What did Jesus believe about Genesis?

[Ave Maria]

Do the Gospels give us any idea as to what Jesus believed about Genesis or how He interpreted it? If so, what was Jesus' position? Ready, set, debate!

 

[JohnR7]

Do the Gospels give us any idea as to what Jesus believed about Genesis or how He interpreted it? If so, what was Jesus' position? Ready, set, debate!

Just run a search on the key wood "moses" Also Paul talks about it quite a bit.

Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
John 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

 

[Assyrian]

Do the Gospels give us any idea as to what Jesus believed about Genesis or how He interpreted it? If so, what was Jesus' position? Ready, set, debate!

Hi Paladin,
Jesus certainly mentioned Noah, but didn't say anything about a global flood.

He didn't mention Adam and Eve, just that God created humans male and female. He went on to quote Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall join to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. The thing is, this conclusion does not follow from the literal story Eve being made from Adam's rib. There is nothing in the account of God cloning the first woman that leads to the conclusion of monogamy, the nuclear family or the spiritual and physical union of man and wife.

The only way you can get this is if the account of Eve being made from Adam's rib is an allegorical picture of marriage in the first place, that God's message to us in the account is that my wife is 'flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone.

This allegorical interpretation of the the story is actually written into the Genesis account itself, and it is the bit Jesus repeats when he quote authoritatively from Genesis 2.

Just run a search on the key wood "moses" Also Paul talks about it quite a bit.

Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
John 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Not sure what Moses has to do with the Genesis debate. Jesus considered the book of Moses authoritative, but that doesn't tell us how he believed they should be read. After all Jesus gave us the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan, which are certainly authoritative scripture from the mouth of the Son of God himself, but they are not meant to be taken literally.

Interestingly the quote you gave tells us all things written by Moses about the Messiah must be fulfilled. We read it again in Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. In the context of Genesis, we find the first great prophecy of a redeemer in Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

If the account of the serpent in Genesis was meant to be understood literally, Where in the Gospels do we read of Jesus being bitten on the foot by a snake, or our redeemer crushing a snake's head?

Blessings Assyrian

 

[gluadys]

Do the Gospels give us any idea as to what Jesus believed about Genesis or how He interpreted it? If so, what was Jesus' position? Ready, set, debate!

Luke 2:41-50

Jesus received rabbinical training. What he believed about Genesis would be consistent with the rabbinical beliefs of his time.

He would, for example, accept the rabbinical attribution of the Torah to Moses, although literary analysis shows that probably Moses didn't write a word of it. He often refers to the Torah simply as "Moses".

 

[shernren]

Nobody ever asked Jesus, "Do you believe in Genesis as a literal and historically indicative description of the actual origins of creation?" Or if they did, nobody ever got around to recording how He answered.

So I really don't know what He would have said. Having said that, I think the onus is on the YECs to prove that only their view and no other makes Jesus' sayings internally consistent (as "plain interpretation" is supposed to disregard external evidence). Assyrian has made a pretty good counter-argument to that.

 

[jereth]

Great to see a YECist raise this question.

I, and surely most other TEs, would happily convert to YECism if it could be shown that:
- Jesus taught the world was created in 6 literal days
- Jesus taught creation was recent
- Jesus taught a literal Adam and eve, from whom all humanity is descended
- Jesus taught a literal Garden of Eden, serpent, and forbidden fruit
- Jesus taught that all plant and animals types were created miraculously

Of course, Jesus taught none of the above -- hence we are not ready to change our minds just yet.

 

[sjdennis]

Jesus never directly taught about origins, that is true. He never said whether the world was created in six days, whether the flood was global or not, because HE DIDN'T NEED TO. The Jews he was talking to already believed all this. They had the Torah. They knew God created in 6 days. They didn't need Jesus to tell them this, Jesus focussed his teaching on salvation.

The most vaguely relevant thing Jesus did say about origins was John 5:46-47
"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
In other words, he was saying that people should believe the writings of Moses (eg Genesis) just as they should believe Jesus. This still is only vaguely relevant however, don't bother arguing with me overly much about this quote.

When Paul was preaching to the Greeks in Athens, he did talk about origins. This is because they did not believe the Torah, and needed to be taught about the true creation of the world. The bible does not record Jesus preaching to Greeks, however if he did he would probably have said something like Paul did in Acts 17:24-31, Paul's very brief summary of origins etc.

Jesus didn't teach about origins. He said to read what Moses wrote about origins. What Moses wrote is very clear: God created the world in six days.

 

[shernren]

Jesus never directly taught about origins, that is true. He never said whether the world was created in six days, whether the flood was global or not, because HE DIDN'T NEED TO. The Jews he was talking to already believed all this. They had the Torah. They knew God created in 6 days. They didn't need Jesus to tell them this, Jesus focussed his teaching on salvation.

And yet Jesus was remarkably iconoclastic for His time in certain areas. I will use the analogy of the wine and the wineskin which Jesus Himself used, slightly modified: the wine being the truth God intended to communicate, and the wineskin being the cultural adaptation and paradigms God used to communicate that truth.

