What if what Enns said is true?
I think to me what it means is that we have been reading the wrong things into the Bible, not that the Bible is wrong. If there is pseudo-history in the Bible, we still have the same things to learn from the story, even if the events were not exactly as spelled out. The message to us remains the same.
If we look at Abraham and people before Moses, they did not even have the rudiments of the Torah (assuming they were historical!) other than perhaps stories told around the campfire at night. If we look at Job, he wasn’t even a part of Israel, as I recall.
Speaking of Job, I have had discussions with some who find it difficult to relate to his suffering if he was not historical, so I can relate to your concern, though personally feel the message of his story comes through regardless, and that message is something we can relate to in our understanding of loss and God’s nature, even though ultimately mystery is left in the text.
I wouldn’t even suggest those invisible graces if it wasn’t for how what we can detect pointed to that sort of compassion. It’s because of things like adrenaline, unconsciousness, and the much lower capacity for pain in most creatures that it makes sense to me that God isn’t a sadist. That, along with some biblical support (such as the last sentence of Jonah) leads me to firmly hope that God will do right for those creatures who still face exceptional suffering.
But all that is about pain and suffering, not death. I don’t see death, stripped of its sting, as posing a problem to God’s goodness. Why must every creature God makes be immortal? If it is somehow wrong for a young animal to outlive its mother, is it also wrong for the mother to live before her young exist? If the decreasing capacities of old age are a scandal, surely the limits of toddlerhood are as well?
I think someone mentioned up-thread how death allows for turn-taking. More creatures and kinds of creatures get a chance to thrive. Like presidential term limits, death ensures members of one generation can’t lock up the positions of power so that later generations are forced beneath them. Yes, given that death as we know it coexists with pain and suffering, these paragraphs probably sound cold and calculating. But that’s why I feel that death isn’t the real issue.
I’m also willing to take this position on death a bit further than many Christians. I don’t think the human soul is innately immortal. God doesn’t owe us an eternal existence any more than it’s owed to ants. Instead, God extends the gift of eternal life, something we don’t naturally possess. That of course poses questions on who finds out about the gift, who can accept it and when, and what happens to those who don’t – and I agree those are serious questions. So are the ones about pain and suffering. But between these issues, death on its own doesn’t seem that problematic. Am I missing something?
Thanks for sharing more of your thoughts, Christopher, and I agree that this whole shift in thinking about the Bible can be very difficult and scary. To be honest, I’m not even sure where I’ve landed yet – I try to have a clear view of which things I believe my faith leads me to be confident of, and which things it does not, and for now the absolute historicity of Genesis is somewhere closer to “not.” I struggle with it too because I’m homeschooling three children and don’t want to give them wishy-washy answers about things, but I don’t want to confuse them either. So for now I am assuming the historicity of Genesis, with some “poetic license” in chapter 1.
Anyway, on the subject of Pete Enns, we are on our second year of using a Bible curriculum that he wrote, and I like the way he tells the stories. Both of the years focus almost entirely on Jesus, which is different than how I usually see biblical education approached – I was used to everything depending on Genesis, which is how Answers in Genesis approaches it. But I liked this quote in the introduction that Enns wrote:
“It is good to remember that the first followers of Jesus were likely far less familiar with the Old Testament than we might think. There were no printed books back then. Peter and others, when they were called by Jesus to follow him, did not have their Bibles open and may not even have been all that familiar with the Scripture’s content. When Jesus came on the scene he did not say, ‘OK, before I begin talking, please open up your Bibles and let me show you how all of this fits together.’ Rather, he came on the scene and just started being Jesus. And the point was made well enough.”
I would love to be able to get Genesis “all sorted out” in my mind and figure out exactly what must be viewed as absolutely historical and what makes more sense being viewed as an archetype or figurative story. But in case I never do, I try to keep reminding myself that this is not what my faith rests on. The Bible is here to lead us to Jesus. Jesus is not here to lead us to the Bible. He is big enough to overcome any difference of culture or language because he made it, no matter where my own 21st-century, Western-biased personal understanding falters.
