Introduction: Why Hermeneutics?
My son, if you receive my words, and treasure my commands within you, so that you incline your ear to wisdom, and apply your heart to understanding; yes, if you cry out for discernment, and lift up your voice for understanding. If you seek her as silver, and search for her as for hidden treasures; then you will understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.
-Proverbs 2:1-5
Throughout the ages, and over many centuries, mankind has embarked on a quest, probing the universe, scouring the globe, and searching within himself, for the precious treasure of wisdom. In a diverse variety of ways, man has concocted crafty philosophies, invented sophisticated technologies, stood upon far away worlds, and produced volumes of eloquent literature, in a quest to obtain wisdom and knowledge. Mankind labors for brilliance to change and control his surroundings; the acumen to prolong life even in the most threatening of circumstances; and perhaps, highest amongst the honorable endeavors is the quest for enlightenment to explain the universe around him. It is simply ingrained within the soul of him, an itch which cannot be satisfied without the answers to his most basic questions of truth and meaning. Yet for all of that, mankind is no farther along in discovering the way of life. For all of man’s genius, he just cannot seem to stop himself from promptly hastening to his own death while intoxicating himself in his misplaced sense of learnedness all along the way. Man rushes to his destruction because he is allergic to the remedy he wishes to find. The heart of man wishes to be autonomous. He elevates himself to a position of divinity. He believes that he gets the last word in determining truth.
However, we as a people whom God has elected, in His sovereignty, ought to know better. It is vital that all Christians know that, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Pro. 1:7). We should not approach wisdom with the same vanity as the world, but take full confidence in the subject, knowing that we are securely fastened by our communion and fellowship with the Lord of truth. In John 14, Jesus Christ speaks to His disciples and assures them that, even though He was to soon leave them, being given up for crucifixion, the Father would send to them another “Helper.” In verse 17, Jesus identifies this Helper as, “the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him.” Two chapters after this account Jesus says of the Spirit that, “When He, the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth” (Jn. 16:13). When brought before Pilate during the trial of Christ, Jesus announces, “For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice” (18:37).
Little does the foolish man know that the answer to the questions of truth, knowledge, and wisdom that this world searches for, are not to be found in some disciplined scientific scouring of the universe, but in every word of pure Scripture, for “Every word of God is pure” (Pro. 30:5). In John 17:17, Jesus prays for His disciples and asks of the father saying, “Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth.” How foolish we would be to not take the issue of objective truth seriously. Even more foolish would we be to look anywhere else other than the revelation of God for it.
So, it is because the revelation of God is the source of all truth; it is because “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isa. 40:8); that is the reason each Christian ought not to tire from tenaciously searching for an understanding of those words. It is because we take full confidence in the word of God as objective and true, that is the reason why the quest for understanding will never be a scientific, but an exegetical one. And, it is the goal of hermeneutics to reach a correct understanding of what God, as the author of Scripture, wishes to teach us about truth. Why hermeneutics? Because without hermeneutics, mankind is forever lost to a quest to which he may never find an end.
Section 1: Hermeneutical Analysis of Origins
Everything that we think, philosophically, can ultimately be traced back to our fundamental beliefs about origins. For example, why is it that mankind lives by a moral code? Does this not tell us something about the nature of man? Does this not suggest that mankind views himself as possessing some kind of intrinsic value? But, if he does, then where does this intrinsic value come from? Ask enough questions, and you will inevitably begin to travel back in time to the point of man’s origins. It would be wise for us, therefore, to give careful consideration to what our own view of origins is. So, what’s the answer? Where did mankind originate? What does the word of truth, authored by the God of truth, have to say about such matters?
There is no doubt, that there are a number of sophisticated literatures in the Bible. One only need flip to the book of Revelation to see for themselves. For centuries, the Bible has been the source for heated arguments on theological matters such as eschatology, soteriology, or ecclesiology. Battles have been fought between Catholics and Protestants; interdenominational feuds have raged within Protestantism itself. However, there is perhaps no more clearly written book of the Bible than the narrative book of Genesis. I assert that if any exegetical care is given to the book, applying the hermeneutical principles of authorial intent, genre, grammar, original language, and considering common themes which carry throughout the rest of the Scripture (using Scripture to interpret Scripture), without adding to the words of God or converting verses into allegory, then it is possible that even a child can understand the Biblical record of the origin of the universe. And, yet even in spite of its clarity, there is perhaps no greater debated book in our modern century. What is it about Genesis that is so controversial?
