ELOI ELOI LAMA SABACHTHANI

One of the more significant misunderstandings people have when reading the Gospels is the belief that God the Father rejected or turned his back on Jesus during the crucifixion.

This confusion is largely derived from Jesus' crying out on the cross “ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” which is translated, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?” (Mark 15:34).

At first look the idea that Jesus is p...roclaiming that God has forsaken or rejected him seems fairly straightforward. Certainly, everyone at the time believed that Jesus was in this situation because God was not with him (Mark 15:29-32).

However, Jesus' cry of "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI" is actually an Aramaic translation of Psalm 22:1. If you read the entirety of Psalm 22 a far different picture emerges of what is going on in Jesus' situation.

The Psalm tells of a figure who is crying out to God in desperation. He is in the worst of circumstances. It looks like his enemies have conquered him. They laugh at his affliction. Everyone believes the figure has been deserted by God.

BUT ... in verse 24 we read the following:

"For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard."

The whole purpose of Psalm 22 is to show that even though it seems like God has turned his back on the figure, in fact, God has been with that person the entire time. He has not rejected.

So when Mark includes Jesus crying out the first line of Psalm 22, he is pointing to the entire Psalm and its meaning, arguing that, just like in the Psalm, even though it seems like God has rejected Jesus, the exact opposite is true: God is with Jesus the entire time him.

The people who gathered at the cross to watch Jesus be executed with the brigands were oblivious to this. In fact, Mark highlights their confusion by saying that when they heard Jesus say, " ELOI, ELOI", they thought he was saying "Elijah, Elijah" (Mark 15:35).

Interestingly, so many of us get this wrong, too. The original readers of Mark would have gotten the literary allusion and understood the meaning: God did not reject or turn his back on Jesus during the crucifixion.

Seminary president says evolution 'incompatible' with Christian faith

[I'm a bit busy at the moment and unable take the couple of minutes necessary to refute the silly arguments of Dr. Mohler's gross ignorance of the Scriptures and evolutionary theory. Not that Karl Giberson, vice president of the BioLogos Foundation, does much better defending his position. But I have argued the point elsewhere. You can find my many articles on the subject below under "Evolution".]

By Bob Allen
Wednesday, August 25, 2010

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) -- According to the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, evolution and Christianity are not compatible.

"The theory of evolution is incompatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ even as it is in direct conflict with any faithful reading of the Scriptures," Albert Mohler, head of the Louisville, Ky., school, wrote in his blog.

Mohler's Aug. 25 blog posting was an open letter in response to an Aug. 21 Huffington Post article that accused him of making false statements about Charles Darwin, the English naturalist who originated the concept of natural selection to explain the diversity of life.

Karl Giberson, vice president of the BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group formed to promote harmony between science and faith, reacted in the Huffington Post to comments critical of Darwin by Mohler delivered June 19 at an annual conference of Ligonier Ministries, founded by Calvinist theologian and pastor R.C. Sproul.

Giberson first questioned Mohler's critique of Darwin in an open letter July 6 on the BioLogos website. After waiting two months for a response, Giberson concluded in the Huffington Post article that Mohler "does not seem to care about the truth and seems quite content to simply make stuff up when it serves his purpose."

In his June speech, Mohler argued for the "exegetical and theological necessity" of affirming the universe is no more than several thousand years old and was created in six 24-hour days as recorded in Genesis.

Mohler said Bible passages like Romans 8 attribute death, pain and disaster to the fall of Adam as recorded in Genesis 3.

"We end up with enormous problems if we try to interpret a historical fall and understand a historical fall in an old-Earth rendering," Mohler said, referring to the school of interpretation that views a metaphorical reading of the creation passages in Genesis as compatible with both Christianity and evolutionary science. "This is most clear when it comes to Adam's sin."

"Was it true that, as Paul argues, when sin came, death came?" Mohler asked. "Well just keep in mind that if the Earth is indeed old, and we infer that it is old because of the scientific data, the scientific data is also there to claim that long before the emergence of Adam -- if indeed there is the recognition of a historical Adam -- and certainly long before there was the possibility of Adam's sin, there were all the effects of sin that are biblically attributed to the fall and not to anything before the fall. And we're not only talking about death, we're talking about death by the millions and billions."

Giberson, author of Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, objected primarily in the Huffington Post article to Mohler's suggestion that evolution was "invented" to prop up Darwin's worldview rather than to explain observations in the natural world. He called it a "common misrepresentation" that evangelicals use to discredit evolution.