Jesus displayed a variety of attitudes towards wineskins. Some wineskins He simply did away with. For example, He broke loose of the Pharisees' restrictive interpretations of the Sabbath with powerfully controversial miracles: is it wrong to heal on a day of rest? He alo broke apart their idea of sin and consequences in His healing of the blind man.

There were some wineskins He didn't have much problem with. For example, He denounced adultery and murder like any other moral teacher - He even went further in His authority and extended adultery to include lustful thoughts and extended murder to include hateful thoughts. He also often imbued His actions with prophetic nuances - healing the blind, for instance, a specifically Messianic miracle - to emphasize His point.

But then, there are wineskins which He seems to have used without comment. He accommodated those without either commending or condemning them. For example, Jesus says nothing about whether or not slavery is ethical. In many of His sayings slavery is a part of the cultural framework, and the way servants were treated ("cut up and thrown into outer darkness"?) in His stories would seem unethically harsh on our ears. Clearly Jesus was not rejecting slavery, seeing how He wove it into His teachings; and yet it would be strange to say that Jesus condoned or supported slavery. The conclusion then is that Jesus merely accommodated slavery as a necessary part of the current worldview.

One easily sees why: slavery was the best possible option in the days when labor-saving technology was not readily available. The supports of society were not strong enough for a society without slavery. It isn't too much of a stretch to imagine that He attached the same kind of status to the wineskin of the creation story. To be sure, you yourself have pointed out that Jesus rarely comes out in open support of it. Granted, Jesus was never asked if it ought to be defended against being read as a myth, and so whatever we say must necessarily be a tad speculative and "reverently agnostic".

But I do not think it contrary to Scripture to imagine Jesus using the creation story as a part of the backdrop - alluding to it as a convenient encapsulation of the shared background between Him and the Pharisees, without necessarily lending the weight of His testimony to its historicity. That He and the Pharisees both considered the creation account to be true, we can agree. But I do not think the recorded life of Jesus alone can conclusively answer our question, whether or not He thought that Genesis 1 has to be historical to be true.

 

[Assyrian]

Jesus never directly taught about origins, that is true. He never said whether the world was created in six days, whether the flood was global or not, because HE DIDN'T NEED TO. The Jews he was talking to already believed all this. They had the Torah. They knew God created in 6 days. They didn't need Jesus to tell them this, Jesus focussed his teaching on salvation.

Not so sure about that. You obviously had people who took the six days literally, some also saw a prophetic meaning that creation would last six thousand years, looking at it in the context of Psalm 90:4. Philo on the other hand believed it is quite foolish to think that the world was created in the space of six days or in a space of time at all.

The most vaguely relevant thing Jesus did say about origins was John 5:46-47
"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
In other words, he was saying that people should believe the writings of Moses (eg Genesis) just as they should believe Jesus. This still is only vaguely relevant however, don't bother arguing with me overly much about this quote.

As I have said before, Jesus never did fulfil the promise in Gen 3 that the Messiah would crush the serpents head. Not literally anyway.

The closest Jesus comes to dealing with the six day creation is in his attitude to the seventh day of creation.

The Israelites were commanded to rest on the seventh day because: Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Here we have a repetition of Gen 2:2 used as the basis for Sabbath observance. The Israelites were to rest on the Seventh day because God did, and because God made it holy.

Jesus on the other hand tells us, Mark 2:27 And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. It appears Jesus did not take the basis for the Sabbath given in Genesis and Exodus literally.

He didn't even seem to take God resting on the Seventh day literally. John 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working." According to Jesus, he and his Father never stopped working.

Certainly when Jesus dealt with day seven of the creation week, he gave us a completely different wineskin form the traditional literalist one.

When Paul was preaching to the Greeks in Athens, he did talk about origins. This is because they did not believe the Torah, and needed to be taught about the true creation of the world. The bible does not record Jesus preaching to Greeks, however if he did he would probably have said something like Paul did in Acts 17:24-31, Paul's very brief summary of origins etc.

Jesus didn't teach about origins. He said to read what Moses wrote about origins. What Moses wrote is very clear: God created the world in six days.

I don't think Paul's speech in Athens helps. There are differences between the Greek manuscripts, but they don't say God made every nation from 'one man'. The two main readings are 'from one blood' or 'from one'. What we don't have is a slam dunk 'everyone descended from Adam' verse. It could be one man, it could be one race, or it could simply be Paul affirming the unity of humanity.

You do have a good point that we should see more reference to creation when the NT is addressed to Gentiles. Yet even in epistles written to Gentile churches, there is no reference to a six day creation, though there is plenty of reference to God creating everything. The writers simply didn't seem to think the issue of how long God took was important.

There are plenty of references to Adam in Paul's writing, but he has a very strong tendency to give an allegorical interpretation to Adam's meaning for us.

Blessings Assyrian

 

[Willtor]

Jesus never directly taught about origins, that is true. He never said whether the world was created in six days, whether the flood was global or not, because HE DIDN'T NEED TO. The Jews he was talking to already believed all this. They had the Torah. They knew God created in 6 days. They didn't need Jesus to tell them this, Jesus focussed his teaching on salvation.

