Moses: an inspired historian, not a teller of tall tales

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

Introduction

This is the third essay asserting the literal, historical nature of the book of Genesis that I have written in about three months. The first, “The historicity and the necessity of Genesis,”  was a basic overview of the subject, written primarily as an assertion of the vital importance of this topic to scriptural Christianity. It responded to standard secular criticisms by asserting that the universe and our world in it were all created by a process unknown to science, and hence shrouded in mystery impenetrable to natural reason unaided.

The second, “Some more comments on the historicity of Genesis,” was written in response to a Christian who, commenting on the first essay, had stated that the Old Testament was not on the same plane historically as the New, and was more mythological in character. Thus, he felt it was possible to believe in the Bible without taking the beginning of Genesis literally. Moreover, he asserted, since undeniable scientific facts about the age of the earth and the cosmos clearly contradicted Genesis, insisting on a literal reading made it impossible for people to accept biblical truth.

This second article consisted of a point by point response to his lengthy (but not too lengthy) comments. Hence, that essay was not as well-organized as it might have been, and did not adequately distinguish between central and lesser points.

His concluding and most effective argument (in my view) was that if the world was created with only the appearance of age, then God was guilty of deception. This was a much more difficult point to deal with. It could not be so easily dismissed as were scientific attempts to judge something beyond the range of science. After all, the creation of the universe has never been observed in a laboratory, much less recreated in any experiment. Hence my assertion that it was outside of the legitimate boundaries of the scientific enterprise.

In the course of that ongoing discussion, I realized that my correspondent’s view of a divinely inspired Bible including mythology was much more common in the church than I had thought. I remembered that one of the leading authorities in modern American Evangelicalism, C.S. Lewis, had also held such a position. He too asserted belief in the New Testament and in Christ, but found the first few chapters of the Old Testament impossible to take literally. His influence has been great in Christian apologetics, and no doubt he has influenced many in this area.

Here are several quotes from Lewis. First, about the Bible overall, he says:

The human qualities of the raw materials show through. Naivety, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed. The total result is not “the Word of God” in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. [C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms, (San Diego: Harcourt Inc., 1986), 111-12]. Cited in [1] (see below).

Concerning the use of mythology to convey spiritual truth in Genesis, he writes:

The earliest stratum of the Old Testament contains many truths in a form which I take to be legendary, or even mythical – hanging in the clouds, but gradually the truth condenses, becomes more and more historical. From things like Noah’s Ark or the sun standing still upon Ajalon, you come down to the court memoirs of King David. [C. S. Lewis, “Is Theology Poetry?,” in The Weight of Glory and Other Essays, (New York: Harper Collins, 2001), 129]. Cited in [2].

Concerning the first man as the product of long and slow development, a pre-existing sort of hominid at some point given divine consciousness by God:

For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed for ages in this state before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say “I” and “me,” which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness. [C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 68. Cited in [3].

Another major contemporary Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, has very similar views. One of the most noted Christian writers and debaters in our own time, he declares belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture, yet asserts that God’s methods of conveying truth to us include mythology. Thus, in his view the Genesis account contains deep spiritual truths, but is not to be taken literally in its all of its details. The creation of Adam and Eve, the tree of life, the talking snake and who knows what all else are not historical facts, but mythology (he calls it “mytho-history”).

Craig believes that the creation account in Genesis belongs to the genre of ancient Near East mythology, and is divinely inspired but only in a certain sense. The first book of the Bible in his view teaches us truly, that God created the world and the universe, and that man is sinful and fallen, separated from God. How this actually came about, however, is shrouded in myth.

Here are a couple of quotes from Craig. First, on the essentially mythical-historical nature of Genesis:

I recently received a question of the week through our Reasonable Faith website: “Don’t you think that it’s time we denounce the literalistic interpretation of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, because what it’s leaving in its wake is apostasy and faithlessness, and causing people to turn away from Christianity?” It’s my hope that, by showing there is no incompatibility between contemporary evolutionary science and the affirmation of a single human pair at the headwaters of the human race, we can prevent that obstacle to faith. [4]

Here he expresses his belief in pre-existing “hominin forms” that were given a higher spiritual consciousness by God.

I do defend the view that in order to have a human being you need to have the infusion of a rational soul into some preexisting hominin form. What I suggest is that God may have brought about both a biological and spiritual renovation of a hominin form that would make it truly human, biologically capable of sustaining a rational soul. [5]

The purpose of this essay

Before proceeding further, I think it necessary to explain my purpose. My goal is not to prove to unbelievers that the Genesis account is historical, and to demonstrate that the Bible really is the Word of God (although I believe in both of those propositions, and hope that my writing will serve in some small way to support them).

My purpose rather is to address people who call themselves Christians, and who already believe that the Bible is God’s Word. I want first to assert the importance of a literal, actual, historical Genesis. This is vital to Christianity even in the 21st century.

Second, I want to argue against the philosophical viewpoint represented by Lewis and Craig. Its presuppositions are wrong, and human logic, brilliant though it may be, necessarily leads to confusion and error when it starts from false premises. The wisdom of the world and the wisdom of the flesh are different from the wisdom of the Spirit of Christ.

