A comparison of Genesis to actual Hebrew poetry
No matter your theological persuasion, most people understand that the Bible was never designed to be interpreted with wooden literalism. It features everything from the typical language of appearance (similar to our "sunrise") to outright poetry. Sometimes, this is blended. Jesus' parables, for example, are very clearly (and quite explicitly) not designed to be taken literally, yet the Gospels in which He delivers them are absolutely designed as historical narratives. Other times, as with the Psalms, the entire book is designed to be saturated in metaphor, pointing to literal truths, but often without stating them directly.
In the modern Church, the meaning of Genesis is heavily disputed. Is it a historical account, like the Gospels, or is it almost entirely allegorical, to the point of Adam himself being a symbolic figure? Or what if the answer lies somewhere in the middle, with Genesis being a metaphorical summary of historical events?
Thankfully, we are not left floundering when asking these questions. In the Bible alone, there are several books belonging to the different genres. There are historical narratives, and there are poetic books, and these are rarely as heavily disputed. This allows us to compare the two and ask which genre Genesis shares its literary characteristics with. If Genesis is historical narrative, we would expect it to read like historical narrative, such as Judges, or the Chronicles. If it's Hebrew Poetry, we would expect it to read like Hebrew poetry, like the Psalms or Proverbs.
It's important to note that even historical narrative does not mean every word must be taken literally. In the aforementioned book of Judges, for example, we read "for my father fought for you, risked his life, and delivered you out of the hand of Midian;" (Judges 9:17). This is a partial quote by Jotham. He is clearly not referring to a literal "hand" of Midian. Rather, "the hand of..." is a common Hebrew idiom for power, especially of a military kind.
Similarly, we read "Among all this people were seven hundred select men who were left-handed; every one could sling a stone at a hair’s breadth and not miss." (Judges 20:16). This is more than likely hyperbolic. The literal truth is that the stone slingers were very accurate, but the chances of them actually being able to hit a hair are slim. (Bonus point: "The chances are slim" is, itself, a metaphor, but it portrays a literal truth.)
So here we have two examples of non-literal language being used in historical accounts. Historical narratives, especially in the ancient world, do regularly feature non-literal language. This, however, does not change the genre from historical narrative to poetry. There are normative ways in which we almost automatically distinguish between literal and non-literal language.
But there are several features of historical narrative that do not feature in poetry. One of these is genealogies. Poetry does occasionally feature short lineages, such as in Psalm 105:9-10. Here, we read "The covenant which He made with Abraham, And His oath to Isaac, And confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, To Israel as an everlasting covenant,". However, aside from the fact that describes a very literal lineage, it is structurally very different from a genealogy.
In fact, many people skip genealogies because they're just so "to the point", giving them a dull and monotonous feel. They aren't there to encourage or uplift, they're there to record. To preserve. To chronicle.
This is exactly how they appear in the book of Genesis, which specifically includes the age of each father when each son was born. Let's have a look at the commonly overlooked Genesis 5, specifically verses 1-8: "This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters. So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died."
There's a lot to unpack here. First, notice Genesis 5 opens with its purpose. "This is the book of the genealogy of Adam." Not "this is the parable of Adam". Not "I tell you a tale". Not "let's gather round the campfire and sing our campfire song". "This is the book of the genealogy of Adam." So it's just flat out asserting its purpose as genealogical, no different than any other genealogical record.
Second, it reiterates the creation narrative of chapters 1 and 2. Specifically, it highlights how Adam is specially created by God. This is consistent across all narratives. There is no point in Scripture where Adam is shown to be anything other than a special, direct creation of God. He is never said to be descended from some ape creature, or even from some other human. He was specially created in the image of God, from the dirt. Similarly, his wife is specially created from his rib, again not being descended from an animal. Rather, like all animals, they are directly created to bring forth according to their kind. For a genealogical record, no structurally different than any other genealogical record, to affirm Genesis 1 and 2 as literal history is solid confirmation that it is.
Third, while the genealogy jumps straight to Seth, it's important to note "he had sons and daughters". This is commonly skipped over by unbelievers and compromisers. Typically, their arguments fail to show any knowledge of even Seth, with some of them flat out claiming Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's only children. If they are aware of Genesis 5, they rarely show it. This immediately undermines their credibility.
