This post is part of a
series of posts that deal with some common Young Earth Creationist (YEC)
objections to theistic evolution. The impetus for these posts came via a
comment from a reader on a previous
post. An index of all these posts can be found here.
Here I would like to address this part of Steve’s original comment:
Joe, you claim you are a Christian yet you don't believe what the Bible has to say about how existence came into being. If you doubt that part of the Bible, how can you be sure the parts with Jesus in it are true? Or what he said and did are true. If you pick and choose what you will and won't believe, aren't you in fact picking apart the foundations of your faith? If that's the case, what reassurance do you have of you salvation or even of your existence?
First, it is simply untrue
to claim that theistic evolutionists “don’t believe what the Bible has to say about how existence came
into being.” What I reject is not what the Bible has to
say about origins, but what biblical literalists think the Bible has to say
about origins. I do not “doubt that part of the Bible”; I doubt the biblical
literalist interpretation of that part of the Bible.
I believe the Bible (including Genesis) is inspired by God and is
trustworthy. But we need to be very careful about what we say a biblical text
is trying to communicate. More on that later.
Now on to the main point:
The general question can be stated this way: If the creation
account is not taken literally, then why should we take anything else
literally, including the stories of Jesus’ death and resurrection?
There is a fundamental difference between the texts containing the
creation accounts and the texts containing the narratives of Jesus’ life. The
difference is in the purpose of the original writers, and the literary
genre of the texts in question. If the genre is historical narrative,
then there is no reason to interpret it literally, and it would be a mistake to
do so. But if the genre is poetic, prophetic, wisdom, etc., then we must be
more careful.
Purpose & Genre of
the Gospels
Looking first at the
gospels, it is abundantly clear that the purpose of the gospel writers is to
provide a historical narrative of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth, life,
death and resurrection. Look at the opening verses of Luke:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4
Here it is clear that Luke’s
intention is to write actual historical facts, as they have been handed down to
him, so that his audience (Theophilus) can “know the certainty of the things
[he has] been taught”. There is no reason to view the gospels as anything
except historical narrative because it is explicitly stated that the purpose of
the text is to communicate actual events as experienced by eyewitnesses.
Purpose & Genre of
the Creation Accounts
Now turning to the creation
accounts: It is not so straightforward to determine the authors’ purpose or
the literary genre(s) of the texts. However, when we begin to understand the
world in which the creation stories were written, it becomes clear that there
are a whole host of reasons why they may have been written other than for
scientific/historical reasons.
The ancient near east (the
historical context of the creation accounts) was polytheistic, and the gods
themselves were part of creation: The sun and moon were gods, not things
created by a single, transcendent God. The creation stories served the purpose
(among many others) of reminding God’s people that their God was different;
their God actually created the universe, and wasn’t a part of it. These
stories used already existing myths and re-wrote them to show that Yahweh is
not like the gods in which their neighbors believe; Yahweh is creator, and as a
result we are accountable to Him.
I’ve discussed this further
in a previous
post, so please go there for more explanation. Also, a great book on the
subject is The
Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John
H. Walton.
Determining Context
& Purpose Builds Confidence
I think it is pretty clear
that the rejection of the creation stories as literal historical truth does not
then lead to a rejection of the historicity of other parts of the Bible,
including the life and significance of Jesus Christ. On the contrary,
examining the purpose and context of texts like those describing the life and
words of Jesus gives us confidence that the authors were setting out to
increase our certainty about Jesus, and give us assurance of the salvation that
comes by making Him our Lord and Savior.
1 comment:
Thanks for doing this series. One thing I'd mention is that I dislike when people refer to "Biblical literalists" since it gives those who categorize themselves as such the impression that we are conceding that they are in fact literalists in a somewhat consistent fashion. But I've yet to encounter a "Biblical literalist" who defends a literal dome, despite what the Hebrew says in Genesis 1. And so I think it is important to help people who think they are being Biblical literalists to realize that they aren't, if we are to make progress on this subject!
Post a Comment