How Important Is Genesis 1-3?
September 18th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
I’m convinced the opening chapters of Genesis are not optional. They establish the vital foundation for everything we believe as Christians.
Sadly, it is a foundation that is being systematically undermined by the very institutions that should be most vigorously defending it. More and more Christian educational institutions, apologists, and theologians are abandoning faith in the literal truth of Genesis 1-3.
I recall reading a survey a few years ago which revealed that in one of America’s leading evangelical accrediting associations, whose membership boasted scores of evangelical Bible colleges and universities, only five or six college-level schools remain solidly opposed to the old-earth view of creation. The rest are open to a reinterpretation of Genesis 1-3 that accommodates evolutionary theories.
Scores of well-known Bible teachers and apologists see the whole question as moot, and some even aggressively argue that a literal approach to Genesis is detrimental to the credibility of Christianity. They have given up the battle—or worse, joined the attack against biblical creationism.
I’m thankful for those who are still faithfully resisting the trend—organizations like Answers in Genesis, the Creation Research Society, and the Institute for Creation Research. These organizations and others like them involve many expert scientists who challenge the presuppositions of evolutionists on technical and scientific grounds. They clearly demonstrate that scientific proficiency is not incompatible with faith in the literal truth of Scripture—and that the battle for the beginning is ultimately a battle between two mutually exclusive faiths—faith in Scripture versus faith in anti-theistic hypotheses. It is not really a battle between science and the Bible.
As Christians, we believe the Bible is truth revealed to us by God, who is the true Creator of the universe. That belief is the basic foundation of all genuine Christianity. It is utterly incompatible with the speculative presuppositions of the naturalists.
In Scripture the Creator Himself has revealed to us everything essential for life and godliness. And it starts with an account of creation. If the biblical creation account is in any degree unreliable, the rest of Scripture stands on a shaky foundation.
But the foundation is not shaky. The more I understand what God has revealed to us about our origin, the more I see clearly that the foundation stands firm. I agree with those who say it is time for the people of God to take a fresh look at the biblical account of creation. But I disagree with those who think that calls for any degree of capitulation to the transient theories of naturalism. Only an honest look at Scripture, with sound principles of hermeneutics, will yield the right understanding of the creation and fall of our race.
The Bible gives a clear and cogent account of the beginnings of the cosmos and humanity. There is absolutely no reason for an intelligent mind to balk at accepting it as a literal account of the origin of our universe. Although the biblical account clashes at many points with naturalistic and evolutionary hypotheses, it is not in conflict with a single scientific fact. Indeed, all the geological, astronomical, and scientific data can be easily reconciled with the biblical account. The conflict is not between science and Scripture, but between the biblicist’s confident faith and the naturalist’s willful skepticism.
To many, having been indoctrinated in schools where the line between hypothesis and fact is systematically and deliberately being blurred, that may sound naive or unsophisticated, but it is nonetheless a fact. Again, science has never disproved one word of Scripture, and it never will. On the other hand, evolutionary theory has always been in conflict with Scripture and always will be. But the notion that the universe evolved through a series of natural processes remains an unproven and untestable hypothesis, and therefore it is not “science.” There is no proof whatsoever that the universe evolved naturally. Evolution is a mere theory—and a questionable, constantly-changing one at that. Ultimately, if accepted at all, it must be taken by sheer faith.
How much better to base our faith on the sure foundation of God’s Word! There is no ground of knowledge equal to or superior to Scripture. Unlike scientific theory, it is eternally unchanging. Unlike the opinions of man, its truth is revealed by the Creator Himself! It is not, as many suppose, at odds with science. True science has always affirmed the teaching of Scripture. Archaeology, for instance, has demonstrated the truthfulness of the biblical record time and time again. Wherever Scripture’s record of history may be examined and either proved or disproved by archaeological evidence or reliable independent documentary evidence, the biblical record has always been verified. There is no valid reason whatsoever to doubt or distrust the biblical record of creation, and there is certainly no need to adjust the biblical account to try to make it fit the latest fads in evolutionary theory.
Again, a biblical understanding of the creation and fall of humanity establishes the necessary foundation for the Christian world-view. Everything Scripture teaches about sin and redemption assumes the literal truth of the first three chapters of Genesis. If we wobble to any degree on the truth of this passage, we undermine the very foundations of our faith.
If Genesis 1-3 doesn’t tell us the truth, why should we believe anything else in the Bible? Without a right understanding of our origin, we have no way to understand anything about our spiritual existence. We cannot know our purpose, and we cannot be certain of our destiny. After all, if God is not the Creator, then maybe He’s not the Redeemer either. If we cannot believe the opening chapters of Scripture, how can we be certain of anything the Bible says?
To those who will inevitably complain that such a view is credulous and unsophisticated, my reply is that it is certainly superior to the irrational notion that an ordered and incomprehensibly complex universe sprung by accident from nothingness and emerged by chance into the marvel that it is.
