Did Luther and Calvin Interpret Genesis 1 Literally?
Happy late Reformation Day!
A common misconception about the Reformation was that Protestants completely swept away Catholic Tradition for their own personal reading of Scripture. Such an accusation, while popular today, can only be rightly placed on the Anabaptist sect. The Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican circles argued that they were the ones holding to the tradition of the Catholic Church, and that Rome had gone astray.
To make their case, the Reformers not only looked to Scripture, but also the Church Fathers. This is sometimes called retrieval. The Reformers retrieved the theology set forth by Scripture and the Fathers that they felt conflicted with theologies pressed by the Roman Catholic Church of their day.
As Christians, I believe retrieval is important, but it can also be messy. Just like understanding the cultural context of Scripture, understanding the cultural context of historical theologians is no light task. Different languages, cultural customs, political events, and historical circumstances need to be considered.
A theological debate that has taken a lot of space in the present day of the Church, especially Protestantism, is understanding Scripture in light of scientific discovery. There are several subtopics in this one topic alone, but for this blog we’ll just focus on Genesis 1. Genesis 1 also has layers of questions regarding modern science, but again, we’ll keep it simple for this blog.
I can thankfully say the heated division on “Evolution vs The Bible” or “Young Earth vs Old Earth” has cooled down in recent years. I see more Christians are open to different interpretations of Creation beyond a literal one while still believing Scripture to be true and inspired. More importantly, I see an increase of Christians recognizing that the topic is a second (if not third) tier issue and we can agree to disagree on how old the earth is or literal passages like Genesis 1 are.
Nevertheless, the topic still gets brought up from time to time, and some are still adamant that a Bible believing Christian must hold a view of Young Earth Creationism. For this blog, we're going to briefly look at Martin Luther and John Calvin, and how they interpreted Genesis 1. It’s one thing for a Protestant to retrieve the Church Fathers on this subject, but what about retrieving two of the most influential Reformers?
Divine Accommodation
From the Church Fathers to the present day, Christians have understood that God’s infinite wisdom and indescribable complexity can never be fully understood by humanity. To help us in our limitations, God accommodates His language to us. This is called Divine Accommodation Theory:
“Broadly speaking, ‘accommodation’ refers to the manner by which God manifests his presence or intervenes in time and space in order to facilitate finite, human understanding. Sometimes the word ‘condescension’ is used, highlighting the fact that God has ‘come down’ to the level or capacity of humanity to make himself understood.”
The fact is, Christians of all traditions apply this theory to some extent in their reading of Scripture. The question isn’t if we should believe that God accommodates His infinite wisdom for our finite understanding. Rather, the question is how far does He accommodate? We believe the Creation story of Genesis 1 is true, but how much of its description is literal and how much is God condescending to the original audience so they can understand?
The Number of Days
Regarding the ongoing debate about the earth being old or young, one of the primary pieces examined in Genesis 1 is the description of earth being made in six days. While previous theologians offered different readings of the text, Luther and Calvin interpreted God creating the world in a literal six day period. Allegorical interpretations, such as Augustine’s from the 4th century were rejected.
While that may seem like a closed case for a literal reading, I would respectfully say the conversation doesn’t stop there. Calvin read the six days literally, but he didn’t necessarily read other parts of Genesis 1 literally.
John Calvin and Cosmology
The last century of scholarship has noted striking similarities of vocabulary and scientific description in the Hebrew Scriptures and other Ancient Near Eastern literature. While some of these similarities have been overstated at times, they also show cultural similarities. “While the ancient Hebrews held a cosmology different from the modern scientific view, they seem to have had one similar to the Ancient Near Eastern cosmologies.” (Tsumura, 2018, Pg. 225)
Does this compromise Scripture? By no means. We see different cosmological descriptions throughout the story of Scripture, often representing the time period each passage was written. This gives more evidence to Divine Accommodation Theory. The Holy Spirit speaks eternal truth through the Biblical writer, and the writer explains this truth in the way they and their audience can best understand.
When it comes to the cosmology described in Genesis 1, our modern understanding isn’t the only era to have trouble reading such Scripture literally.
“Several shared cosmological issues occupied the attention of the Reformers, particularly in cases when Moses’s explanations did not align with the theories of contemporary astronomers. Rather than assuming error in the text, Luther and Calvin valued authorial purpose and accommodation.”
Calvin acknowledged Genesis 1’s cosmology differing from the astronomy of his day. His explanation was not to dismiss Scripture, nor was it speak against astronomy:
“Here lies the difference: Moses used a popular style to write about things that all ordinary people perceive with their common sense, even if they lack instruction or literacy. Astronomers, however, painstakingly investigate whatever the acuity of the human mind can comprehend.
Nevertheless, such study is not to be disapproved, nor is this science to be condemned in the way that some rash or frantic people tend to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant to know, but also extremely useful: and it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God.”
To put it simply, Calvin believed Moses himself accommodated the language of Creation for the sake of his audience understanding the point better. At the same time, Calvin doesn’t want his audience to dismiss the scientific account of astronomy as it still points to God’s wisdom and power.
Now to be fair, this isn’t to say that Calvin never saw conflict with scientific proposals that conflicted with a literal reading of Scripture, as he was seemingly no fan of Copernicus. We honestly don’t know where Calvin would land on the debates today, other than that he would desire to be faithful to Scripture, as we should be too. But in regards to Genesis 1, while Calvin did believe the Creation account to be true, he also doubted parts of its cosmological description to be literal and leaned toward cultural accommodation.
Luther, Augustine, and a call to nuance
Augustine of Hippo famously did not accept the 6 days of Genesis 1 to be literal. His reasoning was actually the opposite of many today, believing God created the world spontaneously. His interpretation of Genesis 1 is that God accommodated (there’s that word again!) to the ancient audience and stretched the Creation story to 6 days. (Hilber, 2020, Pg. 89)
As stated before, Luther rejected Augustine’s allegorical interpretation. (McNutt, 2018, Pg. 195) However, it should be noted that Luther didn’t feel the need to condemn Augustine or adamantly go against his interpretation.
It is well known that Augustine had a massive influence on Luther and the Reformation as a whole. Easily the most quoted of all the Church Fathers, Augustine was not only a common resource for Reformers like Luther, but his writings actually played a role in Luther’s breakthrough of understanding salvation by grace alone. (Barrett, 2023, Pg. 389)
My point is this: Luther vocally disagreed with Augustine, but didn’t see Augustine as a theological threat. Anyone who reads Luther knows he wasn’t shy to loudly condemn those he saw as opponents. Augustine wasn’t one of them.
Christians should continue to dialogue about understanding Scripture in relation to scientific discovery, and we should be sure to hold to the authority of Scripture. But we need humility, good faith, and to recognize that the majority of this can be respectfully disagreed.
Bibliography
Hilber, J.W. (2020). Old Testament Cosmology and Divine Accommodation: A Relevance Theory Approach. Eugene, OR. Cascade Books.
Tsumura, D.T. (2018). Rediscovery of the Ancient Near East and Its Implications for Genesis 1-2. In K. Greenwood, Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 through the Ages. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic.
McNutt, J.P. (2018). Interpretations of Genesis 1-2 among the Protestant Reformers. In K. Greenwood, Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 through the Ages. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic.
Thompson, J.L. (2012). Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament I Genesis 1-11. Downers Grove, IL. IVP Academic.
Barrett, M. (2023). The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan Academic.
Thumbnail Image: Luther and Hus giving Communion. By Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553).