Who Interprets Genesis—The Reader or the Apostle?
Many interpreters rightly observe that Paul’s allusions to Genesis invite readers to think about the wider creation narrative.
Cynthia Long Westfall, in Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ, expresses this well when she argues that Paul’s references ‘activate’ the Genesis narrative, that Paul interprets Genesis, and that Genesis in turn interprets Paul.
This is an attractive methodological proposal. Yet it raises an important question: How does Genesis actually interpret Paul?
Genesis does not speak independently. Someone must read it. Someone must decide how Genesis 1 and 2 relate, what the image of God means, how Adam and Eve should be understood, and which themes are central.
In practice, the method can easily become:
Paul points to Genesis.
The interpreter constructs an understanding of Genesis.
That understanding is then used to interpret Paul.
The danger is subtle. Instead of Paul’s interpretation controlling our reading of Genesis, our reconstruction of Genesis begins to control our reading of Paul.
A Concrete Example
Consider Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11.
Paul does not simply refer his readers back to ‘creation’ in a general sense. Instead, he carefully selects particular elements from Genesis and arranges them into a sequence of explanation.
He begins by stating that man is the image and glory of God, while woman is the glory of man. He then immediately explains this statement: ‘For man is not from woman, but woman from man.’ He continues: ‘For man was not created because of woman, but woman because of man.’ Only after establishing these explanatory statements does Paul add his balancing qualification: ‘Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman. For just as woman is from man, so also man is through woman, and all things are from God.’
Notice what Paul himself has done. He has not merely referred us to Genesis. He has selected particular features of the Genesis narrative: the creation of man, the creation of woman from man, the creation of woman for man, the continuing reality that every man now comes through woman, and finally the supremacy of God over all.
Equally important, Paul has selected not only these features but also the order in which they are introduced. The sequence itself forms part of his argument.
The methodological question therefore becomes: Should the interpreter first reconstruct the theology of Genesis and then return to Paul? Or should the interpreter first ask: Why did Paul select these particular features of Genesis, in this particular order, to explain this particular statement?
In the first approach, Genesis is interpreted independently and then brought back to Paul. In the second approach, Paul’s own inspired use of Genesis becomes the primary guide for understanding both Genesis and Paul’s argument.
These are not identical methods. One asks, ‘What does Genesis teach?’ The other asks, ‘What does Paul believe Genesis teaches, and how does he demonstrate that in his own argument?’
If the apostles are inspired interpreters of the Old Testament, then perhaps our first task is not simply to return to Genesis. It is to follow Paul’s own reading of Genesis carefully enough that his interpretation, rather than our reconstruction, becomes the primary guide for understanding both Genesis and 1 Corinthians.