopotamian for that matter) theology! So why would the author try to assert the authority of the Hebrew God against these unimportant gods?

The supposed Babylonian background of Genesis 1 is also problematic from other angles. We, for example, find absolutely nothing in this creation narrative that is distinctively Babylonian (or Assyrian). Neither the overall worldview of the author nor the particular creation motifs show any particular Babylonian influences. We do not find any of the complicated creation motifs typical of the Babylonian creation story (for example of the conflict between the gods or the creation of the world from the body of the killed dragon) in Genesis 1. Although there are clear Mesopotamian influences, these are typical of the early Sumerian traditions (the world of Abraham and his forefathers) [1].

Some scholars try to salvage this interpretation by proposing an Egyptian background for the text. This means that the author was directing his arguments towards the Egyptian gods. This is possible if we assume that the text was written in a period when the Israelites had some interaction with the Egyptians, which happened during various periods in Israel's history. In this case the argument could work: One of the oldest and most prominent Egyptian gods was the creator god Atum who was syncretized with the sun god Ra. So in this scenario the Hebrew author wanted to show that his God was greater than the great Egyptian sun god – He created the sun only on the fourth day. And the motif of the primaeval earth coming forth out of the primaeval waters is also an old Egyptian concept (as it is an Mesopotamian one).

Although this view makes sense, one can ask if there are not other proposals that make even more sense? The problem with the Egyptian context for Genesis 1 is that the rest of the ancient history in Genesis is clearly taken from ancient Mesopotamian (more correctly, Sumerian) sources. Why would only this narrative reflects the Egyptian milieu? And why should we cling to the view that the author tried to assert the might of his God over the other gods. Maybe it was never his intention at all! 

 

This view has other problems also – especially for those Christians who believe in the divine inspiration of Scripture. Although it correctly asserts that the author did not write a scientific account of creation – he was a person of his time and his view was influenced by the ancient thinking about the world – it also rejects the possibility that the narrative (through divine inspiration) could in fact be a creditable account of creation as it really happened. In viewing the author's perspective as useless for any serious consideration in any current debate on creation, it undermines the credibility of the text as a divine source of revelation. It is in this regard that this view is in danger of undermining or even rejecting any sensible view on the inspiration of Scripture.

A new approach

In my opinion both the old earth view as well as the polemical text view have some merit. The value of the polemical text view lies in its study of the ancient motifs found in the text. Obviously the author was a person of his time who's view was determined by the ancient worldview current at that time. Any sensible view of the divine inspiration of the text should incorporate some serious consideration of the personal, social and historical factors influencing the author. On the other hand, the value of the old earth view lies in its affirmation of the remarkable "correctness" of the Genesis account when compared with the current scientific view about the origin of the cosmos and the appearance of life on earth. It shows that the account does not only have an historical dimension (reflecting the ancient context in which the text originated); it is also applicable to the current debates about creation. It shows that the origin of the cosmos can be studied both scientifically and theologically. It is at the end of the day God who created the world and affirmed it in his Word.

What is striking about Genesis 1 is the presence of many Sumerian motifs in this creation narrative. Genesis 1 is not unique in this regard.  There are many other Mesopotamian influences in the opening chapters of Genesis – all of which is taken from the old Sumerian stratum of thinking. (There is no sign that the author of Genesis knew anything about the Neo-Assyrian/Neo-Babylonian world of the exile.) [2] So, who were the Sumerians who's ideas had such an influence on the author of the Book of Genesis? 

Although scholars differ about the time of the first appearance of the Sumerians in the southern plains of Mesopotamia, most accept that this happened at least as early as ~4000 BC (some would argue for ~6000 BC).  The Sumerian's rule over the city states of southern Mesopotamia lasted until ~2000 BC. They created the world's first civilization in ancient Mesopotamia and their culture had an enormous impact on all the later civilizations in the ancient Middle East.  From a Biblical perspective, Sumer is important because this is the country where Abraham's family is said to have originated (according to Gen. 11:28, 31 they came from the city of Ur, one of the most important Sumerian cities). In my book Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012) I argue that the ancient history mentioned in the the first part of Genesis (Gen. 2-11) not only refer (in large part) to events that happened in that country, but also shows that the knowledge of those events came with Abraham's family to Canaan where it later became part of Israelite tradition. This implies that it was part of the patriarchal source material that was used by the author of the Book of Genesis.  It is therefore not strange to find these motifs in Genesis 1.

When we read "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1) it is a grand statement that God created the cosmos and all in it – the term "heaven and earth" is an old Sumerian expression referring to the cosmos. In Sumerian literature the first sentence gives an important hint as to the nature of the work – the same is true in this case. The next statement, namely that the "earth" was without form and void simply states that the earth as we know it did not exist. What existed was the "deep" (Gen. 1:2). This is the Sumerian "apsu", the primaeval waters (later the subterranean waters), the original chaos out of which "heaven and earth" was created according to various Sumerian sources (This is typical of the Eridu mythology as described in Sumerian works like Enki en Ninmah).