In his earlier blog post, however, Giberson questioned other statements in Mohler's address. They included: "We need to recognize that disaster ensues when the book of nature or general revelation is used in some way to trump Scripture and special revelation."

"I am taking you to mean that we should not let information from outside the Bible change our minds about what is inside the Bible," Giberson wrote.

"The example in your talk would suggest that information from geological records, radioactive dating, cosmic expansion and so on -- all of which suggests that the universe is billions of years old -- should not persuade us to set aside the natural reading of Genesis which suggests that the Earth is young," he wrote. "Is this a fair statement of your position?"

Giberson observed that the "natural reading" of Psalm 93 is that the Earth is fixed and cannot be moved. "Indeed this was thrown at Galileo and got him in trouble for proposing an 'unbiblical' astronomy."

He said "natural" readings of other Bible passages also suggest that slavery is OK and the moon is a light-creating body similar to the sun and "not just a big rock."

"Is there not a long list of examples where general revelation has forced us to set aside special revelation?" Giberson asked in his open letter to Mohler.

Mohler conceded in his blog to one statement that "appears to misrepresent to some degree Darwin's intellectual shifts before and during his experience on the Beagle" but otherwise proclaimed that "I stand by my address in full." He said he plans to address some of the issues raised by Giberson in the coming months.

"If your intention in Saving Darwin is to show 'how to be a Christian and believe in evolution,' what you have actually succeeded in doing is to show how much doctrine Christianity has to surrender in order to accommodate itself to evolution," Mohler admonished Giberson.

"In doing this, you and your colleagues at BioLogos are actually doing us all a great service. You are showing us what the acceptance of evolution actually costs, in terms of theological concessions."

PC Answers Questions to a Doctoral Student on Evolution and Religion

Last year a doctoral student at a university in Tennessee discovered my blog and a few discussions on Baptist online forums of which I had taken parting 2003. The student was researching the issue of evolution and religion for his dissertation, and I am apparently one of only a handful of evangelical Baptists that accepts the theory of biological evolution. Doesn’t speak well to the validity of my position, does it?

Nevertheless, the student sent me a few questions whose answers I shall now post.

First, are you currently a Baptist pastor?

No. I am a Baptist looking for a ministry in which to pastor.

I’ve pastored in churches in Texas and North Carolina.

I’m a son of a Baptist pastor and a grandson of Baptist missionaries.

Oddly enough, while I have been looking for ministry work in Southern Baptist churches, my wife and I have been attending a Methodist church here in Ohio, partly because it is like a Southern Baptist church we enjoyed in Texas.

And just this past Sunday, the pastor (a conservative and an inerrantist) made an aside comment that Christians should not be beating each other up over evolution.


Second, many people with whom I've talked have told me that the SBC has gotten increasingly fundamentalist in the last couple of decades. Would you agree with that? Any comments on it?

I include this lengthy response because I it might be of interest to you.

Yes, that is unfortunately true. I have fundamentalist friends and family, and I both love them and thoroughly enjoy ministering with them. And while I do not agree with many of their distinct positions, I don’t care that they have them.

The SBC has always been a very conservative body of Christian believers. The vast majority are conservatives in which there is a very large block of fundamentalists of various sorts. There have always been a significant minority of moderate Baptists and a very insignificant minority of liberals. The leadership of the SBC was made up of moderates and conservatives.

As I’m sure you are very much aware, the issues of biological evolution and the interpretation of the Bible caused tremendous controversy in the SBC during the 20th century. Under pressure from fundamentalists and conservatives, the SBC leadership wrote a confession of faith in 1925 and amended it in 1963. Both of these versions state the orthodox Christian beliefs that God created the world and that the Bible is authoritative. Moderates and many conservatives sought to be present an inclusive document.

However, in the 1980s, conservatives (with fundamentalist leaders) began to use their denominational leadership positions to reform the structure of the SBC to prevent anyone but conservatives from being appointed to positions in the organization. At the same time, conservatives began to fire all the non-conservatives that were already in SBC positions. They also fired conservatives who were critical of the other firings and the takeover. This continued through the 1990s and culminated in the conservatives and fundamentalists amending the confession of faith in 2000. After it was adopted, every employee of the SBC was required to sign this document or be fired. Many, many were fired or made a hasty retreat before they were. By itself, the implementation of this confession and its fall out had the SBC reeling from the inside out.

However, the 1963 version of the confession included a prologue that explicitly stated that this document was “not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.” This allowed SBC employees (particularly seminary professors) from holding positions contrary to the 2000 confession just so long as they do not teach or preach otherwise. The last decade of the SBC has been repeated incidences of fundamentalist weeding these employees out and getting them fired.