Well said. I’m going to take the easy way out and paste something I recently said on the podcast:
The evangelists viewed the entirety of the Hebrew Bible – what we call the Old Testament – through the lens of Jesus. When a person becomes a Christian, we don’t hand them a Bible and say, “Start with Genesis 1 and read through to the end.” No! We say, “Begin with the gospels,” because the ultimate revelation of God is seen in Christ. The Lord didn’t provide us with a philosophy to comprehend or a list of rules to memorize. He knows who we are and how we learn. He gave us a role model to imitate, a perfect image of himself. Christianity consists of following Christ, and he isn’t found in theological formulations or metaphysical musings. He’s found in the the gospels.
Hi Christopher,
I listened to that podcast on my drive to work today so that I could understand what you were talking about. I have to agree, that podcast goes for a much more figurative interpretation of the Bible than what would make me comfortable. One comment that really through me was when they said that, “history is written by the survivors.” That remark reminded me of the false Dan Brown (Da Vinci Code author) argument that “history is written by the winners” as justification to re-write history and not trust the Biblical account of Jesus’s message and ministry. I usually hate the “slippery slope” argument, because I think I can believe in evolution AND believe that the Bible is history. However, I must say, the type of reasoning used in that podcast really makes the case for my many church friends who think that accepting evolution would drive people down such a slope.
I get the sense that you have swung on a pendulum from one extreme (YEC) to the other (very figurative) interpretation of the Bible. However, I think that it would be possible to land somewhere in the happy middle. I think that it is possible to accept mainstream science, including the age of the universe and evolution, without having to think that Genesis 1-2 are a myth and or that the rest of Genesis is some history mixed with legend.
In the beginning of the podcast, as they were discussing the idea of Genesis 1 & 2 as being two different Genesis stories, I couldn’t help thinking how concordant that idea would be with the Genealogical Adam and Eve hypothesis.
I wonder if it might be helpful for you go back and read some apologists talking about the reasonableness of the Christian faith. For example, Tim Keller is generally supportive of the idea of theistic evolution in his chapter about science in his book Reason for God. I’ve been enjoying his sermons podcast on Gospel in Life. I also always find podcasts and books from the RZIM team (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries) to be very encouraging.
Hi Laura, there have been many good answers in here but I’d have to say - your one now has been the best in my opinion. You spoke so well - you in fact spoke like (as some of the young people say) a boss (have you seen those memes where the gangster glasses float on screen and hover over someone’s eyes - celebrating some expression of epic? your answer I think deserves that
(on that … tried to find a video to share … but none was probably appropriate for this forum - if anyone wants to look at one though … google Thug Life #13 and watch Pope Francis pull the cloth off the communion table … it’s pretty boss).
Edit: found it - have to share it (and I know while it’s not ideal, we’re all adults who won’t cover our ears at the one swear word at the end lol but yeah, sorry also, right things said - enjoy!)
Anyway, let’s just process all that strangeness
Aaand … back to the response.
I agree - Jesus is the focus, He is the One we fix our eyes on and ultimately these other issues (very important though they may be) can fall away somewhat next to him. It’s good to be reminded of that.
While I’m here I’ll just ‘put out there’ that sometimes I do get a bit puzzled with how Jesus seemed to quite naturally and matter of factly refer to things (well, mostly people) in Genesis as though they were real - he certainly seemed to believe and speak of the historicity of Genesis. This of course adds a majorly complex layer of processing to the mind puzzle that is “how to understand the Word of God”.
Sometimes this journey feels a bit like some kind of odd dance … one where we (well, me anyway) take some steps in and see Jesus and the light of his face and others where the flow of the dance means I need to step away and go into dark and unpleasant corners. I suppose the dance of faith in God is like that for everyone, in different ways …
This looks helpful
I personally find it very helpful to know that there are different options for thinking about these questions, even if I don’t know which option is best.
Uncertainty lets us be humble and leaves some room for faith
Well, of course, the simple answer is to “understand the Word of God” like Jesus did (being God, you know, maybe that would be a good idea).
“Of course it’s a good idea!” 