Then God created "light". This also reflects the Sumerian tradition according to which a brilliant light (associated with the fire god Gibil) appeared out of the original deep. The cosmos that came into being, in which the "firmament" plays an important role, is also typical of the ancient Sumerian worldview which is found all over the ancient Middle Eastern world (in my book Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012) there is a discussion of this worldview). An important feature of the Genesis 1 narrative is that God created the sun relatively late in the process of creation. This also corresponds with Sumerian thought - the sun god was thought to be a later addition to the family of the gods.  In some early mythologies the sun god is listed as the later offspring of the original waters [3]. 

There is therefore no need to view the Genesis 1 narrative as a polemical text except if the author wanted to affirm that the Hebrew God was the creator of the cosmos.  In general the narrative (with the creation of the sun at a later stage) reflects the old Sumerian worldview of the early forefathers of the Israelites.  Anybody who knows the Sumerian traditions will recognize the strikingly Sumerian flavor of the Genesis 1 narrative - this Sumerian input in the Israelite tradition is also visible in the next few chapters of the Book of Genesis. The author of the creation narrative in Genesis 1 reworked the well-known motifs which originated in the Sumerian age, adding the creation of all sorts of plants and animals, as well as humans. He also replaced the earlier polytheistic perspective with the monotheistic view of the Hebrews.

What is unique about the Genesis narrative, over and above the monotheistic view, is the way in which the author divided the process of creation into seven days. The seven day week was already known at least as early as the Ur III period in Sumer (~2100-2000 BC). It is also mentioned in early Canaan in the Ugarit texts (~1400-1200 BC). But it got special significance in Israel where it is mentioned already in the "ten commandments" attributed to Moses (Ex. 34:27, 28). It is clear from the statement at the end of this narrative (Gen. 2:2-3) that the reason for dividing the process of creation into seven days was to establish it, not only as a model for the work week, but especially as a model for the seventh day of rest (the Sabbath): "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made". This implies that the narrative was not so much directed towards the surrounding nations; rather, it was written for an early Israelite audience.

The author of Genesis 1 used motifs typical to the ancient worldview and rearranged them into a new pattern – into seven creation days. He did this to establish a divine model for the practice of keeping the Sabbath as a day of rest. This approach – to write a creation narrative which serves as model for cult practice – is found all over the ancient Middle East.  It also shows that this narrative probably originated at the time when the Sabbath was first introduced as part of Israel's cult practice - which go back to the time when Moses received the "ten commandments" [4].  In reworking the old motifs handed down by the patriarchs he wrote a narrative that Jews and Christians to this day view as a "true" and "correct" account of creation as it really happened. This is what is so remarkable about this narrative – and what distinguishes it from all other creation stories – that it has such a dynamic potential for interpretation that it could be viewed to this day by Christian scientists as a credible account of creation.

The close connection between the work week and the seven days of creation should not mislead us to think that the author necessarily had solar days in mind when he wrote this narrative. The word "day" (yom) is used in three different ways in Genesis 1-2. In Genesis 2:4 it is used to refer to the whole process of creation: "the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth" (Although the Masoretic text have "the earth and the heavens", the Septuagint reading which I quote is clearly the correct one). This proofs that the word "day" was used in Hebrew tradition to refer to a "period of time". In this case this period of time (the day of creation) includes all seven days of creation.

The other use of the word "day" occurs in Genesis 1:14-17. In this case it clearly refers to solar days. This is the days that came into existence with the creation of the sun on the fourth day of creation. With the creation of the sun, "day" and "night" became divided: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night" (Gen. 1:14) – there was a certain boundary which divided them. This means that these days have a certain beginning in the morning and an end in the evening (i.e. evening and morning started with these days). We read further: "And God made the two great lights, the greater light for regulating the day and the lesser light for regulating the night. And God placed them in the firmament of the heaven, so as to shine upon the earth, and to regulate day and night, and to divide between light and darkness" (taken from the Septuagint).

In line with the origin of the solar days with the creation of the sun, we read that the sun and moon were created to be "for signs and for seasons and for days and for years" (Gen. 1:14). It is quite interesting to find the word "days" here. It clearly states that solar "days" made its appearance with the creation of the sun on the fourth day of creation. "Seasons" and "years" also started with the creation of the sun on the fourth creation day (this is actually a very basic observation). This statement seems to imply that the author had longer periods in mind when he used the word "day" in the context of creation – clearly the fourth period of creation could have included many of these solar days, seasons and years.

The third use of the word "day" occurs throughout the creation narrative. It refers to the seven days of creation. It is already clear from our discussion of the second use of the word "day" (i.e. as solar days) that the author could not have meant solar days when he wrote his creation narrative. He is using the word to refer to longer periods of time in accordance with the first use of the word – but in this case it refers to the seven periods into which the process of creation have been divided.

