Written by Dr. Lisle |
Thursday, January 6, 2022
The events of Genesis 1-11 are recorded in the same historical narrative style as Genesis 12-50 with its straightforward prose, its attention to detail in names and ages, and the content of the first eleven chapters flowing seamlessly into the remaining chapters.  Genesis is not written as a parable, poem, myth, or fictional story.  Thus, to assert that Genesis is myth (or mytho-historical) is a violation of exegetical principles.  Moreover, there is no evidence that any biblical author thought of Genesis 1-11 as anything other than straightforward history.

We begin with a brief review of our analysis of William Lane Craig’s claims regarding Genesis 1-11 from his recent article on the historical Adam.  We have seen that Genesis 1-11 has all the markers of historical narrative.  Namely, it is written in the same literary style as the other historical books with long chains of the Hebrew waw-consecutive.  It lists details that are not germane to the point of the narrative, such as specific names and ages of persons (even those not involved in the main events) and highly detailed chronologies.  These indicate history and would bog down a fictional/mythical story.  Furthermore, these chronologies flow seamlessly into the historical figures mentioned in Genesis 12-50 – a section of Scripture that even Craig admits is straightforward history.  In contrast, myths like the Epic of Gilgamesh are usually written in poetic form; yet Genesis lacks the key characteristics of Hebrew poetry.  Clearly, Genesis 1-11 matches the literary form and style of Genesis 12-50.
And what about the content?  Contrary to Craig’s claims, the content of the creation account in Genesis is starkly different from the content of Ancient Near Eastern origins myths.  Pagan origins stories generally involve a very old universe that exists in a state of chaos, until a chaos monster is slain which brings about the good world of today.  Genesis starts with God who speaks the universe into existence in six days, each step being good until the final result is “very good.”  Humans introduce death into the world by sinning against God.  The events are recorded with none of the obvious symbolism or analogies present in parables, but rather as literal events.  All other references in Scripture to Genesis 1-11 take the narrative as literally historical.  Furthermore, the Bible states that the events in Genesis 1-11 have repercussions in the world today – something that is only possible if such events literally happened.  And so, if we are going to be rational and take the text as written, we must admit that Genesis 1-11 is straightforward history.
This of course contrasts with the secular claim that the universe began in a big bang billions of years ago, and that life came about as a result of evolution.  Many Christians have been duped into believing that such secular speculations are “science” or at least supported by science.  Nothing could be further from the truth since science is predicated upon the literal historicity of the Bible including biblical creation as we have explored previously.  Therefore, Christians who have mindlessly accepted evolution but still profess to believe the Bible must somehow deal with the fact that Genesis contradicts the secular origins stories.  Rather than admitting that they don’t believe Genesis 1-11, the usual tactic is to say, “I believe it, just not literally.  I don’t interpret the text the way you do.”  This of course could be done with any portion of Scripture that a person doesn’t want to accept.  A person could equally well declare “I do believe that Jesus rose from the dead – just not literally.  The Gospels are written in the form of myth.” However, the Bible does not give us permission to interpret the text any way we like.  We must interpret it according to its context.  And we have seen that Genesis 1-11 lists the events that happened in the world in straightforward, non-poetic narrative, just like Genesis 12-50.  Thus, we must interpret them accordingly.
All other books of the Bible that refer back to Genesis do so as if the events recorded therein actually happened as written.  Yet, William Lane Craig has stated that he believes that Genesis 1-11 is not to be taken as straightforward history.  So, how does he attempt to reconcile the biblical references to the history in Genesis with his belief that Genesis 1-11 is not straightforward history?  We continue to analyze his recent article on The Historical Adam.
Craig: When we turn to the New Testament, we find the figure of Adam widely deployed, most importantly by Paul.
Lisle: It is clear that Paul understood Adam and Eve to be real people, and the events of Genesis 1-11 to be real history with real consequences in the world today.  See for example, Romans 5:14-15; 1 Corinthians 15:22-23; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13-14.
Craig: Many scholars have attempted to distinguish between the literary Adam and the historical Adam. The literary Adam is a character in a story, specifically the stories of Genesis 2–3. The historical Adam is the person, if such there be, who actually existed—the actual individual whom the stories are allegedly about.
Lisle: It seems that Craig is going to suggest that New Testament references to Adam are not necessarily always asserting the historical reality of the person (the historical Adam), but possibly references to a character in a fictional, allegorical, or embellished story (the literary Adam).
Craig: By way of analogy, the Pompey of Plutarch’s Lives is the literary Pompey, whereas the Roman general who actually lived was the historical Pompey. What we want to know is how closely the literary Pompey of the Lives resembles the historical Pompey. ­Similarly, we want to know how closely the literary ­Adam of Genesis 2–3 resembles the historical Adam, if such there be—or more precisely, whether New Testament authors assert that the literary Adam of Genesis 2–3 closely resembles the historical Adam.
Lisle: Is there any evidence in the New Testament that the authors thought of Adam as merely a literary character in a story rather than a historical person?  Is there any evidence in Scripture that any of its authors thought that the events recorded in Genesis were not real history, but merely a mythical story with useful illustrations?
Quite the opposite.  Most of the biblical references to the events of Genesis would make no sense unless Genesis is real history.  For example, a fictional story cannot have real-world consequences – something that Craig himself concedes later in his article.
Read More

Many Christians in the West recognise that they have received blessings that others have not. We have education, wealth, and opportunities that many around our world do not. Social justice advocates want us to feel guilty about this and to see it as a privilege for which we should automatically feel ashamed. If we allow this, the unrelenting psychological pressure exerted by social justice thinking will weigh very heavily upon our consciences. This is a great error.