But seriously, I think you identified some of the shortcomings of Peter Enns’ approach. It isn’t consistent with how Jesus dealt with Scripture and kind of makes the point whatever one wants to draw out of the “pseudo-history”.
Like a lot of things (and everything I write), enjoy it like watermellon – eat the good parts and spit out the seeds. (of course that analogy doesn’t work as well today with all the seedless varieties, but you know)
I came across this song today while buying Gelati with my wife - it was playing in the shop and something about it’s emotion resonated with me (captured via an app called SoundHound). Even more so I guess when I looked at the lyrics. I feel at least in part, it captures some of the emotion of people wanting to know God but struggling with uncertainty.
If anyone else had a desire or thought to share that has helped them with the themes being discussed - whether a song, poem, proverb or testimony link etc
- you’d be really welcome to share and it would be special to hear it. I reckon that processing different types of ‘content’ can help along such journeys - not everything is cerebral and the more I’m diving into things … the more it seems God speaks and operates at the true emotional/inner person level rather than the cerebral level. No pressure though of course. I detect this thread might jingle along for a bit longer so hopefully things like this keep it fresh
On that, I feel I still have quite a lot to say (well, not so much “say” as “process” in a community of support - with people who are on different parts of much the same road as me. I still have a lot to read from the articles etc posted here and I continue to think about and work through what feels like new perspectives, even paradigm shifts, on a regular basis… so some of that will come out here. Eventually … I intend to try my best to summarise this whole thread (that’ll be a big task!) and perhaps lay out from that some specific themes to put out in other threads. When (if?) I get to that … people’s contributions to the process would be welcome
Absolutely. I’m not proud to admit that when I was younger I would sort of look down on people who seemed to be “struggling” with faith – in my mind it was the kind of thing that you either had or you didn’t, so I didn’t understand what all the fuss was about. But I’ve had to learn that it while some things are either/or, faith is not about checking off a box or accumulating a bunch of knowledge. Seeing truth as the person of Jesus is so much better than trying to hold on to my “right answers” knowledge collection… but a lot messier! So I like your dance analogy. I may be a terrible dancer, but thank goodness “God has chosen the foolish things of the world…” 
“If this is how the bible works, the Bible doesn’t work at all.”
…otherwise known as: “my way or the highway.”
It could also be compared to a novice, who has just proposed an incorrect math sum, and when the professor shows the correction, the novice proclaims: “well, if my original answer isn’t correct, then math just doesn’t work!”
Thank you for raising this issue Christopher and for all those who have contributed above. Your responses have been very helpful. God’s character is an important issue. I am really hesitant about posting this as I know I’m making some assumptions but I guess I am applying your question regarding this issue to the world in general. I just hope it’s helpful here.
I think the trite answers that Christians give to difficult issues such as suffering are one of our biggest downfalls. It’s easy to speak in generalities (sin is the cause of suffering, etc.) but what can we say to someone who is dying or whose loved one is enduring great suffering and losing the battle to live? Words fail and so they should. We can but sit with them, maybe hold their hand and be there and pray.
From great theologians such as CS Lewis who have struggling with God on this issue, there are no easy answers. The Dark Night of the Soul (by John of the Cross, 16th century monk) explores the times when it seems God abandons us despite our desperate need for him. It seems that God wants to strip us of our certainty, our control, our answers, etc. He wants us to find ourselves in him. He is the answer to what we desire most, eg hope, faith and love or if you prefer ‘needs’ such as security, self-esteem, etc.
There is nothing wrong with doubt, fear, questions, anger, etc. God can take it all. There is no easy answer to the issue of how God ‘allowing suffering’ reflects on his character. But Jesus prevents us from seeing God as an uncaring dictator who allows his subjects to suffer for no reason. Jesus, God, has suffered for us. The Roman use of crucifixion was one of the most horrible ways to die, yet Jesus took that course of action for us. This is, of course, a matter of faith. God asks us to trust him through the good and bad, through the questions and doubts. We don’t know why God chose suffering as an aspect of evolution and he has chosen not to give us the answer. We can question but we still need to walk by faith.