Scripture offers the only accurate explanations that can be found anywhere about how our race began, where our moral sense originated, why we cannot seem to do what our own consciences tells us is right, and how we can be redeemed from this hopeless situation.
Scripture is not merely the best of several possible explanations. It is the Word of God.
What’s ironic is how when Christians in the past reinterpreted and accomodated scripture to fit with the popular ideas of the day, they had to then play “keep up” with the tides of science…and I will admit that this lone fact is often embarassing for us Christians who get our history thrown in our faces.
What’s even more ironic is how now empirical scientists are leading the charge in the “intelligent design” camp, not the theologians (or skillful biblical exegetes). I’d say that’s ironic because, if anyone’s noticed, I keep saying the same thing over and over:
“It’s not about which side has more ‘evidence’.
It’s ALL about properly interpreting the data through the authoritative lens of scripture.”
The debate is in the stomping grounds of the pastors, theologians and skillful exegetes, for the debate takes place in the first few chapters of Genesis. I hope some of them start waking up from their little nap…
Here’s one other thing. I was thinking about how I have been repeatedly saying:
“It’s not about which side has more ‘evidence’.
It’s ALL about properly interpreting the data through the authoritative lens of scripture.”
SO, I was trying to encase that point in a little ‘bumper sticker’ rhyme. I ended up writing down a whole 3 stanza poem. DOH! Anyway, here’s the last line of the poem which kinda has the encapsulated idea:
“It’s not sheer facts that harmonize the science/faith discord, but whether one sees facts through eyes submitting to the Lord.”
Feel free to completely rip me off or improve on my stupid poetry. HA!
“I’m convinced the opening chapters of Genesis are not optional. They establish the vital foundation for everything we believe as Christians.”
And amen to that.
Seven years ago when my husband and I made the decision to homeschool our kids, one of our biggest concerns was that we’d be able to find a curriculum that taught science and history from a Biblical view. We strongly believed (and still do) that a proper understanding of both of these subjects begins with the solid foundation of creation, as taught in Scripture.
We were blessed to find just such a curriculum that reinforces the Biblical account of creation as the foundation for both science and history. The kids love both of these subjects, and we’re quite pleased to know that what we dealt with in the public schools (the constant barrage of false teaching about evolution) when we were kids – they will never have to deal with at all. In fact, when evolution does come up, they all laugh at the preposterous idea that man evolved from some primordial sludge pond (or any of the other ridiculous theories).
It just blesses my heart to know that their foundation in life & learning is a solid Biblical one. I wish more kids had that opportunity.
Thank you for this series.
SDG,
Carla Rolfe
I just read my little rhyme and realized that I screwed up HUGE. I sad “science/faith discord” where in another series of posts, I argue that it’s not ’science’ verses ‘faith’ but instead ‘biblical’ versus ‘non-biblical’ science. I completely shot myself in the foot…Don’t use that rhyme! DOH!
Okay:
“It’s not sheer facts that parry evolution’s swinging sword, but whether one sees facts through eyes submitting to the Lord”
That’s a LITTLE better.
…and the Earth asserted, “A lady never tells her age!”…
The whole creationist, intelligent design, big bang debate is always very interesting because it seems that so many in the Christian community are so divided in their interpretation/view of the Genesis account. I haven’t given it much thought bey…
So what if a Christian takes the Genesis account as a metaphor? Does that make him any less of a Christian?
Also:
“As Christians, we believe the Bible is truth revealed to us by God, who is the true Creator of the universe. That belief is the basic foundation of all genuine Christianity.”
I strongly disagree with this. I was always under the impression that the sacrifice of Christ was the basic foundation of all genuine Christianity. At least, that’s what the Bible says.
Does the gospel START with Christ? Do you not need some “bad news” (like the creation and fall) before the “good news” appears to actually be good?
I mean, when you tell someone about the gospel, do you simply say “Jesus died for your sins…” or do you start by explaining what sin is, where it comes from, etc.?
I don’t know about where you live (and I’m learning that a lot of Yankees come from a ‘Christianized’ upbringing where the word “sin” still means “doing bad stuff”, which is closer than the Canadians I know!), but where I’m from, the response to a gospel message I always hear is “So what? Jesus was stupid and he died. What does that have to do with me? Sucks to be him!”
If people don’t understand why they NEED Christ, they won’t understand the gospel at all. That’s one reason why Genesis is important…though I can think of at least 2 more if you want.
Jason said: “So what if a Christian takes the Genesis account as a metaphor? Does that make him any less of a Christian?”
It makes him a wrong Christian, if he’s even a Christian in the first place.
“I was always under the impression that the sacrifice of Christ was the basic foundation of all genuine Christianity. At least, that’s what the Bible says.”