What occurred in the SBC seminaries during the 1990s and 2000s has now begun to occur in Baptist colleges such as Carson Newman in TN and, most recently, at Truett-McConnell College in Georgia which plans to become the first Baptist college to require its faculty to affirm the 2000 confession.

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4671/53/
Many of the same fundamentalist leaders are involved.

None of the three Baptist confessions (even the fundamentalist penned version of 2000) reference the issue of evolution either explicitly or implicitly.

http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp

But there are many issues important to SBC fundamentalists on which there is less than solid convention support. And there is very little support for amending the Baptist confession.

Therefore, for the past few years, the fundamentalist leadership of the SBC has been using the trustee system of the various convention agencies, including the seminaries, to enact theological standards which would not pass via the regular practice of convention vote.

I mention all this because if you’re asking about the SBC becoming increasingly fundamentalistic and how this relates to evolution and education (particularly in TN), then this is what has been done to the Baptist seminaries and what is now being done at the Baptist colleges.


Third, and this is related to the second question, how common are your views on evolution among evangelicals? As I said, from my own perspective, they seem extremely rare.

From my perspective, I assume that they are very rare too. Most evangelicals seem to associate biological evolution with atheism.

But if I had to hazard a guess, I would say that most Southern Baptists who accept the theory of biological evolution would keep it to themselves.

Obviously, biological evolution isn’t mentioned in 2000 plus year old documents that make of the Bible. It’s certainly unessential to the Faith. A Christian can reject evolution and still have a healthy and productive spiritual life. And it’s not an issue with which the average pastor, religious teacher, or church confronts. Combined with its controversial nature, for a pastor or religious teacher to announce their support for the theory would only be a distraction from the essentials.

In my four years at seminary, I never heard a professor state their position on the issue. Only one student ever stated his position to me and only through commenting on my blog. During that time, I only heard two SBC leaders make statements at seminary denouncing biological evolution, and both of them are two of the three recognized individuals who led the Fundamentalist takeover of the convention.

Given this and all I mentioned regarding the Fundamentalist takeover of the convention, I think it’s quite understandable that many SBC employees and pastors would keep their position quiet.


Fourth, in the baptist discussion board I read when you were talking about Brady Tarr, you were talking about reading Genesis as an apocalyptic text. What do you mean by that? I'm afraid I'm not theologically trained.

It was a hypothesis I had then that I have yet to pursue any further than you have read. I have only met one Old Testament scholar (a friend) who holds this position. I’ve never seen it in any other paper, article, or book that I can find.

The Apocalyptic genre of literature essentially presents a “spiritual” interpretation of history. It offers a “behind-the-scenes” view of what is going on with particular events and peoples and how it relates to God and the writer of the apocalyptic work’s intended audience. Apocalyptic literature is popularly known to focus on future events, but it just as often comments on present and past events. The Biblical books of Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah are prime examples but there are others in and outside the Jewish and Christian canons.

Apocalyptic literature will use symbolism, word play, exaggerated actions, fantastic creatures, “angelic beings”, truncated history, and otherworldly scenarios. This Biblical genre has a lot in common with basic dreams and many apocalyptic passages will occur in the context of a dream (Daniel chapters 2, 4, and 7; but also, as I will argue one day, Genesis 28, 40, and 41). The first three chapters of Genesis contain symbolism, puns and word play, fantastic talking animals, “angelic beings”, and many other apocalyptic characteristics that I’ll argue. The connection to the Tree of Life in Revelation 22:2 is my favourite.

But even though my apocalyptic argument has yet to be made, many other evangelical and conservative scholars who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and the Genesis story hold the story to be figurative but true because its genre (whether poem, psalm, apocalypse, “myth”, short-story, etc.) permits to be non-literal but true.

Ask a fundamentalist about whether he or she believes that the book of Revelation is true. Naturally, he or she will say yes that they do, even though it is written in symbolic, non-literal language.


Fifth, have you been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky? I don't think it's far from you, but I figured you'd have blogged about it if you had gone. Any comments on it?

I have not been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky.


It was this question of which I was reminded while reading the Baptist Press article on “Noah’s Ark”. The Baptist Press quoted a statement from Answers in Genesis, the apologetics ministry that operates the Creation Museum just outside of Cincinnati. I currently live just over an hour away from the museum but have yet to visit.

Lucifer, The Satan, and Isaiah 14: Why These Three Are Not Related

The pastor at the church I attend has begun a series called Angels & Demons: winning the battle of heart and mind. Yes, my fellow Baptists, Methodists do believe in Angels and Demons. I heard the first part yesterday and did enjoy it. There were a few errors (the traditional ones) but there inevitably are when Christians start talking about an issue as nebulous as "Angels and Demons".