There are of course many other questions with no easy answers. It is so sad to see how many people have fallen away from faith in Jesus because they put their questions first. By putting Jesus first, we get our priorities right. Many of our questions will still be there but they don’t rock the boat as much as when we put our questions before our relationship with Jesus.
I read what I have written and think, “How trite am I?” Faith in Jesus? Easier for some than others. A loving God who allows suffering? Tell that to a world where many are suffering because of disease, war and starvation. I am certainly not going to tell that person that they are suffering because they are a sinner. I have loads of questions and this forum is a great place for exploring difficult issues but in the end, as so often happens, I have to admit, I don’t have the answers. When it comes down to basics, all I can do is point towards God who suffered for us on a cross. Isn’t that the best introduction to his ethical character?
I agree. And any “answer” won’t help someone really suffering.
In the past I’ve seen suffering in the YEC framework – There is disease, death, hurt, brokenness, because we live in a fallen world. The feeling that “this is not how it should be” is actually correct. God made a good world but sin has corrupted all us and all creation. But someday he will make all things new and there will be no more sin, death, disease, cancer, depression.
This still isn’t adequate when someone is suffering. And it isn’t fully intellectually adequate (why did a Sovereign God chose to curse all creation in a way that a tsunami will kill 100,000’s and childhood diseases strike so many, etc. from one man’s sin) , but it is a framework.
From an EC perspective the framework seems less clean. Death, disease, cancer, starvation, brutality of man, are not a corruption of God’s plan, but seem to be a necessary part of it. We can say that these things we see as bad, are not as bad from an eternal perspective and that God uses them for good. Somehow this is far less than satisfying.
I think it is interesting that Jesus did not point to the “fallen world” idea when discussing suffering in Luke 13:1. He does not give any reason why some suffered and corrects his disciples from thinking they were any more sinners than anyone else. I think if there was an easy answer that human could understand, Jesus would have told them.
I’ve got to run. Sorry for the half-finished thoughts.
Yes, and well said. Jesus also cried from the cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” If Christ could feel abandoned by God, we certainly shouldn’t feel ourselves exempt. I always find myself returning to Tomas a Kempis’ take on suffering:
Arrange and order everything to suit your will and judgment, and still you will find that some suffering must always be borne, willingly or unwillingly, and thus you will always find the cross. Either you will experience bodily pain or you will undergo tribulation of spirit in your soul. At times you will be forsaken by God, at times troubled by those about you and, what is worse, you will often grow weary of yourself. … The cross, therefore, is always ready; it awaits you everywhere. No matter where you may go, you cannot escape it, for wherever you go you take yourself with you and shall always find yourself.
If you carry the cross willingly, it will carry and lead you to the desired goal where indeed there shall be no more suffering, but here there shall be. If you carry it unwillingly, you create a burden for yourself and increase the load, though still you have to bear it. If you cast away one cross, you will find another and perhaps a heavier one. Do you expect to escape what no mortal man can ever avoid?
How trite am I? (On second thought, don’t answer.)
I agree the YEC framework is much more tidy. But in my experience, life itself isn’t very tidy. Nothing ever seems to go according to plan. I suppose that’s why I like heist movies. Ocean’s Eleven. The Italian Job. They come up with the most intricate, detailed plan imaginable, and somehow it all works. Reality is much more messy than that. So is the Bible. We’re all just muddling through, it seems.
On the “natural evil” front, attributing it to Adam’s sin is problematic, as you said. I always thought the “cost of creation” argument made sense. Here’s an old post on it by @Jonathan_Burke:
Hi Christopher,
Hope you have had a good week (or so). I read this article today and thought of you. Has lots of helpful insights into the topics we’ve been discussing on this thread.
Thank you Michelle. I have read through the article and been thinking about it’s points. It is quite a helpful perspective. I’m still working through how I understand Genesis … at the moment I’m still seeing it as much more what I’d call “theologically and culturally influenced history” rather than actual pure, factually accurate history. This obviously carries some bearing on a historical Adam & Eve. Some really good points were raised in that article though.