Thus, my motive in writing this is not academic or philosophical. I do not view this as a college debate, where I can gain points for content and delivery and maybe even get a chintzy trophy at the end. My motivation is the edification of the body of Christ. We live in perilous times, and have great need of the Word of God for guidance, rebuke, encouragement, light and salvation. “Thy (your) word, O Lord, is a lamp unto my feet,” and, as we read in Psalm 19:

 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

For this, we need a true word. We need a reliable word. We need a divinely inspired word to reveal eternal truths, and the moment we begin to surrender or compromise this word, we are headed for trouble.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe someone can be a real and sincere Christian without believing in the literal truth of Genesis. Someone can become a Christian without even having read the book of Genesis at all. A proper understanding of this subject is not essential to salvation. However, once one has been spiritually baptized by the grace of God working through faith, there comes the question of living for Christ in the world. Then, to grow in the faith and to overcome spiritually in the struggles of life, we need the word of God. We do not need a word that is mixed up with mythology, and we do not need a Bible that must first meet the demands of modern human wisdom before it can be trusted.

Teachers of these new doctrines are seriously in error, and will I believe be found in the last day to have been teachers not of biblical truth, but of falsehood and delusion.

The two realities

So, where do we go from here?

Before we get into the details, we need to start with the elementary fact that the material world we see around us, and the physical cosmos our world is situated in, are not all there is to reality (and seeing, of course, includes what can be observed with the aid of scientific instruments). There is an entirely different dimension, the spiritual dimension, and it cannot be explored, analyzed, dissected or observed by standard scientific methods or procedures.

Many people in many cultures and periods of history have been aware of this other, higher reality. From the most primitive superstitions of backward peoples to the advanced philosophy of Plato, the belief that there is more to the world than what we can see has been fundamental. Even Oriental philosophies and religions, with their distinctly different outlooks, have recognized this fact.

Materialists deny this of course, but that is only an assertion on their part. The origins of such denials of spiritual reality are subjective opinion, personal preference, wishful thinking, and no doubt fear of the unknown as well. Secularists can say the same of my views of course, but they are the ones who assert that matter is the only reality, and that scientific reason is the only certain and reliable mode of knowing. Thus, they should be able to demonstrate their views in a concrete manner, consistent with their own principles, with facts and evidence. This they cannot do.

For my part, I deny that scientific knowledge and reasoning are the only means of properly understanding the cosmos. I assert that there is a spiritual, non-material dimension to reality, that cannot be grasped by ordinary means. Hence, I do not shoot myself in the foot by asserting something outside the range of human demonstration, because I do not have ultimate confidence in human intelligence.

Advocates of the belief in a divinely inspired Bible that contains spiritual truths, but at the same time is very far from being historically reliable, may say “What does this have to do with me? I believe in this spiritual reality you speak of. I believe there is a Creator God who is responsible for bringing the physical world into being. There is a spiritual aspect to consciousness that can’t be reduced to chemistry and biology. I even believe in the Bible, except for the parts that too obviously contradict modern science.”

But if that is the case, why do you allow this same limited earthly science, one based on human knowledge alone, to define the parameters within which the creation account must be forced? Why is material, secular science the Procrustean bed on which Genesis must be laid, after which everything that does not fit is hacked off?

If there is indeed a spiritual reality, unseen, invisible to us now, yet nevertheless the source of all that it is, may it not contain many unexpected elements, and involve many surprises? But what might this non-material, supra-natural spirituality be? People who agree that it exists have so many different ideas about it. How can it be known? And if it can be known, how can this be communicated to people who claim it must be understood differently?

Let’s begin by saying that we find evidence of it very close to us, even in our own souls. Our emotions, for example – love and hate, hope and fear, like and dislike, understanding and confusion – these are undeniably real, and extend out into the physical world. If I get angry at someone for example and punch him in the nose, his bleeding proboscis is proof of the reality of my anger, even though that anger cannot be seen, weighed, or dissected and studied as a physical object.

We have these qualities because we were made in the image of God – and Lewis and Craig agree to this. They understand that there is a God, that there are invisible spiritual realities, but insist that they were first acquired in a manner very different from what is described in Genesis.

To be continued . . .

---

Footnotes

[1]  Cited in David Williams, “Surprised by Jack: C.S. Lewis on Mere Christianity, the Bible, and Evolutionary Science,” Biologos (December 10, 2012), https://biologos.org/articles/surprised-by-jack-c-s-lewis-on-mere-christianity-the-bible-and-evolutionary-science, Accessed May 27, 2024. (“Introduction” Notes #5 in the article).

[2] Ibid., (“Introduction” Notes #17).

[3] Ibid., (“Mere Evolution” Notes #17).

[4]Terry Mortenson, “Undermining Scripture Regarding Adam: An Initial Response to William Lane Craig,” Answers in Genesis, (October 19, 2021), https://answersingenesis.org/why-does-creation-matter/undermining-scripture-regarding-adam-initial-response-william-lane-craig/, Accessed May 27, 2024.

[5] Ibid.