The only error on which I would like to comment is the identification of the Satan with the figure "Lucifer" from Isaiah 14:3-20. They are not the same character. In fact, as a LITERAL reading of the passage indicates, the oracle is about the human king of Babylon, not an angelic or demonic figure.

Now many will concede that the oracle is indeed about the King of Babylon and not specifically an angelic or demonic being but that the King is being compared to an angelic or demonic figure. In this way, some will use the comparison to construct a picture of this figure as being Lucifer or The Satan. I can certainly see that the poetics of verses 12-15 must refer to something other than a man but 16-20 obviously do refer to a man as does all that comes before verse 12.

But what about verses 12-15? Note verse 12:

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!"

The Hebrew phrase "הילל בן־שׁחר" (Helel Ben-Shachar) in verse 12, means "day star, son of dawn". It can be translated "Day Star" or "Morning Star" and properly refers to the planet Venus. In the Latin Vulgate, Jerome translated the Hebrew as "lucifer qui mane oriebaris" (morning star that used to rise early).

There is no Scripture that connects Lucifer (the Morning/Day Star) with The Satan. This connection was made by inference and was mistaken. Because of some of the expressions contained in this these few verses, Christian tradition began to associate the "Morning/Day Star" or "Lucifer" figure as being identical with the Satan. A quite similar passage is found in Ezekiel 28:1-19, which is expressly directed against the king of Tyre.

Please not my definitive paper on the identity of the King of Tyre. The aptly named: The Satan and Ezekiel 28: Reasons Why These Two Are Not Connected

Indeed, the only figure in the Bible I can find that is referred to as the "Morning Star" is Jesus in Revelation 22:16:

"Jesus says: '... I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.'"

No, Isaiah is not referring to Jesus in verse 12.

So what then is going on?

I hold the position that Isaiah is comparing the King of Babylon, not to an angelic or demonic being, but to gods in the Canaanite mythology.

He uses the image of the Morning/Day Star, which rises at dawn as the brightest of the stars, outshining Jupiter and Saturn, but lasting only until the sun appears. This imagery was used in Canaanite mythology about the Morning/Day Star who tried to rise high above the clouds and establish himself on the mountain where the gods assembled, in the far north, but was cast down into the underworld. Just as the Roman poets personified the Morning/Day Star and the Dawn (Aurora), as well as the Sun and the Moon and other heavenly bodies, so in Canaanite mythology Morning/Day Star and Dawn were pictured as two deities, the former being the son of the latter.

That last point is very important. The Morning/Day Star was considered the Son of the Dawn. Isaiah 14:12 refers to the figure as "Day Star, son of Dawn."

How could "Lucifer" or the Satan, or any other angelic or demonic figure have a father?

True, angelic figures in the Bible are sometimes referred to as "sons of God" (Job 1:6), but the context here seems to suggest something other than identifying God with shachar (שחר), the Dawn. In light of its Canaanite origin, I do not think its tenable to identify this passage with The Satan.

We'll just have to settle for the mystery of his origins.

Another Reason to Understand the Adam of Genesis 1 and 2-3 as Being Figurative and A-historical

In the past I have made known my view that the character of Adam as he is portrayed in the stories of Genesis 1 and 2-3 to be that of an a-historical figure.

This particular view does not necessarily negate the idea that there was indeed a “real” and “historical” person that we would identify as “Adam”. Indeed, basic logic necessitates that there must have been an “Adam”.

“We can all admit that Man currently exists. We can also all admit that there was a time when Man did not exist. Therefore, if Man does exist and there was a time when Man did not exist, I must presume that there was a First Man. From a quasi-historical sense then, this first identified man would be “Adam”. He is the first Adam as Christ is the Second Adam.”

Rather this view focuses on the actual portrayal of the character of Adam as he is portrayed in the stories of Genesis 1 and 2-3, as a symbolic figure and not a particular, historical individual.

One of the arguments made against my view is drawn from Romans 5:12-21:

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom 5:12-21)

The basic argument from this Scriptural reference is that the comparative relation made by Paul between Adam and Christ necessitates that both figures be understood as historical.

In the past, I have responded to this argument by noting that Paul’s purpose is to point to Christ and not to Adam. Paul is attempting to explain the person and work of Christ and is using the OT figure of Adam in his explanation. Such a purpose by Paul does not necessitate the historicity of Adam in Genesis 2-3. Such a use of Adam is similar to the author of Hebrew’s use of the “legendary” figure of Melchizedek in his explanation of Christ’s priesthood and kingship. See here and here.

