Review of the ChristianWeek Article, September, 2011

By John Feakes

Several weeks ago journalist Aaron Epp of ChristianWeek Magazine requested an interview with me and I was happy to oblige him. He seemed to be a delightful young man who was genuinely interested in our ministry’s perspective and objectives. His questions were both respectful and thoughtful and I genuinely enjoyed our time together. Nevertheless, I’ve learned that one can’t take anything for granted when dealing with the media and I awaited the publication of the next ChristianWeek with mild skepticism. As it turned out, Aaron did a wonderful job representing my position. A graduate of CMU I have to strongly suspect that he didn’t agree with our “young earth” position based upon a literal reading of the Genesis record. Nevertheless, he reported honestly and fairly without caricaturizing our position in the least. What a breath of fresh air!

The article however did contain two¹ elements of consternation that I would like to explore here.

Gus Konkel’s Liberal Position

The article states:

“Gus Konkel, president of Providence College and Seminary, has taught the Penteteuch since he began teaching in 1984 and disagrees with Feakes’ literal interpretation. In Konkel’s view, the creation story in Genesis was written ‘as a theological polemic’ for the questions of the late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age, or roughly 1450 BC to 1200BC.”

Epp then quotes Konkel:

“Creation accounts are well known in that period...in Acadian writings, in Egyptian writings...They all have similar themes, and one can only assume that Israelite writers would have written about creation in ways that the people of their time and generation would understand.”

Epp further states,

“Konkel adds that the age of the Earth was not a concern for the people that wrote the Bible – its only a concern for Christians in recent years.”

There are several responses that need to be made to Konkel’s place in the article and the opinions he advances:

1. His position and length of tenure limited in value

The fact that Konkel has been teaching Pentateuch since 1984 ought to impress no one. Liberal scholarship began its domination of Christian thought since its initial knee-jerk reaction to Darwinism in the 19th century.² The fact that some Christians – even intelligent, well educated ones – are willing to warp the Scriptures in order to achieve some kind of harmony with currently popular scientific opinions, should not pressure the average Christian into following suit. For the record, there are plenty of scholars in the world who possess intellectual credentials greater that Konkel’s own, who disagree with him flatly.³ The tension here is horizontal. That is to say, intelligent, well educated men hold positions on either side of the question. The average person ought to read the Bible for himself and discern, with God’s help, the message it is intended to convey.

2. Similar Themes = Unanimous Fiction?

Konkel points out that many ancient eastern cultures have creation stories with similar themes. This is of course correct, but how does it follow from this that the Genesis record is to be regarded as equally mythological and therefore fictitious? Following Jesus and the writers of the New Testament, I hold the view that the Genesis record is 100% reliable history. Because the entire world shares a common heritage from creation to Babel, we would expect creation accounts of ancient cultures to have many similarities. Of course over time the memory fades and legendary accretion develops around what was once a factual historical account. In other words, as a Christian, I believe that the Genesis record is a faithful and true account of earth and human history, while the creation stories of other ancient cultures represent corruptions of it. Which view is correct? This is for the student of Scripture to ponder and decide for himself.

3. Theological Polemic = Mythology?

Konkel’s view is, like the view of Klassen and Epp-Tiessen of CMU,⁴ wrought with incomplete, if not downright invalid, argumentation. These men argue that the Israelite authors of Genesis wanted to present a monotheistic creation account to their people which would stand in contrast to the polytheistic accounts adopted by the nations around them. To achieve this they simply adopted many elements contained in the pagan accounts but coloured them with a monotheistic hue. I can agree that one of the reasons for writing Genesis was polemical, but by what law of inference are we to conclude that the Genesis account is therefore mythology? The whole argument is not only vague and incomplete, but ignores the fact that the New Testament consistently regards the early chapters of Genesis as literal, factual history.⁵

4. Old earth/evolutionism assumed

Liberals like Konkel, Klassen and Epp-Tiessen all assume that modern scientific opinion about the earth’s age and history are largely correct. That is, they have erroneously equated popular opinion with God-given fact. Not willing to throw the Bible into the trash can when it conflicts with popular scientific opinion, they have decided that those portions of Scripture are not really in error but are simply mythology. When one asks why in the world one would give a false account of creation in order to combat other false stories, we are told by Konkel that,

“...one can only assume that Israelite writers would have written about creation in ways that the people of their time and generation would understand.”

What in the world does this mean? The unwritten assumption here is that old earth/evolutionism is correct, but that the ancient Israelites would have either been unable to understand such concepts, and/ or the biblical writers of Genesis themselves were ignorant of this fact concerning earth history. All of these assumptions are ill-founded. First, as stated above, the Bible is pretty clear on the topic and the New Testament inspired commentary unequivocally regards these chapters as literal history. Second, it is absolutely false to say the people living back then were just so stupid that concepts like evolution and an old earth would have been incomprehensible. Konkel’s statement that, “one can only assume that Israelite writers would have written about creation in ways that the people of their time and generation would understand” seems reasonable enough. The problem of course is that he has failed to show that the ancient Israelites could not have understood an old-earth/evolutionary account of earth origins. One need only go to the kids’ section in their local library. There are scores of books written for even small children on the topic of earth history. Old earth evolutionism, is, in my opinion, simply a nature myth. Nevertheless, it is a myth that certainly is understandable, even to young children.

The idea that the author of Genesis was ignorant of how the world was created is, in my opinion, incompatible with a true Christian profession. Historic Christianity has always maintained that the entire Bible – from Genesis to Revelation – is the infallible and inspired word of God. It concerns me that Konkel refers to Israelite writers (plural) when speaking of the Genesis account of creation. Almost certainly Konkel holds the liberal position that the Pentateuch was authored by several sources over hundreds of years, rather than the classic Judeo-Christian view that Moses the prophet of God was its author. This ought to concern every genuine born again Christian greatly because according to the New Testament itself, Moses was the author of the inspired text known as the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible).⁶

5. The age of the earth only a recent concern?

Recall Konkel’s statement that, “the age of the Earth was not a concern for the people that wrote the Bible – it’s only a concern for Christians in recent years.”

Again the argumentation here seems incomplete. Even if the age of the earth was not a concern for the writers of the Bible, this fact alone does nothing to show that our deduction of a young earth based upon clear biblical statements is wrong. The blood and water that came from our Lord’s side at the crucifixion was commented upon by the apostle John, a man who had little interest in cardio-pulmonary physiology. Almost certainly this man had no interest in these phenomena as a forensic evidence of biological death. Are we to then conclude that because John was not interested in the biological and forensic sciences that his description of what happened at the crucifixion was mythological?

Konkel’s declaration that the age of the earth is only a recent concern is strongly suspect anyway.⁷ If the writer of Genesis was truly disinterested in the age of the earth he sure had a funny way of showing it. One need only read the Genesis account (chapters 1-11) for themselves to see this. If the writer was uninterested in the age of the earth, then why did he include such detailed chronological data? The record tells us in no uncertain terms that the earth was created in six days, with the creation of man and woman on day six as the apex of God’s creative activity. We are told exactly how old Adam was when he and Eve had their son Seth. The genealogical record from Seth to Abraham is given to us in careful and precise mathematical terms that are impossible to ignore. To say that the writer of Genesis was disinterested in the age of the earth is to be – I’m sorry to say – willingly ignorant.

Conclusion

It seems pretty clear (to me at least) that what we have here is another case of scientific opinion being regarded as undeniable fact. Finding conflict between such “facts” and the clear statements found in the Bible, Konel et.al has opted to regard the biblical record simply as mythology. In this way the Bible can still be respected as literature, though not as an accurate historical account. This view however is expensive. It ignores the many destructive doctrinal implications that inevitably follow,⁸ as well as the clear statements to the contrary by many New Testament writers. The position being advanced by Konel et.al is really a slippery slope to unbelief. If one is to relegate the Genesis record into the category of mythology simply because is conflicts with popular scientific opinion, how long will it be before the same is done to the New Testament record with its mention of a virgin birth and a literal, physical resurrection from the dead? As for me and my house, we’ll continue believing what the Lord has clearly told us in His infallible word.

“Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”
(Matthew 18:3-4)

Notes and References:

1. Refuting Professor Gus Konkel’s liberal stance on the Genesis record is the focus of this column. Nevertheless, Epp’s mention of the fact that the CARE team and its Museum have left the Oxford Bible Church and are seeking a more appropriate venue deserves some comment. When we arrived at Oxford several years ago we were warmly welcomed as an answer to prayer. As time went on however, the attitude of the leadership towards apologetics – even evangelism in general – began to shift. In time the leadership ceased encouraging us in our work and in the end, even began to oppose it. As well as adopting and promoting some pretty strange doctrines (Lazarus was the author of the 4th Gospel and 1,2,3 John; the Bible contains different Gospels for different ages) Oxford opposed us outright in our stance on Genesis, choosing to embrace the “Gap” Theory instead. Obviously the incongruity between Oxford’s leadership and the CARE team meant our leaving to find fellowship elsewhere.

2. Jonathan Sarfati, “Refuting Compromise”, Creation Book Publishers, 2004

3. Hebrew is the first language of biblical scholar Menno Kalisher who pastors the Jerusalem Assembly House of Redemption in Jerusalem. Menno certainly understands the Pentateuch at least as well as Konkel, yet he flatly rejects Konkels ideas on the matter. To listen to my interview with Menno click HERE. Other names of highly trained men could easily be added to the list, such as John McArthur, James Barr, David Hocking, Robert McCabe, and John Whitcomb – just to name a few.

4. Back in January 2007 I took a course at the Canadian Mennonite University (CMU) entitled Evolution, Creation and the Bible. The course was taught by Microbiologist Glenn Klassen and Professor of Old Testament Dan Epp-Tiessen. Both of these taught us that the Genesis chapters 1-11 were “fiction.” For a complete refutation of their claims see my article, “Nothing New at CMU” by clicking HERE.

5. In Matthew 19:4-6 refers His listeners to the Genesis chapters 1 and 2 for instruction concerning marriage. In 1 Timothy 2:13-14 it is clear that Paul the apostle believed that Adam and Eve were real people and that the Genesis account of creation ought be regarded as genuine history. When I brought this to the attention of Epp-Tiessen, he bit the bullet and stated flatly that Paul was in error.

6. I remember discussion this with Glenn Klassen one day after class. I reminded him that the Pentateuch could but have been written over hundreds of years because according to the Bible, the law was rediscovered during the reign of godly king Josiah c 600 BC (2 Kings 22). Klassen’s response was classic: “No one believes that anymore.” Jesus Himself stands opposed to Klassen in this. The Lord asks rhetorically in John 7:19, “Did not Moses give you the law...?”

7. The Jewish Calendar places us, not in 2011, but in the year 5,772. Sarfati (see ref. 2) examines statements made by ancient Jewish expositors and early church fathers which explicitly show that the age of the earth was a concern for them. Unlike liberals like Konkel et.al, these men turned to the Bible as a source of reliable historical information.

8. See my brief article, “Why we hold to a literal reading of the Genesis account of Creation” HERE