Did they believe as you say? That's a good question. Of course we are agreed that they accepted it as the authoritative source on origins. But what sources would you cite that indicate they interpreted it literally?

The most vaguely relevant thing Jesus did say about origins was John 5:46-47
"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
In other words, he was saying that people should believe the writings of Moses (eg Genesis) just as they should believe Jesus. This still is only vaguely relevant however, don't bother arguing with me overly much about this quote.

Keep in mind that we all believe Genesis, and some of us interpret it as trying to communicate an historical sequence of events.

When Paul was preaching to the Greeks in Athens, he did talk about origins. This is because they did not believe the Torah, and needed to be taught about the true creation of the world. The bible does not record Jesus preaching to Greeks, however if he did he would probably have said something like Paul did in Acts 17:24-31, Paul's very brief summary of origins etc.

Jesus didn't teach about origins. He said to read what Moses wrote about origins. What Moses wrote is very clear: God created the world in six days.

Of course it's clear that that's what it says. The question is whether the narrative is intended to communicate something historical or something figurative (or something in between)?

 

[tjnesbitt]

So does that mean that Jesus was a Catholic?

 

[KerrMetric]

I think it is safe to say he was Jewish.

 

[Optimax]

Do the Gospels give us any idea as to what Jesus believed about Genesis or how He interpreted it? If so, what was Jesus' position? Ready, set, debate!

Can we save a lot of preliminary scripture and agree that Jesus is God.
Therefore the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are all in agreement and have been working together even before the foundation of the world on God’s Plan for man.

The following scriptures leave no doubt that Jesus was the one (Pre-Incarnate) that made the all things, including the world.

Jn 1:3
3 All things were made by him ; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
KJV
Jn 1:10
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him , and the world knew him not.
KJV

I would say based on these scriptures and many others that:

I believe it is clear that Jesus believes Genesis.

 

[Willtor]

It's not about whether he believes Genesis, but what he believes about it. How did he interpret it when he was on Earth?

 

[RightWingGirl]

Luke 2:41-50

Jesus received rabbinical training. What he believed about Genesis would be consistent with the rabbinical beliefs of his time.

Is Jesus all-knowing? If he is, than he would have known the truth, no matter what he was told by men.

 

[Willtor]

Is Jesus all-knowing? If he is, than he would have known the truth, no matter what he was told by men.

This is possibly so. He gave up quite a lot when he took on human flesh (emptying himself, as it were). Whether part of this emptying included omniscience is certainly an interesting question. He certainly seemed to know a lot of things that other people didn't know. At any rate, he certainly didn't lose access to the will of God (a contradiction), so we can certainly accept any and all implications and commandments. But as to omniscience, it's a good question.

Multilingual people tend to think in a particular language and translate to others. This is part of a larger cultural phenomenon in which a particular culture influences semantics and the very terms used by people within that society. To be sure, if Christ gave up omniscience in taking on flesh, he would have thought in the cultural paradigm in which he was raised. If that were so, the only things that would not sit well with him would have been the things of the society that were not in line with the will and commandment of God. Thus, distinguishing historicity from figurative saga might not have been something he did.

It is always the question of what it really meant for him to empty himself.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

It certainly wasn't high on his list of things of importance.

 

[shernren]

Is Jesus all-knowing? If he is, than he would have known the truth, no matter what he was told by men.

After He healed the centurion's servant, did He ask the centurion to set him free? No? Does that then mean that Jesus supported slavery? Or simply that He accommodated it?

If Jesus could accommodate slavery without supporting it, then He could also have accommodated a common interpretation of Genesis without supporting it unequivocally.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Hi Paladin,

Jesus certainly mentioned Noah, but didn't say anything about a global flood.

He didn't mention Adam and Eve, just that God created humans male and female. He went on to quote Gen 2:24Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall join to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. The thing is, this conclusion does not follow from the literal story Eve being made from Adam's rib. There is nothing in the account of God cloning the first woman that leads to the conclusion of monogamy, the nuclear family or the spiritual and physical union of man and wife.
Interestingly the quote you gave tells us all things written by Moses about the Messiah must be fulfilled. We read it again in Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. In the context of Genesis, we find the first great prophecy of a redeemer in Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
If the account of the serpent in Genesis was meant to be understood literally, Where in the Gospels do we read of Jesus being bitten on the foot by a snake, or our redeemer crushing a snake's head?

We know that Satan can possess animals, and it is possible that at that time Satan possessed a snake. In that case, the prophecy was about a literal snake, i.e. Satan, and it has been fulfulled.(Satan ended up killing Jesus, and Jesus certainly injured satan very effectively by giving victory over death and sin.)

 

[gluadys]

Is Jesus all-knowing? If he is, than he would have known the truth, no matter what he was told by men.

No more reason to suppose that in his earthly life Jesus was any more omniscient than he was omnipresent. We are told that God the Son “emptied himself” to become incarnate as a human being. Jesus was not God walking around pretending to be human. He was God actually become human. That means that although he was God, he submitted to human limitations.