That Paul’s purpose is to explain Christ and, as such, does not necessitate the historicity of Adam is bolstered by the apostle’s identification of Adam in Romans 5:14 as “who is the figure of him that was to come.”

I still believe that my counter-argument dispels the view that Paul’s argument in Romans 5 necessitates that Adam in Genesis 2-3 be understood as “historical”.

Regardless, this position in no way contradicts the various definitions of inerrancy that the church father’s formulated in 1979. :-)

Nevertheless, I have conjured another argument which might help others understand the a-historical argument that Paul is making with regards to the relationship between Adam and Christ and perhaps bolster the view of the a-historical nature of the story in Genesis 2-3.

Fundamental to Paul’s theology is Christ’s corporate nature.

Indeed, Paul’s Damascus road experience was fundamental to the formation of his Christian theology.

“And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” (Acts 9:4; cf. 22:7; 26:14; Gal 6:13-16)

In these words to Paul was revealed not only the truth of the resurrection of Jesus and what this meant to the truth claims of the Christians but also the amazing reality that the Christian community was incorporated in the person of Jesus Christ. Paul’s realization that all believers are “in Christ” becomes foundational to all the theology which follows.

Even the resurrection of Christ (of which Paul is witness) and its significance to the resurrection of the believer hinges upon Paul’s understanding of Christ’s corporate nature.

“Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor 15:12-23)

In this passage, Paul makes clear that the reason believers will be resurrected is that Christ is resurrected and all believers are “in Christ”, thus all believers will be resurrected in him.

(On a side note: Christ’s resurrection is the first resurrection of Revelation 20:5-6 in which those who take part are spared the second death. This is one of the many reasons why I understand the millennial kingdom of Revelation 20 to be current and not future.)

It is Christ that God resurrects because only he is worthy to be resurrected. Man is not worthy to be resurrected but deserves damnation for their sins. But by grace God’s resurrection of Jesus includes all those who believe in the Christ. Christ is the grace. He is the one that saves Man. Man is dead without Christ as grace. All who are outside Christ are in Adam and dead. All die in Adam but are made alive in Christ.

This analogy made by Paul is perfect to explain how Christ saves men from death. By taking the character of Adam in Genesis 2-3 and understanding the events of the story as the typological occurrence that damns all men, the apostle can then explain how it is that Christ saves all men.

Now this understanding of the corporate nature of Christ and Adam is one which was generally held among the theologians and scholars during the “golden age” of the SBC. Even today there are professors at SWBTS who still teach this doctrine. Of the more ultra-conservative and fundamentalist professors I have not heard such views espoused. Perhaps it is taught at SBTS since the Reformed traditions have tended to use it more in their theological formulations. Regardless, those SBC professors who do currently espouse the corporate nature of Christ and Adam generally hold to the position that just as Jesus Christ is historical, so the Adam of Genesis 2-3 should be understood as historical as well.

The problem with this argument is that if we take Paul’s argument of Adam as being literal and historical in relation to the literal and historical figure of Christ then we have to accept the idea that ADAM IS DAMNED.

The logic of holding to a literal and historical view of Adam in Paul’s explanation of the corporate nature of Christ results in the position that Adam as a literal and historical person in Genesis 2-3 was damned due to his sin and will not be resurrected with Christ into glory. Indeed, all who are not believers in Christ are damned and are in Adam.

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor 15:23)

Thus, all unbelievers are in Adam. They are all dead in Adam. All unbelievers are dead because they are in Adam. If they were not dead in Adam then they would be alive in Christ.

If Adam was a believer and alive in Christ, then all who are in Adam are similarly made alive by being in Adam in Christ. Such an idea is contrary to Scriptural teachings. However, the idea that Adam is not saved but damned (and all those in him) seems to run contrary to our understanding of the events which took place following man’s fall (Gen 3:21; 4:25. Yet, logically this is the position one must take if they are to simultaneously hold to the literal and historical view of Adam in Paul’s explanation of the corporate nature of Christ.

Therefore, it is best to take the character of Adam in Paul’s thinking as figurative and a-historical, while still holding firm to the meaning and truth of the apostle’s explanation. Furthermore, it is indeed best to understand the Adam of Genesis 1 and 2-3 as being figurative and a-historical.