There is, however, a certain resemblance between creation days and solar days. Both of these begin with the appearance of light – the first day of creation began when light appeared and solar days begin when the first sunlight appears in the morning. When the light appeared on the first "day" of creation, it was divided from darkness (Gen. 1:4), even though days were not yet divided from night (that happened only on the fourth day of creation). This period of light which started with the first appearance of light, is called "day" (Gen. 1:5) – in analogue with the solar days which came later. In this case it was only the first day that started with the appearance of light.

Although the days of creation is clearly not solar days but longer periods of time, there is no indication how long these periods were. Were they relatively short periods? Or were they long periods of billions of years? The text gives no real clues. It is not even clear if they were of the same length. It seems quite possible that it never was the author's purpose to answer these questions. He did not write within a scientific framework where these questions are important. His primary concern were the grounding of the Sabbath in the divine model of creation – not to answer scientific questions about the length of these periods. But this vagueness is at the same time the reason why this account has such potential for interpretation – why it is relevant to our present day concerns. This is the reason why we can read it as a credible account of creation in the light of scientific evidence that the cosmos is billions of years old (even if we do not agree with all the arguments of the old earth view). 

Conclusions

We can draw some conclusions from this discussion. The young earth view should be discarded, not only because it goes against all scientific evidence, but also because it does not offer any sensible explanation as to how solar days could have existed without the sun. The old earth view has merit in that it shows that Genesis 1 gives a credible account of creation – and thereby establishes the timelessness of Scripture as divine source of revelation. The problem with this view is, however, that it does not take the original milieu in which the text was written into account. Genesis 1 is not a scientific account of creation; it is a divinely-inspired account written within the context of the ancient worldview, which is applicable even today. The polemical text view, which is so popular in the circles of critical Bible scholarship, gives a possible context wherein the text could have been written, but there are other possibilities that seem to be more likely. And it is in danger of undermining the divine inspiration of Scripture that Christians believe in.

In my approach I evaluate the ancient context of the Genesis 1 narrative – which shows that it originated at an early date within Israelite circles (definitely not during or after the time of the Babylonian exile) which was influenced by the old Sumerian worldview that spread all over the ancient Middle East. It is possible that these influences (together with other material used in the first part of the Book of Genesis) originally came with Abraham's family from Sumer after which it became part of the patriarchal source material that the author of Genesis 1 used to construct his narrative.   

I also showed that the Israelite author reworked the old Sumerian motifs in a new way – and in doing so he established the divine creation as a model for the work week and the Sabbath.  This most probably happened at the time when the Sabbath was first introduced into cult practice in Israel - which according to Biblical sources go back to the "ten commandments" of Moses [5].  The author divided the creation period into seven consecutive periods in analogue to the seven days of the week. He did not give any real indication of how long those periods were. This allows us to find common ground with the scientific view on the origin of the universe. And it underscores what Christians believe in: that the Scriptures are the divinely-inspired Word of God.

[1] There are in fact no Mesopotamian motifs in the Pentateuch which dates after the Old-Babylonian period (the time of Abraham). This casts doubt upon the scholarly view that those Mesopotamian influences came from Babylon during the exile. It suggests that these motifs came with Abraham's family from Sumer to Canaan. See my book Op soek na Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012).

[2] The Sumerian origin of the Mesopotamian motifs in Genesis is not negated by the later editing of the book in Neo-Babylonian times, for example Gen.11:28, 31 (the words "of the Chaldees" date from Neo-Babylonian times). See also Gen. 36:31.

[3] Van Dijk, J. 1976. Le Motif Cosmique dans la pensée Sumérienne. Acta Orientalia 28:1-59.

[4] We find the same idea in Ex. 20:11 where the original giving of the ten commandments is described. There is clearly a strong connection between the views expressed in Gen. 2:2-3 and Ex. 20:11. When these commandments were repeated (Deut. 5), this reason for keeping the Sabbath is not mentioned. A new reason is given, namely that the Sabbath rest reflects the rest that Israel was about to enter after their deliverance from slavery in Egypt (Deut. 5:15). (According to the Deuteronomy narrative they were encamped across the river Jordan when the commandments were given anew - Deut. 1:1; 4:44-46). This seems to imply that the institution of the Sabbath has become an integral part of the cult practice in Israel by the time that they reached the Jordan, i.e. there was no need to reaffirm the earlier justification for the keeping of the Sabbath. Now, the new reality (the land of "rest" laying before them) dominated their thinking.
[5] This strongly suggest that Moses was the author of the Book of Genesis as is traditionally held.

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud. Posted on www.wmcloud.blogspot.com

The author has written a book on the Sumerian roots of the Bible (Op soek na Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012)) and is a scientist (PhD in Physics). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, science and eschatology.

To read more about the Septuagint: The importance of the Septuagint in Biblical studies

If readers find the article interesting, they are welcome to share it or forward it to others, including their pastors or other scholars.