I’ve read other threads regarding this topic, such as was Adam the first human, where did Cain’s wife come from, the proliferation of the human race, and so on. And I generally agree with what’s been said here. But my pastor at the local church takes on a different approach, and I just wanted to see your opinions.
He is of the reformed camp and takes seeing Christ in all the scriptures very seriously, which I agree with. However, he applies it to the creation story and interprets it as a direct analogy of the redemption story, which goes something like this.
He stresses that this shouldn’t be taken as a literal or even a chronological account of the creation that many Christians take it as. Rather, he claims that the whole of creation was finished in Genesis 1:1. Days in the creation story are then there to show God’s covenant (perfect covenant in the perfect number of seven days) and to provide a direct analogy of how Christ entered the world to his death, resurrection, and the subsequent events in the early church.
In verse 2, there is darkness and chaos. This describes the fallen condition, he says. On separation of the waters on the second day, he attributes the upper waters to truth, or Christ, and the water below to non-truth, or sin. When the waters combine, that is in Noah’s story, he says it’s an analogy of Christ’s death, as in His baptism. Just as how baptism symbolizes our death, the waters combining can then be interpreted in the same manner, how Christ comes down to become the sin on the cross. And the appearance of the land on the third day is then analogous to deliverance from sin on the cross, in the same way that Noah’s ark after the flood stopped on the revealed land or as the Israelites’ passing through the Red Sea is analogous to their deliverance from Egypt. And only after this redemptive process begins the creation of animals and plants and so on. This is the multiplying and flourishing as commanded to Adam, which becomes possible only after we are free of sin (in any meaningful way that is). And this is how the early church events, or how the Christian life can bear any meaning as well.
Now I know this is a very different approach but it does alleviate some issues as well as raising more problems and questions. For example, this explains what some young-earth creationists such as myself raise on the creation of the sun, moon, and the stars after the vegetation and the animals. How did photosynthesis work? Of course, there are some attempts made to answer this such as alternate light source, etc. But does it really address the core issue?
It seemed a bit far fetched at first, but my pastor has a deep understanding of the Hebrew text, so he is not being arbitrary in any way. And Genesis is the first book of the Bible, and the whole Bible does point to Christ. Then how can the first verses of the Bible not point to Christ? Having said that, he does raise other contentious issues I don’t agree with such as Pre-Adamites, but that’s beside the point really.
I am raising this question because he bases his points on the interpretation of the Hebrew text of which I don’t have any knowledge. I would appreciate any input. Thank you and God bless.