Finally, notice the structure. "Father lived a specific number of years and begat Son. After he begot Son, Father lived a specific number of years, and had sons and daughters. So all the days of Father were specific number of years; and he died." Again, it's monotonous. Calculated. Recorded. It's clearly not designed to directly express praise or emotion. It's the kind of thing people prefer not to read because they find it so boring. And that's how it continues throughout Genesis 5, from Adam to Noah and his 3 sons.
None of this specific, formulaic, structured detail is seen anywhere in Hebrew poetry. In fact, ironically, it is instead foundational to it. The Psalms do describe historical events (and even future events, but that's jumping the gun a bit), but they do so in dramatic fashion. We look at Psalm 114, for example. It describes the Exodus by describing the mountains skipping, and the sea looking and fleeing. This is not literal language, but it describes a literal event. The Poetry of the Psalms has a corresponding historical reality, described elsewhere in Scripture.
This is actually a key hermeneutical principle: Scripture interprets Scripture. Moreover, the clear interprets the unclear. This means we get the context by which to interpret the Psalms from the corresponding historical accounts. But if we suddenly decide Genesis is poetry, we end up with this Inception-type state of affairs. Poetry within poetry within poetry.
But Genesis doesn't read like poetry. It doesn't read like the Psalms, or the Proverbs, it reads like the Chronicles, or the Kings, or even... Genesis. This is the biggest irony! The disputes do not center around Genesis as a whole, but specifically the first 11 chapters. Genesis 12, 13, 14, all the way up to 50, are all generally accepted as historical narrative, and few people try to interpret them as metaphor.
But then why is Genesis 11 the arbitrary end of poetry? There is no textual indication of this sudden genre switch, and it's not exactly a normal thing to do. Certainly not completely unannounced... Frankly, if compromisers wish us to believe there is a sudden genre switch, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate it. But we do need to ask why they would even want to?
I suggest it's simply because that's convenient. This tragic state of affairs is nothing but a compromise. It is a refusal to believe the Scriptures, but a refusal to admit to not believing the Scriptures. Modern Western mythology has concluded that Genesis cannot possibly portray real history, even if it legitimately intends to. Thus, while many Westerners are content conclude Genesis isn't true and reject it entirely, many hypocrites will instead invent convoluted narratives to explain why it doesn't mean what a natural reader will see it very clearly says.
But this does open a can of tapeworms. As Christians, our religion is obviously based on Jesus Christ. Not some fluffy, Liberal, made up cuddle merchant who thinks you're perfect just the way you are. The Jesus Christ. The one who actually took on flesh, was born of a virgin, knew no sin, became sin for us in death, and rose again on the third day. The Jesus of Scripture is the literal God of Christianity. We love Him. We obey Him. We believe Him. Our religion takes far more than just a name from Jesus Christ. It is a constant progression towards living His words.
But Jesus based His own words on Scripture. He didn't show up as if the Jews had some tatty old book of poems, and He was here to tell us how it really is. And this shouldn't surprise us. "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). And Jesus is God. So who breathed the Scriptures? Jesus. They're His books. So when He came, we would expect Him to be consistent with them.
And He expects us to be consistent with them, too. In John 5:39-47, this is made especially clear: "You examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those very Scriptures that testify about Me; and yet you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people; but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you accept glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have put your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”"
Now, to be as generous as possible to the compromiser, this is a rhetorical question rather than a binary choice. If you don't believe Moses, maybe you can still believe Christ. But how? It's horrifically inconsistent. It doesn't make any sense to believe God, but not believe His prophets. Especially when He comes full circle and bases His authority on those prophets, as well as treating their writings as literal history on which He bases several of His teachings.
The conclusion of this matter, therefore, is that Genesis simply cannot be poetry. It doesn't read like poetry, it reads like historical narrative. Adding to this, it is never read like Hebrew poetry, but rather, the New Testament authors both treat it as historical narrative, and record Jesus Himself reading it as historical narrative. It is therefore the height of hypocrisy to treat it as anything else.
AI usage
The header image was generated by ChatGPT
The flow chart was generated by ChatGPT
Comments