Genesis, Evolution, and the Gospel
By W. W. P.
IN the issue of the Homiletic Review for November, 1911, an English clergyman, Rev. Walter Foxon, asks and attempts to answer the question “Does the doctrine of evolution destroy the teaching of Gen. 1:1 to 2:3?” This article is of interest as showing that the view of inspiration of a generation ago has been absolutely discarded, and such an interpretation has been placed upon the Bible as makes it in reality a book of merely human philosophy. The opening sentences of the article under consideration set forth plainly the modern view concerning the first chapter of Genesis:— Looking through some of the discussions that have taken place on this subject, it soon becomes evident that the source of much of the difficulty experienced is to be found in the method of interpretation. Early divines, not having at hand the knowledge that has been forthcoming in recent years, sought to find in Genesis not only spiritual truth, but history and science. Such a conception eventually became part of their system and rendered them unable to accept facts that were afterward made known. But coming to this document dealing with creation without any preconceived theory of mechanical inspiration, it soon becomes evident that it teaches neither science nor history in the strict meaning of those terms. To prove the unreliability of the historical statements of the Bible a quotation is taken from “History of Babylonia and Assyria,” by Prof. R. W. Rogers, who is declared to be “a most cautious and guarded American Assyriologist.” According to this authority, if we go backward— until we reach the period of more than 4,000 years before Christ, we shall be able to discern here and there signs of life, society, and government in certain cities. Civilization has already reached a high level, the arts of life are well advanced, and men are able to write down their thoughts and deeds in intelligible language and in permanent form. All these presuppose a long period of development running back through millennia of unrecorded time. This quotation is regarded as “enough to convince the unbiased that this part of Genesis does not teach history.” It is thus clear that in the estimation of the writer of this article the inspired writings are of less authority than the statement of a modern historian, inasmuch as a single quotation from a present-day writer is accepted as sufficient proof that the chronology of the Scriptures is a misrepresentation of the facts. In a similar way it is shown that “we can not interpret it [Genesis] as science.” The proof in this instance is taken from the writings of Dr. Driver, a foremost representative of destructive criticism, who declares that the creation of the sun, moon, and stars after the earth “is inconsistent with the entire conception of the solar system—and, indeed, if we think of the stars, with that of the whole celestial world—as revealed by science.” Here again human authority is taken to be more reliable than divine inspiration, and the results of human research are accepted in the place of divine revelation. The modern interpretation of the Biblical record of creation is then given:— If we are not to interpret Genesis as history or science, how are we to interpret it? This is the point where religious scholars redeem their promises. When we see first one and then another supposed article of belief taken away, we begin to doubt; but with fuller knowledge there comes to us a reasonable confidence. While research has shown that Genesis is neither history nor science, it has also made known other cosmogonies which have both similarities with, and differences from, that of the opening9pages of Scripture. The similarities, along with other facts which comparative religion has brought to light, have led scholars to conclude that the older cosmogonies form the basis of the one contained in Genesis. When we seek to account for the differences, we find the key that enables us to solve the problem of its interpretation. The verses that we are at present considering are the work of a comparatively late writer with monotheistic ideas, which at once accounts for the differences, and shows us that the method of interpretation is the purpose of the writer. Consequently, we no longer expect to find a perfect presentation of the results which modern research has established. The value of Genesis is to be found not on its scientific, but on its theological side. Inspiration did not impart to man truths of mathematical and physical science that would not be known until centuries later. What it did for him was to give him enlightenment in regard to spiritual truths, and these he expressed in language that they understood. That is the position of this Semitic writer. He accepts the views of his contemporaries regarding the formation of the world, and adds to these those truths of God’s connection with it which he thinks necessary to be believed. What he had learned of God’s power and of his relation to the world and man by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit he imparts to his countrymen through an account of creation which they all understood. Having thus interpreted the first chapter of Genesis as being neither historical nor scientific, but rather a mere statement of the current views of an ignorant age through which some very hazy and indefinite spiritual truths were to be conveyed, it is now asserted with much confidence that the doctrine of evolution does not destroy this teaching. In other words, having interpreted this portion of the Scripture from a purely evolutionary standpoint, it is claimed that the doctrine of evolution does not destroy this interpretation, and the article closes with these statements:— The Christian has nothing whatever to fear from the doctrine of evolution, which in reality only reveals to us the method of creation and not the cause. Indeed, he may look to the evolutionist for knowledge which will enable him to appreciate even more than he does at present the wealth of the truths taught by the ancient Semitic writer in the first document of Scripture. The positions taken and the arguments advanced by the writer of the article in question are in themselves sufficient to prove conclusively that the doctrine of evolution, if accepted, does absolutely destroy the teaching of the first chapter of Genesis. The importance of this fact is not determined by the mere overthrow of an ancient theory of creation. The seriousness of this whole matter is perceived when we remember that the gospel of salvation is the gospel of creation, and that the Biblical teaching concerning the original creation is the basis upon which rests the revelation of the new creation . To pervert the teaching of the Bible concerning the original creation is, therefore, to pervert its teaching concerning the new creation; and this perversion has gone steadily forward until all the fundamental truths of the gospel have been set aside, and men are really left without hope and without God in the world. It is a thousand pities that those who profess to be the defenders of the Christian faith are the very ones who have led in this destructive movement. So long as we wish to maintain our confidence in the salvation revealed in the Scriptures, we must hold to the inviolable authority and reliability of the Inspired Word.