Inerrancy and the Historical Veracity of Literary Scripture

I have a number of theological positions which differ from those held by my peers in the evangelical conservative community. And, frankly, I really do not care whether anyone agrees with me on these particular positions or not. Why? 1) These positions are true or untrue whether any other evangelical agrees with me or not. 2) These views really do not affect one’s faith and one can be a faithful believer whether or not they hold to these theological positions, so I feel no great urgency to convince everyone that my theological positions are correct. 3) Such a task is far too difficult for me to do so. Why? a) I’d be struggling against the “tyranny of first beliefs”, which means that people so strongly grasp onto the first beliefs they have that it is almost impossible to have them change such beliefs – particularly when such beliefs are matters of religious faith. b) I’d be struggling against old traditions which are held by the majority of the evangelical crowd. The overwhelming majority of individuals do not like to go against “the crowd” either due to peer pressure or because of anxiety and uncertainty of being wrong. c) Because the tendency of evangelical conservative Christianity is to equate the authenticity of faith with the accuracy of belief, people are afraid to consider other interpretations of the faith for fear that they would be heading towards apostasy (or at least be perceived as being heading towards apostasy). d) There is a particular level of theological inquiry which must be reached in order to begin to think about particular subjects and issues. We all know this is true: one must understand basic fundamentals of algebra before one proceeds to think about Calculus problems. One is not going to be able to consider Calculus problems if they are still struggling with algebra (like myself). I reached this conclusion back in May. I began to realize that the theological and biblical issues which I was pondering were generally beyond the paradigms of my peers. It wasn’t that they were somehow stupid or something. Far from it! My peers were very intelligent but they (or I) had gone towards other avenues of exploration of the Faith. Really, how can I discuss issues of the atonement with Calvinists? How can I discuss man made in the image of God with those who reject evolution? How can I discuss Luke’s creative process of Luke-Acts with those who refuse to accept documentary hypotheses? So I generally ceased to debate many issues with many of my friends and peers because the particular issues which I wished to debate required a particular set of presuppositions that the average evangelical conservative Christian just doesn’t have.

Nevertheless, I am extremely interested in the two great commandments and am extremely devoted to the notion of facilitating love and equality amongst believers. In fact, one of my ministerial goals is to create a greater level of theological tolerance in the Church with particular focus on the evangelical conservative community. While this goal might seem to be an overwhelming task it does benefit from the fact that it does not necessitate that a person must adopt the beliefs to which he is intolerant; it only needs to convince him that another believer can have such a belief. For example, I hold to the Q theory of the Synoptic problem. However, I know of some great scholars and professors who hold to another theory. In fact, my seminary’s NT dean rejects the Q theory. Imagine if I attempted to have him fired because he did not hold to the Q theory! Such nonsense! But similar such things do occur in SBC seminaries. So, in pursuit of this goal, I am going to attempt to make palatable to the evangelical conservative mindset a particular theological and biblical position which leads many accuse other believers of advocating errancy.

Amongst evangelical conservative Christians there is a general confusion of how any believer could believe that a particular story of the Bible is true but then reject the notion that this same particular story is not historical. Such confusion and ignorance usually leads to allegations of liberalism or not holding to inerrancy. Even when one does state their allegiance to conservative orthodoxy and inerrancy, such declarations and confessions of faith and theological principles go unheeded and are ignored in the face of positions that most evangelical conservative Christians believe to be untenable with conservative evangelical orthodoxy and inerrancy. Thus those believers who do not hold to the historical veracity of particular Biblical stories such as the Creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, the Flood, the Tower of Babel story, the stories of Jonah, Daniel, Esther and Ruth, and the apocalyptic events of the Revelation of John are pegged as liberals, one step away from apostasy.

Usually moderate believers who hold this view of a particular passage will try to explain this position by presenting the example of the parable whose meaning is true regardless of its historical validity. Unfortunately, this example often fails because too many evangelical conservative Christians believe all of the parables of the Bible are historically valid. Indeed, most evangelical conservative Christians believe that only a story that is an historical event can be true. Thus the parable of the Good Samaritan and that of the Prodigal Son have absolutely no veracity if they are not completely true or lack historicity. The truth and meaning of a story is said to be based upon concrete events instead of general principles which the story points (a very modernistic idea which has been heavily influenced by Enlightenment thinking).

So, instead of pointing to the example of the parable, allow me to point to two examples from Scripture which might help evangelical conservative Christians understand the thinking and faith of those believers who do indeed hold to the truth of a story without having to insist on its historicity. Two examples:

1) The Example of What “Jesus Said”

Throughout Scripture the authors of the Gospels will state (in their original manuscripts) that “Jesus said” and then quote Jesus’ words in the Greek.