Good to hear from you again, Christopher,
I posted this on another thread. It might also be of interest to you as you work through your thoughts on how to understand Genesis. I just bought myself a copy, because I’m also considering new perspectives (although, as opposed to very figurative interpretations, I have a preference for finding a way to reconcile human evolution with a historical Adam and Eve)
This is another book on the topic of the Genealogical Adam and Eve hypothesis that recently published:
The Generations of Heaven and Earth | WipfandStock.com
From what I read online, unlike the Joshua Swamidass book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve, this book by Jon Garvey seems to go into less detail about the science, and more into the theological implications of the theory. Here’s a summary from the publisher about the points made in the book:
https://try.wipfandstock.com/the_generations_of_heaven_and_earth/
Hi everyone,
For what it’s worth, I’m just letting people know I have started working on a full summary of this thread, aiming to incorporate all the various views raised here. I’m slowly going over each and every post in this thread and organising the ideas raised therein into sections. I’m also slowly reading each article posted etc.
The final summary will be GIGANTIC - possibly one of the longest posts ever on a BioLogos post! So please, be patient with me and maybe be sitting when you see it and start scrolling down … and down and down. ‘Be not afraid’ upon its sighting
My aim is to really break it all down into relatively bite size chunks and hopefully order it all coherently, so that will at least make it easier to read🤞
Anyway, if anyone reading this has been mulling over some final thoughts they feel perhaps haven’t been considered yet - please add them in. I’ll be tagging/mentioning a lot of people in the summary post. I imagine I’ll get to posting it in 3-4 days or so …
Till then
3) Ethnology suggests that man before Adam, created in God’s image, may have worshipped the true God by nature, but remotely
From yet other books like Captivating History – Australian Mythology, I understand that virtually all human groups, from Australian Aborigines to the Greeks before Paul (and even Gnostics) to Amerindians and on around…
all had a sense of “The Great Spirit”, the highest & most ultimate Heavenly Power
Hi @Trunyon90, thank you for your earlier comments. I’ve been going over this whole thread in the hopes of summarising the main ideas and have just finished reading that article you posted where Dr Laing and Dr Scholoss discuss the issue of death in evolution from different perspectives.
My favourite part of the article was actually the first section. Dr Laing’s truly brilliant description of God being presented in the Bible as life bringer, and how this seems so much to contrast with evolution was for me, perfectly articulated. I found myself constantly agreeing with what he was saying!
At first, the response Dr Schloss sounded like it was setting itself up for something really special - he was so good at acknowledging the perspective of Dr Laing and so natural in sharing his own challenging experience of the pain associated with death. The tone of the article at first had a certain confident hope to it. The “I can certainly hear what my friend is saying” sentiment to my mind translated to “therefore what I’ll be saying in response will be a sufficiently corresponding answer”. Sadly, for me it wasn’t. And Schloss himself acknowledges at the end that while his points are hopefully useful, there is a certain lack of sufficiency to them, finishing from there with comments about one day being able to see clearly by God’s revelation (somewhat ironically, I think he is meaning in a generic sense after we die).
His points nonetheless were worth considering - how the Bible never explicitly says non human death is an evil for me being the most important point. But I was hoping for something more which I didn’t find, nonetheless I of course respect Dr Schloss’ attempt.
For my own sake I’m trying to sift through the many puzzle pieces around this issue and configure them into something of a picture - to that end I’ve been meticulously trying to summarise all the ideas raised in this thread, from the comments but also from the articles etc. I feel there are actually several lines of thought raised in the collective wisdom here that will add to Schloss’ arguments. Hopefully that will help me (and I hope others) when I finally lay them all out. I’ve made reference earlier in this thread to the puzzle pieces of Theistic Evolution or “Creationary evolution” (whatever term we want to use) forming a picture that to my mind has to include emotional elements of the famous “scream” painting. It of course contains other, much more beautiful elements also … but to my mind, to minimise the emotionally terrifying aspects of what evolution is and has done through history that can be summarised by that painting is unfair. I still struggle with God’s hand creating that scream, something Dr Laing so clearly describes.
I won’t go on (I’ve don’t that already) but want to say thank you for including an article that so closely addressed my primary issue of concern in this post, I appreciate it.