How Do We Understand Genesis? A Response To Dr. William Lane Craig

Editor's Note: Corrected a spelling error for Bishop James Ussher.

A little over a year ago, Dr. William Lane Craig (founder of Reasonable Faith) announced that he would begin a study of the Genesis account of creation, an admitted area of weakness for him. The podcast where he made this announcement can be found here, and I would urge you to listen to it before reading the rest of this article. It's only 20 minutes long.

Before going further, I would like to applaud Dr. Craig for taking on this topic. The creation of the universe and subsequent fall of man into sin is critically important to the gospel message. I have no reason to doubt that he is striving to engage with Genesis in an honest way. That being said, Craig made some statements that I'd like to respond to here, as I find them worrisome.

Firstly, Dr. Craig makes the curious remark that "the first 11 chapters of Genesis are troubling for everybody" (basically from creation to the flood, to the Tower of Babel). I disagree with this, as I find nothing especially troubling about what Moses wrote here. It's very clear historical narrative with little ambiguity. The "troubling" part only comes when you subject the Bible to modern secular scientific dogma (scientism), a philosophy which accepts the claims made "science" as the only source of truth. Given this constraint, I can assure that Genesis will always lose. However, this is not the situation where we find ourselves.

Genesis is a historical record of the creation as well as the origin of God's chosen people Israel. Creation as described in Genesis 1 is not a natural process, but rather a supernatural event. It is recorded in history but cannot be studied scientifically. We can't subject Genesis to scientific study for the simple reason that we weren't there. Furthermore, the worldview of Genesis is supernatural. The worldview of scientism is materialistic naturalism. Why would we expect this book to meet the standards set by those that reject God's existence to begin with?

To emphasize this point, let's consider the next 11 chapters of Genesis, so Genesis 12 through 22. Are there any events recorded that modern scientism would not reject out of hand?

• 12:1 — The Lord speaks directly to Abram
• 12:17 — The Lord afflicts the Egyptians for Sarai’s sake
• 14:18 — Melchizedek appears
• 15:1 — The Lord speaks to Abram in a vision
• 15:17 — A smoking fire pot and a flaming torch (the Lord) pass through animals that were cut in half
• 16:7 — Angel of the Lord visits Hagar
• 17:1 — The Lord appears to Abram
• 18:1 — The Lord appears to Abraham
• 18:22 — Abraham argues with the Lord
• 19:1 — Two angels visit Lot at Sodom
• 19:11 — Men of Sodom blinded by angels
• 19:24 — The Lord rains down sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah
• 19:26 — Lot’s wife turns to salt
• 20:3 — The Lord appears to Abimelech in a dream
• 21:5 — Isaac born to Sarah at very old age
• 22:2 — The Lord tests Abraham
• 22:12 — The Angel of the Lord commands Abraham not to sacrifice his son Isaac

I hope the point is clear. None of these events would be possible within a materialistic worldview, but for some reason Christians seek out secular explanations for specific events in Genesis, creation week especially. This is no way to do exegesis. The worldview of Genesis (and indeed the entire Bible) is supernatural in nature, one in which God is sovereign and actively engaged in the events taking place.

From here, Dr. Craig launches into a set of questions, such as "Was there really a talking snake that tempted man into sin?" To that I would answer, "Was there really an incarnation in which God the Son took on flesh, died, and rose again?" The historicity of Genesis should not be in question, unless you're also going to question the historicity of the rest of Scripture. There's no indication that Genesis 1 through 11 are allegorical, and if it is, there's no indication of where that allegory should stop. Choosing to feel "okay" about Genesis 12 onward is arbitrary.

Next, Craig concedes the point that Genesis 1 through 11 appear to be only a few thousand years ago (according to Bishop Ussher, creation week started on 4004 B.C. based on the genealogies). I once again appreciate the intellectual honesty to admit that the text (at face value) is describing events from a few thousand years ago. But then he makes an interesting point which betrays his underlying bias: "And yet [Bishop Ussher's date estimate] runs very counter to what paleo-anthropology tells us about human origins. Anatomically modern human beings like you and me originated somewhere around 200,000 years ago." I hope you see the problem here. If there's any disagreement between the standard geological timeline (Charles Lyell, 1830) and the biblical text (Holy Spirit, I AM), Craig will side with the former and give no benefit of the doubt to the latter whatsoever. Of course, Lyell assumed uniformitarianism, that there was no global flood which would completely decimate the fossil record. The scoffers described in 2 Peter 3:4 come to mind on this point.

He gets into the weeds a bit regarding Neanderthals and Denisovans, which I won't comment on except to say that his conclusions once again assume a uniformitarian perspective.

There is one final point to address, and it is regarding the genre of Genesis. Dr. Craig says that how you understand the genre will determine your interpretive paradigm. He's quite right on this point. But then he says the following, and it's troubling to say the least:

"Although Young Earth Creationists take this to straightforward factual report, I must say very few if any commentators believe that. I think that the average pastor or layman would be shocked, Kevin, at how non-literal most evangelical Bible-believing commentators to be. They don't think that there was a talking snake, or magical trees, to eat from in the garden. They don't think that there was this universal deluge that drowned every living thing on the earth, and that Noah took on board the ark elephants and giraffes."

This is really the crux of the matter. Dr. Craig is going to come to his conclusion based on some sort of consensus of theologians, which he will choose himself based on his own preference. Does it really matter what "most" commentators say, if what they say is in contradiction to what Scripture clearly teaches? Do they really believe the Bible, or only the parts that are scientifically satisfying? We aren't told. He's looking at "options on the table" for what Genesis 1 through 11 is describing, but it's very clear that his a priori assumption is that the 6000 year old universe is completely out of bounds, since it disagrees the "most" with scientism that cannot be questioned. This is a fool's errand since no amount of hand-waving will be able to remove the supernatural from the pages of Scripture. God left no room for that. Thank you for your time.