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” (Gen. 1:1-2) The first verses of the Bible establish the existence of God, and the inferiority of the universe, compared to its Master. The universe had a beginning. God transcends the universe, existing before the universe. And, God creates the universe, which means that He is sovereign over the cosmos. The Hebrew words for without form and void are tohu wa-bohu, which are verbs that denote emptiness, or are comparative to a wasteland.[1]
“Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So, the evening and the morning were the first day” (1:3-5). We know that the source of such light was not the sun, as the sun and stars are not created until day 4 (1:19). However, the formation of the sun is not relevant as the sun merely bears light, and is not the entity of light itself. Regardless of the sun, moon, and stars Genesis 1:3 indicates that there was, in that moment, a source of light (Hebrew word or). The light was divided from the original darkness. Then, the “evening” (Hebrew word ereb signifying “nighttime or sunset”) [2], and the “morning” (Hebrew word boqer signifying “daylight”)[3],comprises the first “day.”
The Hebrew word for day is, yom, and has been the cause of much controversy. Interestingly, however, when used in this context, in conjunction with evening and morning and a prescribed number, it always refers to a period of 24 hours, without exception.[4] For comparison, look at Genesis 7 which uses the word day, or yom, in a similar context. In speaking to Noah about the impending flood God says, “For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made” (Gen. 7:4). The narrative picks up this pattern several verses later saying, “And it came to pass after seven days that the waters of the flood were on the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights” (7:10-12).
In Exodus we read a similar construct, “’Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; in plowing time and in harvest you shall rest’” (Ex. 34:21) In the book of Joshua this pattern is repeated, “’You shall march around the city, all you men of war; you shall go all around the city once. This you shall do six days. And seven priests shall bear seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark. But the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times, and the priests shall blow the trumpets’” (Josh. 6:3-4).
These are only three, out of dozens of examples, of yom being used in a similar construct as in Genesis 1, and in all three examples it is obvious that the word day, within such context as used in conjunction with evening, and/or morning, and/or a prescribed number, always means a literal day. I assert that there is not one exception in the entire Bible! This means exegetically, that the days of Genesis 1 cannot be long periods of time.
“Then God said, ‘Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.’ Thus, God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So, the evening and the morning were the second day” (Gen. 1:6-8). Again, we see the use of yom (Hebrew word meaning “day”) paired with the words evening and morning and a prescribed number. In such a context, the word day is always translated as a 24-hour period.
Now, during the second day, God created the “firmament.” The Hebrew word for the firmament is raqiya, and is defined as an expanse.[5] When used in such a context, describing the firmament as in between the waters which were above and below, it is reasonable to assume that the raqiya, refers to the earth’s atmosphere, though not then anything like it is today. It is likely that the waters above the firmament were in the form of water vapor. Dr. Henry Morris writes of the firmament saying, “The waters above the firmament had apparently been transformed into the vapor state… and elevated above the atmosphere, where it could serve as a thermal blanket for the earth’s future inhabitants.”[6]
Then God said, ‘Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear’; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth’; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So, the evening and the morning were the third day (Gen. 1:9-13).
On the third day, God created “the dry land,” and gathered together the waters “into one place.” The verbiage used to describe this division of “the land” and water could suggest that the land consisted of one large “super continent.” Because the earth was catastrophically impacted by the global flood many years after this creation event, we cannot say what the original land looked like. However, the Hebrew text would certainly allow for a continent such as the Pangea model to have existed.[7] Therefore, it is exegetically sound to suggest. Furthermore, God created plant life on the third day. It should be noted that the text emphasizes the creation of plant life, three times in the description of the third day alone, as being created according to its kind. The Hebrew word is min, and in this sense refers to types or categories of creatures.[8] It seems as though the Biblical author was perfectly aware of the diversity among different types of plants and animals, but asserted that such diversity was limited in that creatures only produce after their kind. In other words, the concept of macroevolution (one kind evolving into another) is not exegetically possible. This is consistent with what is observed today among varieties of plant and animal life. The third day concludes with the presence of yom paired with evening and morning and a prescribed number- the context for a literal day.
Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth’; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So, the evening and the morning were the fourth day (Gen. 1:14-19).
It was on the fourth day of creation that God exchanged the supernatural light, which was created on day one, for light bearing entities. He created the sun to “rule the day” and the moon to “rule the night.” The “lights in the firmament of the heavens,” also included the formation of other planets as, maor, the Hebrew word for “lights,” is defined as luminaries.[9] Then, in just five simple words the account says, “He made the stars also.” The fourth day concludes with yom, written with evening and morning and a prescribed number.
Then God said, ‘Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.’ So, God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.’ So, the evening and the morning were the fifth day (Gen. 1:21-23).
On the fifth day, God created both marine life and Aves (birds). Again, the author emphasizes twice, on day five, the creation of such creatures according to their kind. The text also says “let birds fly above the earth.” Obviously, life forms appeared fully developed with the full capacity to operate within their prescribed environment. For the fifth time, the day is concluded with evening, morning, and a prescribed number.
Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind’; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So, God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’ And God said, ‘See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food’; and it was so. Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So, the evening and the morning were the sixth day (Gen. 1:24-29). (Again, note the occurrence of evening/morning/prescribed number).
The word kind, or min, is emphasized five more times on day six, making a total of ten occurrences throughout the six days of creation. Ten times God emphasizes that organisms produce according to their kind. Even though there is diversification within separate groups of living things, one kind of creature never evolves into another kind. This is exactly what we observe today. And again, on day six, life forms were created fully formed with the ability to “creep upon the earth.” Plants were created “yielding seed.” The full development and maturation of these structures was instantaneous, not gradual.
It is upon day six, that we now discover the answer to the question which so many long for. The historical account of the origin of man is the key to understanding the multitude of other fundamental philosophical questions people battle. Where did I come from? Why do I exist? What is my purpose? Is there a purpose to life? How do I know the things that I do? “God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.’” This remarkable verse is the first mention of mankind in the Bible. In it, we find those answers to the questions mentioned above. Man was created in the imago dei (or, the “image of God”). The Hebrew word is se-lem, and is used to denote a “representation of,” or as Gen. 1:26 says, a “likeness of” something.[10] This means that mankind was to share partially, though never fully (Isa. 2:22, Man is finite), in God’s own attributes. It is for this reason that we may begin to understand our itching questions about consciousness and self-awareness. We came from God, and we ponder such questions about life, purpose, and meaning, because we have the capacity, more than any other creature, to think, reason, and feel. We possess such capacity because, unlike all other creatures which God created, we are made in the image of God.
However, just like the plants and animals, man too was fully developed, both male and female, upon their creation. There is no textual sign that Adam underwent any growth process to mature into adulthood. Furthermore, dominion was given unto man by God, in the declaration, “Let them have dominion.” Mankind did not obtain their dominion through any process of natural selection or adaptation; he did not earn his role through “survival of the fittest.”
“And God said, ‘See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.’” From this text we can deduce that animal life was originally to subsist upon a vegetarian diet. There was no carnivorous activity, because there was no death. The first mention of death in the Bible is not until Genesis 2:17, the following chapter, in which God instructs Adam to acknowledge God’s sovereignty with Adam’s free will, by not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The nonexistence of death is bolstered, furthermore, by God’s declaration that everything which he had made was “very good.” The Hebrew word for “very” is me–od, which is an adverb emphasizing abundance and power.[11] The Hebrew word for “good,” in this passage, is tob. [12] The same Hebrew word, tob, is used in Psalm 25:13, and is translated as prosperity (NKJV)- being used to describe the condition dwelt in, of those who fear Yahweh. Genesis 1:31 uses this same adverb, tob, or prosperity, with the state of creation at the end of day six. From this, we can exegete that the original creation was abounding with prosperity; it was, in the eyes of God, “very good.”