Some see the evangelical debate about social justice as a disagreement on strategy or emphasis. But it is much more than that. If the language of social justice is incompatible with biblical justice, then using it to connect with our culture is not an error of strategy but a change in theology. This matters.
Church history has many examples of debates which would have been better undertaken in private or perhaps not at all. Paul’s command to ‘make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace’ (Ephesians 4:3) is always vital to remember.
Is the debate about social justice and the woke agenda one over which evangelical Christians should agree to disagree? I don’t believe it is. Some disagreements are particularly important because they impact upon truths at the heart of the gospel – this is one of them.
The social justice of our day is seen in the efforts of Black Lives Matter and the climate change emergency coalition. The justice they are seeking is about ‘the redistribution of wealth, privileges and opportunities… [it is about] equity, not equality… so it is redistribution with a view toward achieving equal outcomes for various specified groups’ – Voddie Baucham
When I use the term social justice, I am not referring to the diligent pursuit of fairness and justice by Christians in the past. Their actions reflected the principles of biblical justice, grounded in the character of God and expressed in his moral law. William Wilberforce laboured for decades to outlaw the slave trade, and his victory brought real freedom for many. His efforts were not in pursuit of the kind of social justice that is being advocated today.
The social justice of our day is seen in the efforts of Black Lives Matter and the climate change emergency coalition. The justice they are seeking is about ‘the redistribution of wealth, privileges and opportunities… [it is about] equity, not equality…(Voddie Baucham).
Read More
Related Posts:

If we’re going to seek the kingdom of God, it will mean ceding control over every aspect of our life to God. He is not interested in becoming second-in-command in our little armies. He is King and Lord, and He seeks the throne of our heart. When He sits on that throne, wealth and possessions cannot sit there too. God’s kingdom is a greater treasure than any we can lay hold of in this world. When we value it as we ought, we’ll find a satisfaction for our souls that outlasts all worldly gain.

Jesus Christ’s teaching about possessions is radical. It confronts both the selfish society in which we live and the sleeping church, which has so often gone with the flow of the world’s anxieties and greed. If the church is to be a shaft of light in the world’s darkness, then those who follow Christ will need to demonstrate a godly outlook toward worldly goods by embracing an absolute trust in the Father’s provision.
What does it mean to follow Jesus? As one prayerfully continues in obedient faith and identifies with Christ in His suffering and self-giving love, it will also mean setting aside materialism for something that truly satisfies.
On one occasion, a man asked Jesus to adjudicate a family dispute about an inheritance. Because it was not a part of His mission, Jesus flatly denied the man’s request (Luke 12:13–14). But then He followed His response with a parable warning against greed and a sermon exhorting His disciples to put God first. We can learn from both as we seek to follow Him too.
A Parable Against Greed
He said to them, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” And he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man produced plentifully, and he thought to himself, ‘What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’ And he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.”’ But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God.” (Luke 12:15–21)
In Luke 12:15, Jesus lays down a foundational principle regarding worldly goods: “One’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” Neither wealth nor the things it can buy define a person. The problem, of course, is that we often live as though they do. And of course, greed and covetousness are not exclusive to those who have much. Even those who aren’t well off can worship and pursue material wealth in their own way, as can the moderately comfortable.
No matter our station, then, we ought to ask ourselves the question that this parable confronts us with: “Do I live as if my life consists in the abundance of my possessions?” For the rich man in the parable, the answer is clearly yes—and three perils accompany his outlook.
First, the rich man does not know himself. He fails to realize that he is more than a stomach that needs to be filled, an appetite that needs to be satisfied. He fails to realize that his purpose in life is to be rich toward God by glorifying and enjoying Him.1 Many people who have “made it” in our society are actually quite miserable because all that they have acquired and achieved does not touch the deepest longings of their lives. The rich man’s full barns can feed his body for a few seasons, but they have no power to nourish his soul.
Second, the rich man never sees beyond himself. His speech is peppered with the personal pronouns “I” and “my.” He’s like the lady of whom it was said, “Edith lived in a little world bounded on the north, south, east and west by Edith.”2 And because he cannot look beyond himself, his attitude is a refusal of the way of Christ. Instead of finding joy in denying himself, he aggressively affirms himself. Instead of finding joy in giving, he seeks it in keeping. He is like “the kings of the Gentiles” mentioned elsewhere by Jesus, who “lord it over them” (Luke 22:25, NIV). The Lord Jesus would have us be like Him instead, as people who serve (vv. 26–27).
Third, the rich man never sees beyond this world. This man’s great tragedy is that while he is prepared for worldly ups and downs, he isn’t prepared for God’s judgment.
Read More
Related Posts: