Galileo Galilei 1564-1642
So, continuing from part 1. Remember where I was at? I arrived at the point when I realized, Adam and Eve probably didn't exist as historical characters. But I also realized the most important thing is to hang on to Jesus. So where to from there? This is when this book comes in.
I guess in short, in this book, Peter Enns tried to propose that the Bible be interpreted by using the analogy of incarnation. And that is, while Jesus is both God and man, so the Bible is also the word of God and the word of man. Enns proposed that when we read the Bible, we need to keep in mind the "humanness" of the Bible. If I understand correctly, this "incarnation" concept is what made him lost his job. Just because something is controversial doesn't make it right, but it doesn't necessarily make it wrong either. So how does Enns lay out his argument? Let's find out:
Synopsis:
In this book, Enns made his argument by calling the readers to examine the scripture using the following (3 main parts of the book):
- Examine the scripture in the Ancient Near Eastern Context
- Examine the scripture with the knowledge of the diverse theology in the Old Testament
- Examine how New Testament authors use the Old Testament
I thought it would be better to leave the would be readers to discover the full content of this book, because I might not do justice to the book if I try to summarize it. So here, I will provide the title from Enns' 9 theses, so you will have a general idea of what Enns talked about in this book:
1) Literalism is not an option
2) Scientific and biblical models for human origins are incompatible, because they speak different language. The Biblical description of "Adam" does not fit into evolution.
3) The story of Adam and Eve should be interpreted in its Ancient Near Eastern context.
4) There are 2 creation stories in Genesis. Genesis 2 is older than Genesis 1, but appeared as a later chapter, to tell the story of Israel after the nation's exile
5) The Israel's centred focus of the Adam story can also be seen in similarity to Proverbs: the story of Adam is about failure to fear God and attain wise maturity.
6) God's solution through the resurrection of Christ reveals the deep, foundational plight of the human condition, and Paul expressed that fact in the biblical idiom available to him.
7) A proper view of inspiration will embrace the fact that God speaks by means of the cultural idiom of the authors- whether it be the author of Genesis in describing origins or how Paul would later come to understand Genesis. Both reflect the setting and limitations of the cultural moment.
8) The root of the conflict for many Christians is not scientific or even theological, but group identity and fear of losing what is offers.
9) A true rapprochement between evolution and Christianity requires a synthesis, not simply adding evolution to existing theological formulations.
What I think about this book:
a) The first thing Enns observed, and skillfully laid out, is that if evolution is correct, then we can no longer accept, in any true sense of the word "historical". Because Genesis clearly describes an instantaneous and special human creation. Therefore, any attempt to reconcile evolution and Genesis will prove to be, difficult. Yet, such adjustments are necessary. He then concludes: "The only question is what sort of adjustment best fits the data".
b) I do not see any problems with the mentioning of evolution. It is true that evolution has forever changed the way we should look at the scriptures. I agree with Enns, that to insist that Genesis 1 and 2 are poetry and must contain some hidden scientific truth that confirms modern scientific discoveries, is setting up false expectations. Does the scripture really have to contain falsifiable scientific truth to be the word of God? I am not sure if we really want to place high bids on this risky gamble. I mean, in 1Kings 7:23-26, the scripture clearly indicate pi is equal to 3. Yes, you can say it is an approximation, but if you ask any engineer of scientist to design an aircraft (or a building) using the "biblical approximation" that pi =3, they will all shake their heads and state this is is nothing short of wholesale slaughter.
There are numerous examples in the Bible where the scripture clearly subscribe to scientific inaccuracies. If we force our expectations that the Bible must conform with modern science, then we have totally missed the rich theological teachings in the scriptures, because we will be looking for scientific truth at the wrong place.
c) In regard to document hypothesis and the Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch. I am not sure if the document hypothesis is a credible hypothesis. It does have good points, but the problem is, the document hypothesis can never be proven, and I am also aware that there are some evidence against it (which Enns didn't mention). However, I do agree that Moses probably didn't author the entire Pentateuch by himself. For example, why would he write the story of Exodus in third person? And isn't it ironic that Moses call himself the most humble person in the world in the book of Numbers?
d) One of the most useful part of the book, in my opinion, is when Enns explained why we should read Genesis in its Ancient Near Eastern context. I remember 3 years ago, I read the Epic of Gilgamesh, I was immediately struck by the similarities between the flood story in Gilgamesh and the flood story in Genesis. Some people might protest and say, the details of the stories are different. That is very true, but what we should be looking at, is how the stories are similar in structure yet different in theology, otherwise we will loose the big picture when we analyze the situation. Furthermore, recent discoveries have indicated that Egyptian mythology has a greater influence on Genesis than Sumerian legends. Either way, in my opinion, it is almost impossible to deny that Genesis somehow mirrors creation myths from some ancient, polytheistic cultures. In light of this, Enns' idea that Genesis serves as a polemical function for Israel, is the a very reasonable explanation for the data we have at hand.
e) Understanding Apostle Paul's teaching, can be very difficult at times. One of the recurring discussion on morality, between Christians and atheists, is Paul's teaching on slavery. Apostle Paul did not teach that slavery should be abolished, instead, he taught that slaves should be obedient to their masters. There are many rich theological meanings to Paul's teachings about slavery, in some ways, they still apply to today's employee and employer situation. However, the fact remains, Paul did not teach that slavery should be abolished, nor did Paul took the course of William Wilberforce to abolish the slavery system. When facing this challenge from atheists, many Christians often state that this passage should be read in "context" with the rest of the passage, and some will also argue that we need to understand the "historical and cultural context" behind Paul's teaching. Interpreting the passage within its "historical context", should be quite familiar to most Sydney Evangelicals if you pay attention to the sermon structure, and attend weekly Bible studies.
It is a hermeneutics called "historical-grammatical" method. This is a method when we try to understand the theological meaning of the scripture from its historical and Biblical context (i.e. why the author said the thing he said, and how does it fit in with the rest of scriptures), then we take that meaning and apply it to our modern day lives. For this reason, most sermons at Presbyterian churches or Sydney Anglican churches often go into depths with bible passages, to explore the historical context of past events in attempt to discover the rich theological meaning behind passages. In light of this, it only makes sense if we interpret all of Paul's teaching within its historical context. Otherwise, our hermeneutics will be logically inconsistent.
f) Understandably, most Christian's concern about the historicity of Adam and Eve, is the following: If Adam and Eve did not exist, then that means there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, then that means we are not born into sin, so why did Christ die for our sins? I can totally understand this concern, because I was in a similar position. Yet, when one thinks about this carefully, it is not hard to realize, such a concern is based a series of logical errors.
- I agree with Enns, that the problem of sin is self evident. To observe sin, one only has to look into the his/her own life, into the world, and see how people are hurting each other.
- I also agree with Enns, that the foundation of Christianity is Jesus Christ who died for our sins and was resurrected again.
Sin is a reality that can be observed, while believing in Jesus Christ really is a matter of faith. But just because we don't know where sin comes from, does that mean sin does not exist? Does this mean we don't need Jesus to save us from our sins?
Similarly,
- Christianity does not have an answer to the origin of evil. But evil certainly exist, and it is a self evident phenomena.
- When Jesus died and was resurrected on the cross, he triumphed over evil.
Evil is a reality that can be observed, while believing in Jesus Christ is once again, a matter of faith. But just because we don't know where evil comes from, does that mean evil is not real and we don't need Jesus?
The truth is, sin and evil are realities, and they are inseparable Just as the origin of evil is shrouded in mystery, the origin of sin is also covered with a veil not so easily uncovered. Perhaps it is wise to remember that, as Christians we need rely on Jesus to save us from the reality of our own sins. Yet remain open minded to ideas on where sin and evil comes from. When we arrive at this position, not only do our faith become even more Christ centred, but that will also allow us to freely tackle the big and difficult questions with an open mind.
g) I agree with Enns, that we need to understand the cultural idioms in the Bible, to guide us on the correct path of Bible interpretation. For example, I raised a question a while ago, on the topic of "the right hand of God". The right hand of God, is mentioned several times in the scripture (Eph, Pslams, Matthew etc..). One might question, why "right" hand and not "left" hand. I guess we can say with much confidence that, it is a use of cultural idiom, because in most cultures, people are predominantly right handed, so when people say "you are like my right hand", it is signalling how important this person is. However, imagine if you encounter a previously undiscovered people in the Amazon jungle, whose culture predominantly use left hand, and regard right hand lowly because they use it to wipe their posterior after toiletry. Now, if you tell these people that God put Jesus at his "right" hand, without explaining the cultural idioms to them. Imagine the type of connotations they will associate Jesus with due different culture! Between biblical times and the 21th century, cultures have changed a lot. We might just be doing ourselves and everyone a favor if we remember to interpret the scripture within its historical and cultural context, to unpack the rich theological meaning behind the text.
As Enns observed, using the hermeneutics of historical-grammatical method is something that is mainly used and approved in the evangelical Christianity community, especially within the conservative Christian churches. So why not use this method with great integrity and interpret Genesis 1 and 2, as well as Paul's letters within their historical and cultural context? If we, within one chapter of the Bible, we choose to interpret some passage in its historical context and some passage not in its historical context, then there is no logical consistency.
h) Following from g), I think Enns' explanation, of Paul's use of Adam as an emphasis to his Christ centred theology, is a very reasonable explanation. For all we know, Paul seemed to subscribe to the 3-tier universe structure (Philippians 2). But does that mean Paul's teaching are wrong just because his teaching involves a pre-scientific view on cosmology? No, obviously not. Because Paul's teaching aimed to emphasize the importance of put our faith in Jesus and nothing else, this is the "one thing" that Paul kept on emphasizing in all his letters. In this regard, it will be very unwise if we keep on insisting that Paul's teaching require us to believe in a historical Adam and Eve. This kind of insistence, ironically, will undo Apostle Paul's Christ centred message in all of his letters.
Conclusion:
These days, there is a division in the Christian community, so called "conservative" sect and the "liberal sect". The conservative Christians often call liberal Christians "cop outs". While Liberal Christians call conservative Christians "out of date".
I will say to both sides that they both need to wake up! Truth is truth, you cannot be conservative nor liberal about it. Jesus was not conservative, but neither was he liberal. Jesus, cared more about what is true, and he was radical; and for that, they condemned him to death.
Similarly, if we are called to follow Jesus, then this means we should stop branding ourselves as conservatives or liberals. Instead, we should all be truth seekers who are radical enough to want to be humble and passionate about what is true, while letting go of our personal agenda and fears of losing group identity/tradition.
I cannot say with 100% certainty that Adam and Eve weren't real, historical figures. But the fact is, discoveries and evidence are increasingly pointing away from the historicity of Adam and Eve, forcing me to re-think and re-evaluate how to understand Genesis and Apostle Paul's teaching.
After I finished this book, do I have all the answers? No, far from it. But what I did learn from this book, is once again, to be humbled by how much I don't know, and remember that not everyone, and certainly not myself have a perfect understanding of everything. With this realization, I have refined my understanding, remembering that it is in Jesus that I should place my faith. I think God has brought me to a good starting place on this continuous spiritual pilgrimage. God has reminded me, through Peter Enns' book, that I should build my faith on Jesus. By standing on Jesus as the foundation stone, I am free to explore what science and history has to offer in terms of explaining the past and our world, and continue to seek truth in the direction where evidence and new discoveries lead me.
In the end, if you are a Christian and wrestling with the historicity of Adam and Eve, I pray that you will remember the centre of your faith is Jesus Christ, not Adam and Eve, and may God guide you to find the answer you seek.
If you are not a Christian and reading this, then I want to say that, although neo-atheists such as Richard Dawkins often accuse Christians for not thinking, and blindly following what their pastors teach them. But I hope in this review, I have demonstrated to you these stereotypes are not true. By blending my story into this review, I hope I have shown you, how one Christian (and many others), have wrestled with these difficult questions and yet is reminded to place his faith on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The profound truth is that while we need science to tell us how the world works, but we need Jesus to deal with our hearts to save us from our sins. Science and Bible speak different languages, the former speaks to our understanding of the universe, the later speaks to our heart.
Thank you for reading, wherever you are, may the peace and truth of God be with you.
No comments:
Post a Comment