The sixth day of creation is then focused in on in Genesis chapter 2. Genesis 2:7-25 gives an even greater description of the events which took place on the sixth day. The parallel account begins with the words, “This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…” (2:4). The use of the word day in Genesis 2:4 has been the cause of some controversy, as it has been suggested that because the word day is used here to signify a period of time (in the day which God created), it cannot therefore be used to signify a twenty-four-hour period in Genesis 1. It could be that this instance is indeed being used to describe a period of time, since the context of the word day in 2:4 lacks the qualifying evening, morning, and prescribed number pattern observed in Genesis 1.
However, to assert that 2:4 has implications upon the meaning of the word day in Genesis 1, is to take the usages of the word day in Genesis 1 out of context. It is to read backwards into the narrative and force a meaning onto the text of Genesis 1 which simply doesn’t exist in the straight forward reading. In other words, even if the word day in Genesis 2:4 is being used to describe the entire creation week, it does not mean that that creation week to which 2:4 refers is anything but six consecutive twenty-four-hour periods, as the context of Genesis 1 implies.
It is also worth noting that the meaning of the word day in 2:4 is debated, as to whether it refers to the entire creation week. Dr. Henry Morris writes of the day in 2:4 this way,
As per the ancient Babylonian practice, the next tablet, beginning at 2:4b, keys into the previous one by a phrase which both associates with the preceding histories and initiates the new narrative. The ‘day’ of this verse does not necessarily refer to the entire creation week, as day-age theory advocates claim. It more likely refers to the first day of that week, when God created the earth and heavens as just stated in Genesis 2:4a, then proceeded also to ‘make’ them through the rest of the six days.[13]
Either way, because of the overwhelming contextual evidence to support the word day in Genesis 1 being a period of twenty-four-hours, it is impossible to think of the creation week as anything longer than six literal days, without engaging in eisegesis, instead of exegesis, and therefore being forced to allegorize the days of Genesis 1. (To be discussed in the following section).
“Thus, the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made” (Gen. 2:1-3). Genesis chapter 2 begins with the seventh day. The creation of the cosmos was completed by the end of day six, therefore God rested on the seventh day. This means that the supernatural processes which were transpiring to bring about the universe were suspended, and the physical world began to operate in a more normative way. I must comment, that Christians should never be bashful in invoking the use of supernatural processes in explaining the origin of the physical world during the creation week, for we established at the very beginning, in Genesis 1:1-2, the inferiority of the universe compared to its Master. God is sovereign over the universe, and if the Biblical philosophy is correct, then it is perfectly rational to assert that God established different scientific processes during the week of creation than what is currently observed today. These processes would have been suspended when, “The heavens and the earth and all the host of them were finished.” In other words, it is absurd to suggest that God is bound by the same laws of nature which we observe today, especially during the time of creation!
Thus, issues such as distant starlight are not difficult to reconcile, as the rates, conditions, and processes which existed during the week of creation were obviously extraordinarily different than rates, conditions, and processes in our current experience. Because of this, the answer to the perceived mystery of distant starlight will be forever lost within the first six days of creation. This is not a cop out but a reality, which finite men must eventually come to grips with.
[1] Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 96.
[2] Francis Brown, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, 787.
[3] Francis Brown, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, 133.
[4] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 211-212.
[5] Francis Brown, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, 956.
[6] Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Henry Morris Study Bible, (Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Publishing, 2012), 9.
[7] Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge, A Flood of Evidence: 40 Reasons Noah and the Ark Still Matter, (Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Publishing, 2016), 163.
[8] Francis Brown, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, 568.
[9] Francis Brown, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, 22.
[10] Francis Brown, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, 853.
[11] Francis Brown, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, 547.
[12] Francis Brown, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, 375.
[13] Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Henry Morris Study Bible, 15.
Section 2: Exegesis or Eisegesis?