You argue that one part of the bible can be taken metaphorically, but then argue that the bible in other places is authoritative. Which is it? By what criteria has God handed down for us to decide? Our wisdom?
johnny mac! Thank you for being so trustworthy when it comes to truth, in fact, the most rigorous test of my faith that I can imagine would be to hear you say something unmistakably and unbiblically wrong. So stay faithful, the Lord is a rewarder… I have too much warfare going on right now anyway to deal with something like that…
Some parts of the Bible are very obviously to be taken as metaphor or illustration. The prodigal son in Jesus’ parable is not a historical figure.
I understand that the first three chapters of Genesis present themselves differently– as history. Part of Jesus’ genealogy, ultimately. But I don’t think it changes the message and meaning of Jesus to say that some of that history might not be 100% spot-on, and even that the first three chapters of Genesis are basically myth. The *point* remains the same: we are all fallen sinners in need of redemption, and Jesus provides that redemption. And yes, I’m suggesting that parts of the Bible are more reliable than others. 66 different books here. And no, I don’t think it makes me or anyone else less saved to assert such a thing.
But don’t take my word for it. No less a biblical literalist that J. Gresham Machen writes (in Christianity and Liberalism, chapter 3, paragraph 15):
“There are many men in the modern Church who thus accept the central message of the Bible and yet believe that the message has come to us merely on the authority of trustworthy witnesses unaided in their literary work by any supernatural guidance of the Spirit of God. There are many who believe that the Bible is right at the central point, in its account of the redeeming work of Christ, and yet believe that it contains many errors. Such men are not really liberals, but Christians; because they have accepted as true the message upon which Christianity depends. A great gulf separates them from those who reject the supernatural act of God with which Christianity stands or falls.”
Two ideas here that I had in reading some of the posting:
1. WHY are so many people tempted to take Genesis as metaphor?
2. If the various component parts of the message are untrue, how can the final message be true?
I think it all depends on point of view. I am not speaking about how your interpret the Bible, because I believe that the bible has to be taken literally and I do so. But I was speaking about the point of view of the people who look upon the bible as foolish and completely devoid of logic. I have often tried to look at the Big Bang/ evolution with the same point of view and I have found it to be equally if not more incredible to believe for a normal man were it not masked under the name of science.
For example according to a simple view have a look at big bang which is only a theory. It says that the whole vast universe of which we have seen less that 2% with all our telescopes and other things came out of a very very very tiny particle of infinite density which could not even be seen. So literally speaking everything so vast came out of something which could not even be seen. and literally saying its “everything came out of nothing” because there was nothing to be seen really..(According to science seeing is believing) And creation in the BIble says that God spoke the worlds into existence which is also that he created everything from nothing. So as far as I can see Both of them say that same thing that everything came from literally nothing (Big Bang). So I can’t see the point where people who believe science should say that we who believe in the creation are stupid for our beliefs when its really not different from theirs. I don’t know if it looks foolish to some but honestly if you think from a clear point of view Bing bang looks equally if not more incredible.
Forgive me if I be a bit more stupid and lets take the case of evolution. Scientists and evolutionists say that its not possible that a huge number of changes can happen in one go but a very small chance change and happen in a million years and hence its those millions of chance changes in the billions of years which have brought about the present world. So something as complex as a human being was developed by chance and a series of chance mutations. But let’s tells scientists whats the chance or .. take some iron converting itself into a truck (which is very well designed yet less complex than even the smallest bacteria) given a million years and eveolutionists would laugh. But why? Cant a piece of steel undergo a million changes in billion years and come out as a finished truck? huh? and besides another thing which scientists say is that the conditions in other planets are not favourable for life. yet they say that the single celled organisms which made it to earth adapted to the climate and environment on earth and so it mutated. But why did not any single celled organism not adapt itself to any other planet. After all in the solar system itself we have other 2 – 3 bodies which have ice and water. I think these are things which even a person who believes in evolution and big band think about.
Sorry if I were a bit foolish here
On this subject – the “Creation Museum” is well worth the trip and cost to experience.
It is a stagering acheivement and will bring a tear to the eye of those who fight to defend the literal understanding of the creation week and the deluge of Noah.
An absolute breath of fresh air.
Great article! Amen and amen!
Everyone Please view the April 19 released documentary film EXPELLED. This highlights how scientists who even dare mention “intelligent design” are denounced or “expelled” from classrooms and academic positions. This film was recently reviewed in WORLD magazine, along with an interview with Ben Stein the writer / producer of EXPELLED. Marvin Olasky in his comments on the film, refers to how the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th century applied evolutionary concepts to a social breeding theory for humans. This influenced the German science and Nazi concept of breeding a superior race. This is well documented in literature of the time, but indeed is the logical outcome of adopting human evolutionary concepts. Beliefs have consequences. This “eugenics” concept may arise again in the future under a different name, especially when resource scarcity may be used as a reason to allow “only the fittest” to survive.