Now, as we all know, Jesus did not actually make that statement … in the Greek. The statement made by Jesus was made in Aramaic, not in Greek. However, the Scriptures state that “Jesus said” something in Greek.

Yet, we read: “The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.”

Of course, we must then arrive at the conclusion that the inerrancy of Scripture takes into account that the Gospel writers are translating, paraphrasing, interpreting and rearranging the “historical” words of Jesus into the language, culture and situation in which the Gospel authors are writing. This would explain why the Synoptic Gospels frequently vary on the statements that Jesus made. This would also explain why Jesus in the Gospel of John speaks with the very words, syntax and thoughts of the author of the three epistles of John and not like the Jesus portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels.

2) The Example of the Poetry of Job

The book of Job is a very interesting book and extremely complex. Its final form was written sometime after the Babylonian Exile, probably close to the Maccabean period. Whether this story has any historical veracity is quite unimportant to me. I really do not care any more than I care about the historical veracity of any of the other poetic and literary books. However, I am interested in how this story (if it is indeed historical) has been theologically arranged to become the Scripture that it is. This interest is based on how the Gospel writers (particularly Luke) arranged their historical material as Gospels (mostly I have been looking at the Maccabean books, which are also “theologically” arranged “histories”).

Thus, I do make the case that the book of Job is literature and has been theologically and literarily composed. It must be affirmed that Job and his 3 (or 4) friends did not say all that the book of Job attributes to them. Why? Simple: if Jonah has lost all that he has, is sitting naked with boils over his body, and his friends are wailing at his side, then how can we believe that they spontaneously began to have a theological discussion completely in poetic verse? Really? Poetry?

The Scriptures are literary constructs, composed by people inspired by the Holy Spirit to write various forms of literature about God and His relationship with Man.

What God desired to communicate through Scripture He did so using the medium of literature and the various aspects which accompany literature. God could have communicated through art but literature was the better choice. But literature differs from reality in the same way that film differs from books. A film communicates visually and musically in ways which books could never do. Conversely, film contains inherent limitations in which books excel. The best example is with the Lord of the Rings. Here is a book that was transferred to film. In order to do so, the filmmakers had to rearrange the literary material in order to make the book’s material acceptable to the film genre. In a similar way, the Scripture writers (through inspiration of the Holy Spirit) composed their books in ways which altered the reality of an event to best communicate its meaning. Thus, the historical, Aramaic statements of Jesus were translated into Greek. Thus, the events of Job are written out in long, theological and poetic monologues. Any other method would have been inappropriate to the intended purpose. Thus, millions and billions of years of creation are collapsed within the poetic framework of a few days.

Therefore, when a believer states that he doubts the historical veracity of a particular Scriptural story he is not necessarily stating that he doubts the meaning and truth of the story. He may simply think that the story has been literarily composed to meet the conditions necessary to effectively communicate the truth.

The doctrine of Inerrancy must be an emphasis on inerrancy of meaning and not inerrancy of form (it certainly should not be a matter of inerrancy of interpretation). To do otherwise is to dismiss a particular genre of literature as being beneath the literary dignity of Scripture (in terms of considering “inerrancy of interpretation”, that however one interprets Scripture to mean is what Scripture means, is reader-response hubris on the highest level). Such an effrontery is unbecoming evangelical Christianity.

I hope this little monograph has done some good in furthering the fellowship and love amongst believers in the Church. I hope I have given to the evangelical conservative community some legitimate and understandable reasons for why some other believers do hold and can hold to the truth of the Scriptural teachings while not having to accept the historical veracity of a Scriptural story. Again, you do not have to believe such a position is true but that it is okay for a believer to have it and that is it okay to fellowship and serve with such believers. And to let those other believers serve.

Who Adam and Eve Were

I was recently asked the following question that I answered:

"You being a Darwinian evolutionist, and having read some of your posts on the subject, I was wondering what your current opinion is of who exactly who you think Adam and Eve were, the nature of the Garden of Eden ...and your take on the nature of the Great Flood."

It seems logical to me that there was a first man, and I assume that this must be a point of agreement between evolutionists and “creationists” (i.e., those conservative Christian believers (usually fundamentalists) who believe that the Genesis 1-3 story is a literal and historical record (not to mention scientific) and believe that macro biological evolution is incompatible with the revealed teachings of Scripture.).

We can all admit that Man currently exists. We can also all admit that there was a time when Man did not exist. Therefore, if Man does exist and there was a time when Man did not exists, I must presume that there was a First Man. From a quasi-historical sense then, this first identified man would be “Adam”. He is the first Adam as Christ is the Second Adam.