At the beginning of section 1, I asserted that the book of Genesis is perhaps the easiest narrative to understand. I make the claim that if any exegetical care is given to the book, without adding to the words of God or converting verses into allegory, then it is possible that even a child can understand the Biblical record of the origin of the universe. Upon completion of a hermeneutical analysis of the creation account it is obvious that there is a great deal of wisdom to be discovered in regards to the physical world, and perhaps even more theological knowledge to be obtained in regards to the Creator of that world. However, it is equally obvious that the narrative account of creation is so plainly written that I continue to hold to the belief that even a child can read through it and grasp the main points; namely, that God, existing before and transcending the cosmos, created the universe, and all of its inhabitants within a span of six days. This is a theme which God himself spoke and inscribed into the fourth of the ten commandments saying, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it” (Ex. 20:11). So, I ask the question, what is it about Genesis that is so controversial?
On May 31, 2012 there aired a very fascinating interview on TBN, hosted by Matt Crouch, where two of, perhaps, the most influential people on this very subject went head to head in debating this issue of the Genesis controversy. In favor of the traditional interpretation, which we just analyzed, was Ken Ham, president and CEO of Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, and the ARK Encounter. Arguing in opposition to Ken Ham, was one of the leading spokesmen of the old earth rendering of Genesis, Dr. Hugh Ross. Without missing a beat, Dr. Ross begins his opening statement by saying, “God has given us two books, the book of Scripture, and the book of nature.”[1] I remember being so taken back by Ross’s statement, because within the very first sentence that came out of his mouth, he captured so perfectly the heart of the issue. It is an issue of exegesis vs eisegesis.
To exegete a passage of Scripture is to apply hermeneutical principles of interpretation including authorial intent, genre, grammar, original language, cultural considerations, context of verses within their chapters, context of chapters within their respective books, and books within the context of the entire message of Scripture (Analogy of Faith). It is to acknowledge the historical gap between our world and the Biblical world, but to bridge this gap by analyzing the literature within its contexts, with the main goal of asking what the author of the Scripture was trying to convey through the choice of His words. In short, exegesis does not depart from the literature of the Bible. Exegesis is to enlist a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic. Put simply, Dr. Roy B. Zuck writes, “Exegesis may be defined as the determination of the meaning of the biblical text in its historical and literary contexts.”[2]
On the other hand, eisegeses is to apply one’s own presuppositions upon a text; presuppositions which are often foreign to the Bible. The term “eisegeses” literally means “reading into,” and stands opposed to the literal meaning of exegesis- “reading out of.”[3] When an interpreter engages in such erroneous interpretive methodology, he is allowed to force any number of meanings upon the text. In other words, even though the clear exegetical teaching of Genesis 1 is that the days of creation are six literal days (of twenty-four-hours), eisegeses says that it can’t mean that, not because of the overwhelming contextual or literary evidence to the contrary, but because of the evidence from what Dr. Ross calls, “The book of nature,” (i.e. Naturalistic Science).
[1] Sentinel Apologetics, “Hugh Ross vs. Ken Ham-TBN Debate,” YouTube, October 6, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ZzU_Y8YD0&t=3354s.
[2] Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth, (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 1991), 19.
[3] Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 49.
Section 3: By Whose Authority?
Every old earth position forces us to approach the Bible in this manner. Every single one. Yet, by reasoning in such a way, as to apply one’s own presuppositions onto the text, and thus engage in eisegeses rather than exegesis, the interpreter sets a precedent. A precedent which makes man the authority instead of God. Instead of allowing the Bible to shape our scientific assertions, our scientific assertions shape our interpretation of the Bible. I ask, once this precedent is set, what is to stop us from applying this same interpretive method to any other Biblical doctrine?
