Bully's Blog

I recently found a quote that deals wonderfully with the argument that Genesis was just a story written to refute the errors in the paganism of the time, not to describe the actual biological history of the world:

“…while it’s quite unlikely that Moses was thinking, “Take that, Darwin!” when he set pen to papyrus, it will turn out that by refuting Enuma Elish, Genesis also refutes Darwin, because Darwinism, at bottom, is nothing but Enuma Elish baptized in post-Enlightenment balloon juice. Anyone with Longman’s literary expertise ought to see this very clearly.

Enuma Elish says the world as we know it today was born in an orgy of chaos, sex, and death, and these three forces are the engine from which all life springs. Darwin explains that the various species arise from a combination of random mutation (chaos) and natural selection (sex and death). The big difference is that Darwin said it in a way that post-Enlightenment man wouldn’t laugh at. Hawking likewise has nothing to add that Enuma Elish hasn’t already offered to the world, only to have Genesis soundly refute it.”

You can read Tim Nichols’ full article here:

How Not To Read Genesis

Is Genesis 1 history or myth?

“The expositor [of the creation narratives] must move knowingly between two temptations. On the one hand, there is the temptation to treat this material as historical, as a report of what happened…. On the other hand, there is the temptation to treat these materials as myth, as statements which announce what has always been and will always be true of the world…. Our exposition will insist that these texts be taken neither as history nor as myth. Rather, we insist that the text is a proclamation of God’s decisive dealing with his creation.

The word “creation” is controlling for such a view. The whole cluster of words—creator/ creation/ create/ creature—are confessional words freighted with peculiar meaning. Terms such as “cosmos” and “nature” should never be carelessly used as equivalents, for these words do not touch the theocentric, covenantal relational affirmation being made…. The text, then, is a proclamation of covenanting as the shape of reality…. This theological affirmation permits every scientific view that is genuinely scientific and not a theological claim in disguise.”

—Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation Commentary), pp. 16-17.

I agree that the Creation narrative sets the foundation for the structure of later Covenants, and also of the construction of the Tabernacle and Temple, but the explanation above is just a fancy dance to avoid the unavoidable bullet that is Genesis 1. So it’s a proclamation that affirms theological truth but not historical truth? No wonder the western church is in a pickle!

When faced with an issue in which you wish to fence-sit, REDEFINE the terminology:

“In the last analysis, the Old Testament doctrine of creation expresses a sense of the present situation of man. He is hedged in by the incomprehensible power of Almighty God. The real purpose of the creation story is to inculcate what God is doing all the time…. Thus the doctrine of creation expresses man’s sense of utter dependence on God.”

—Rudolf Bultmann, Primitive Christianity in Its Contemporary Setting, p. 18.

If Genesis 1 is not history, and it is not myth, it is ideology. Which makes this plain old boring gnosticism. These smart guys just don’t get it, do they?

As one of my old Bible teachers used to say, “If someone’s taking an odd position, there’s a bee in his pocket.”

A comment from David Hagopian on the recent pub debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and Pastor Doug Wilson:

There was a moment when Hitchens hit Doug with the old, “Jesus didn’t fulfill his words in Mathew 24.” It was an amazing response by Doug. Very authoritative on this section of Scripture being a description of the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Really powerful. You could hear multiple pin drops in the room between Christopher and Westminster profs and students. The hair on my arms stood up. Hitchens was stunned. He never again in debates brought up Scripture. Powerful stuff.

Gary DeMar writes:

“Can you imagine how a futurist would attempt to deal with Matthew 24? “Well, Jesus didn’t really mean ‘this generation,’ that is, that first-century generation. He was really referring to a future generation. Yes, ‘this generation’ does always mean the generation to whom Jesus was speaking everywhere else in the gospels, but it doesn’t mean that here. It might mean ‘race’ or ‘a future generation that sees these signs.’” Instead of hearing pins drop, there would have been out-loud laughing and dismissal.”

Full article here.

Gregory Beale examined the Old Testament background of John’s claim that “this is the last hour,” tracing it mostly back to Daniel 8-12, the only place where he could locate a combination of “last” and “hour.” He claimed that John was talking about the eschatological trial that was inaugurated in his day, but one that continued through the whole church age.

It seems better to me to see it as the eschatological trial of the first century. John is (as Beale recognised) drawing on the Olivet Discourse, but there the coming of false Christs and false prophets is a sign of the end of the age, and of the destruction of the temple. The tribulation that Jesus talks about is the tribulation of the birth pangs of the new covenant. John is talking about the same event, only telling his readers that the timetable is almost completed.

Peter J. Leithart, 1 John: Last Hour, www.leithart.com

“The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.”

(From C. S. Lewis, “The World’s Last Night” (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385)

Either C. S. Lewis was right, or Jesus was. The choice is obvious. All those things came to pass.

“A river of fire was flowing and coming forth from before him…”
Daniel 7:10

This aspect of the vision points us back to Jacob’s ladder, which had angels ascending and descending upon it (Genesis 28:12). These are angels who bear the flaming sword of Genesis 3, which bars mankind from paradise, but which also mediates between God and mankind when it comes down from His throne to light the fire on His earthly altar (Leviticus 9:24; 2 Chronicles 7:1). Fulfilling the prophecy, it is the fire that came down from Jesus on the day of Pentecost to light the fire on His new altar-people (Acts 2), which is pictured again in Revelation 8:3-5.

James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall, p. 392.
Available from www.americanvision.org

“For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost. (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 [NKJV])

“Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.” (Hebrews 7:25 [NKJV])

Revelation can become a mere distraction. Charles Spurgeon wrote about prophecy buffs:

“He is great upon the ten toes of the beast, the four faces of the cherubim, the mystical meaning of badgers’ skins, and the typical bearings of the staves of the ark, and the windows of Solomon’s temple: but the sins of business men, the temptations of the times, and the needs of the age, he scarcely ever touches upon. Such preaching reminds me of a lion engaged in mouse-hunting, or a man-of-war cruising after a lost water-butt.”*

That’s a fair comment if study of symbols becomes an end in itself, but they were intended to convey crucial information. Surely the symbolic passages have more authority than our own anecdotes when trying to communicate abstract truth? There is nothing in Revelation that isn’t also elsewhere in the New Testament. It was not intended to be an isolated book, and the better it is understood, the more powerfully it can be incorporated into our teaching and preaching.

*Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, p. 76.

What is the condition of man apart from Christ, and what salvation is offered to us in that condition? The Word of salvation does not come to sinners who are ailing. It comes to sinners who are dead. It does not come to those who have anything to contribute to the process of resurrection. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, He was not pulling while Lazarus pushed. Before the word of life comes to us, before the breath of God is breathed into us, our condition is hopeless.

We are in the grip of carnal hatred. Without Christ, what does the mind of man do? Where does it gravitate? “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (8:7). Described another way, this condition of hatred is a form of death, and it is a death that reigns. Apart from Christ, sinners are dead — not sick. “And so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12). Again, the image here should be that of Lazarus in the tomb. How much did he contribute to his resurrection?

Doug Wilson www.dougwils.com

The modern tendency is to read the Bible only to find out what it says to men as individuals. The Scripture is consulted only to find out what the Bible says to me, about me, for me, and so forth. Clearly there is nothing wrong with this in itself, but it produces a warped view of the Bible if this is the only way it is read. The Bible, God’s written revelation, speaks not only about individual matters, but also about social and cosmic (creation-al) matters as well. This is because the Bible, while it is man-oriented, is God-centered.

James Jordan, The Law of the Covenant www.biblicalhorizons.com