But how do I reconcile this belief in the first Adam and my belief in the theory of evolution?

I would suggest that for millions of years life existed on Earth. All of this life was created by God but God did not create this life in the image of Himself. For this reason, because this life was not created in God’s image, this life created by God could not relate to God (a personal being) in a personal way. But God wanted to relate to in a personal way to a personal creature. Life began from the smallest single-celled organism and evolved over millions of year from small worms, to fish, to lizards, to mammals, to ape like creatures – all of which were created by God and non of which were able to relate to Him on a personal level.

I suggest that, at some point, one of these non-personal creatures produced the first creature that could relate to God in a personal way. This creature was probably some early form of “primate” that probably looked more like an “ape” than what we humans look like today. He probably had a small brain and very little intelligence, but this creature could relate to God on a personal level and, in this way, this creature was made in the “image of God.”

So why do I not simply identify the first man with the “Adam of the Scriptures”? The reason for this is that the Genesis 2-3 chapter is not focused on an individual but a corporate personality. The “Adam” of Genesis 2-3 is not a single individual but he is ALL men and every man (and woman) in this scenario in which Man sins and falls from the image of God. Each person (male and female) is Adam and not just the first man but it does include him. It even includes the last man … which is an interesting thought; who will be the last man? Anyway, this is not a foreign concept to Scripture at all.

Look at the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13. Before his entrance, four beasts presented (7:2-8, 15-17, 19-25). From the text it is obvious that these 4 beasts do not represent 4 persons but 4 kingdoms. They are symbolic and non-historical but it does represent 4 historical situations. After the beasts, last comes the “Son of Man”. The “Son of Man” is symbolic and non-historical. The “Son of Man” represents the a kingdom and not a person (7:18, 27). “He” represents the holy people of God.

Now when Jesus came along, He took the symbolic “Son of Man” figure and applied it to Himself. Christ is a corporate being in whom all believers exist (must exist) to be justified by God.

(In college I talked with many people who denied Christ’s deity. They always said, “Well, Jesus never said he was God.” To which I responded: “You’re right, He never said He was God, because He was not just God; He was God-Man.” Or I might respond: “He called himself the ‘Son of Man.’ That’s a much more interesting self-designation.”) See A Quick Confession of Christ.

In Romans 5 (and elsewhere), Paul compares and contrast Christ as corporate with Adam as corporate. The usual reply is that “Christ is both individual and corporate, therefore, Adam must be individual and corporate.” But that is not a logical corollary of Paul’s argument and is not point made in the text.

This is certainly not the point made in Genesis 2-3.

There are 3 “Adams” in Genesis.

There is the “Adam” of Genesis 1 as the collective Man, made in the image of God, being both male and female (P-source).

There is the “Adam” of Genesis 2-3 as collective Man (falls as group), individual Man (falls as individual) and Man as male (‘ish) that stands in relation to Man as female (‘isha) (J-source).

Then there is the “Adam” of Genesis 4 who is probably the only explicitly individual “Adam” in the book. He is the wife of Eve and the father of Cain, Abel and Seth. And he is not mentioned much. Eve actually has a more prominent role in the rest of the narrative.

This is Scripture: it is God-breathed, inerrant, infallible and revealed. From it we get the Word of God. But the question for me is not that the Scripture is inerrant; I believe it is! For me the question is how we interpret this revelation.

We are confronted with several questions in these passages?

We do we have TWO creation stories in TWO different styles each with a different chronology of events (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2)?

Who was Cain afraid of when he told God that people on the earth would try to kill him? The traditional view was that there were only 3 people living: Adam, Eve and Cain.

Where did Cain’s wife come from?

Why is there NO evidence of a world wide flood? If we believe that all the different types of animals that exist today were carried on the ark how do we reconcile that they could not all fit on the ark? Where did all the fresh water fish go? The insects? Eight people could not have managed the duties of what it would have taken to care for thousands of animals for over a year. If there was a flood then the earth would have a clay sediment all over the earth, but there isn’t one. Now I believe in miracles but the logistics are such that God would have had to have erased all evidence of those miracles. Why would He do that? And even if He did, then science won’t be able to prove it because God removed all evidence that science must need to verify it.

Again, I believe the Bible is inerrant and I am not questioning the Bible. Rather, I am questioning the traditional interpretation of the Bible on these points. The Bible is not wrong but maybe we have been wrong in how we interpret it.

See also:

Evangelical Evolutionism

The Historicity of Christ

Exegesis of Genesis 3


I hope that helps.