Perhaps we should reinterpret the life and ministry of Jesus Christ? Since secular science would be the first to claim that a virgin birth; a turning of water into wine; the cleansing of a leper; the restoration of sight to the blind; a man walking on water, feeding five thousand with five loaves and two fish, and rising from the dead are not scientifically possible, perhaps we should reject such accounts? What do we do about the deity of Christ, in light of secular science? Do we forever live inconsistently? Or does the entire Scripture become merely a religious book of parables that offer up some encouraging words and a “holier than thou” life style, rather than a truth claim? Who gets to decide which parts of the Bible are true and which are to be reinterpreted? Most of all, why do we cherry pick any of it, rather than simply cast Scripture aside completely, and embrace secular ideology consistently? At least we could then become fully incorporated into the public world and join the ranks alongside the school system, every level of government, and the pharisees who “loved the praise of men more than the praise of God” (Jn. 12:43).
“Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4). “Stop regarding man, whose breath of life is in his nostrils; For why should he be esteemed” (Isa. 2:22). And, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding” (Job 38:4). Do you remember? “Every word of God is pure” (Pro. 30:5). I implore us, as Christians; instead of compromising with secular ideology, we must become as Paul bids us to be, “Children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain” (Phil. 2:15-16).
Section 4: Stand Strong on the Word of God
The battle cry of Christian apologetics is 1 Peter 3:15. This verse appropriately begins with the command to, “Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts.” It is not through compromise, but through standing boldly upon the word of God that we may be enabled to accomplish our apologetical task. It is quite appropriate that the command to engage in apologetics would begin with such a qualification, for it is through the sanctifying of the Lord God in our hearts, that we discover the greatest defense for the Scripture itself.
The Bible tells us as much, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Pro. 26:4). This is the foundation for the presuppositional method of apologetics, as defined by Dr. Cornelius Van Til; namely that it is the Christian philosophy of life alone that can make sense out the world around us, because it is the Christian philosophy of life alone which makes sense out of such things as morality, science, logic, free will and self-awareness, love and beauty, and the entire plethora of the presuppositions of mankind. By standing strongly, therefore, on the Word of God, the Christian is securely stationed at his safest, and indeed his strongest position. Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen writes of Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetic this way,
Van Til’s presuppositional defense of the faith mounts a philosophical offense against the position and reasoning of the non-Christian…The task of the apologist is not simply to show that there is no hope of eternal salvation outside of Christ, but also that the unbeliever has no present intellectual hope outside of Christ…The unbeliever attempts to enlist logic, science, and morality in his debate against the truth of Christianity. Van Til’s apologetic answers these attempts by arguing that only the truth of Christianity can rescue the meaningfulness and cogency of logic, science, and morality…In short, presuppositional apologetics argues for the truth of Christianity ‘from the impossibility of the contrary.[1] (emphasis added).
What a contradiction it is that those who compromise with secular ideology, such as Dr. Hugh Ross, do so in the name of science. And yet, as Dr. Van Til and Dr. Bahnsen point out, it is only the Bible which can make sense out of the science, which they claim contradicts it! How foolish indeed to use science to interpret Scripture… we must use Scripture to interpret science.
[1] Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey; P&R Publishing, 1998), 5.
Conclusion
As established in our introduction, we as a people, whom God has elected in His sovereignty, ought to know better, than to approach the issue of wisdom and knowledge with the same vanity as the world. Rather, we denounce autonomy and recognize that it is the fear of the Lord that is the beginning of knowledge (Pro. 1:7). Upon that ground we humbly bow down to God’s sovereignty, recognizing our insufficiency in all areas, especially the areas of wisdom and knowledge. It is upon such recognition, that He truly becomes our God, our Lord, and our King; and consequently, our shield.
“Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap” (Gal. 6:7). Therefore, take courage and boldly stand upon His word in every area of your life, and do not give ear to foolish men who are merely of worldly knowledge. The quest for wisdom and knowledge will never be a scientific, but an exegetical one. The wisdom of God is sweeter than the “knowledge” of men, for God has “made foolish the wisdom of the world” (1 Cor. 3:19). So, exegete the Scriptures in such a way as to honor God above all else. “Do not add to His words” (Pro. 30:6). Pray for wisdom, pray for knowledge, pray for strength. In this world you will have trouble, but Christ has overcome the world (Jn. 16:33). Take courage brothers and sisters, now is not the time to compromise. Now is the time to remember what it means to be Christians! “Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful; But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law, he meditates day and night” Psalm 1:1-2.
