Critique of deLange’s “Genesis Mythology” – 3

Treading Water: Replacing One Extreme With Another

In the last post in this series, we demonstrated how a polemic view of Genesis 1 does not require a denial of its historicity. The creation account in Genesis 1 may have been written in response to other contemporary, Ancient Near East pagan/Egyptian creation myths, but that in no way requires the events and story of the creation account in Genesis 1 not to have actually happened.

“The mythological nature of Genesis does not question the book’s validity or authenticity. Instead, it provides a deepening and strengthening of the message and purpose of Genesis in providing a formative identity for those to whom it is addressed.” – Adrian deLange, “Genesis Mythology,” Calvinism for the 21st Century Conference (Dordt College, 2010), 9.

This statement could very well be true, unless one requires “myth” to mean “didn’t happen in history.” We saw that this is, in fact, what deLange meant in the last post.

Throughout the Genesis account, the modern reader must see a narrative mythology that is far removed from providing a modern, scientific argument for the age of the earth. (10)

This is the third time deLange pits his liberal polemic perspective against fundamentalist young-earth creationism, and like the previous two instances, it’s difficult to see why he does this. Because not only are there multiple versions of the polemical theory (i.e. conservative polemic, see last post), multiple interpretations of Genesis other than the polemical view and the young-earth creationism he targets (i.e. framework theory, temple cosmology, etc.), but there are virtually no Reformed Christians who fit under the hermeneutic that he describes as “scientific,” “modern,” and concerned with the “age of the earth.” The question, then, is why does deLange swing from one extreme (fundamentalist, literalistic, young-earth creationism) to the other extreme (his own liberal, ahistorical view of Genesis)?

Indeed, as I stated in the opening to this series some time ago: “liberalism often finds a home under the disguise of “balance.” Such is the case here. One imbalance is replaced with another:

As a myth, Genesis is not intent on providing historical fact but instead means to give purpose and identity to a covenant people freed from slavery. Genesis means to provide purpose for life apart in that covenant community, free from sacrifices of false gods and false narratives of foreign nations; Genesis means to explain the importance for the covenant people of existing solely for the glory, honour, and praise of their saving Lord. In his book Reading Genesis Politically, Martin Sicker argues that “because of its essentially political orientation, it should come as no surprise that there is very little doctrinal theology to be found” (ix).The Israelites were not in need of historical fact; they were in need of an identity—a purpose and an opportunity for them to be separate from the nations out of which they had been called. Perhaps the same continues to be true today. (10)

First of all, historical fact can exist where there is no specific intent to provide historical fact. I can write a letter about a football game to a friend for no other reason than to show how wrong he was for believing the Vikings would win, but that doesn’t mean my letter isn’t based on historical fact, or that my letter doesn’t contain historical facts. I can write a document for poetic reasons, for polemic reasons, for persuasive reasons, for theological reasons, for counseling reasons, etc. But that in no way requires the document to be void of all historical facts. In the same way, Genesis may or may not have been written to provide historical fact, but that does not detract from the actual historical facts and claims that do exist in Genesis.

Now, if Moses did intend not to provide historical fact, then there probably aren’t any historical facts present. But, that’s completely different. If I write something without caring about historical facts, that’s different than writing something specifically not to contain historical facts. DeLange does not make this distinction, nor does he establish the latter. That is, it has not been demonstrated in deLange’s essay, nor anywhere else, that the author of Genesis intended not to provide historical facts.

The intent to write a polemic is not at odds with writing history or writing something that contains history. In fact, polemics and apologeties have power because they are rooted in historical reality and not myths. Genesis – if it is a polemic at all – offered a true story, one that actually happened, which is precisely why it was powerful and relevant to Israel.

Sicker points out that there “is very little doctrinal theology to be found.” That obviously depends on what he means by “doctrinal theology.” I think most Christians would agree that Genesis is absolutely saturated with theology – because from beginning to end, the focus is God, and not man. God is the Creator, God is the sustainer, the giver of life, the chooser of His people, the sovereign worker of miracles and the hope for humanity. Genesis is theology to the core. Does that mean it appears in a systematic “modern” format? No. But neither does that mean all of Genesis 1 (or any part) didn’t happen. Theology can co-exist with history, just as a polemic can co-exist with history. They go together, in fact, which is why it makes no sense for deLange to pit a liberal polemic against other aspects and focal points (i.e. theology).

DeLange says “The Israelites were not in need of historical fact”? We must ask again, is it not possible (if not probable) that Genesis fulfilled Israel’s “need of an identity” through a polemic that is based on historical events? Again, why must historicity be sacrificed if Genesis is a polemic? That’s like saying, “you can’t have mustard on your hotdog, because it has ketchup on it,” or, “You can’t drive to the United States from Mexico, because you’re driving from Mexico to Canada.” A Genesis polemic and historicity are not contradictory, and are actually complementary.

Yet while Genesis seeks radically to redefine the place and role of humanity in the world, Genesis still presumes an ancient Mesopotamian cosmology. However, because the aim of the narrative is to convey an identity (who) and not scientific information (how), we are not required to accept the Mesopotamian cosmology—the ancient picture of the world—as an indispensable part of the narrative’s religious truth. (11)

Again, why is deLange’s liberalism in competition with “scientific information” and not the other theories and interpretations of Genesis? It is not good scholarship to choose the two most extreme positions and make broad, sweeping conclusions without looking at the more probable, more scholarly, and more accepted perspectives.

Did a Real, Historical Adam Exist?

Daniel C. Harlow, Associate Professor of Religion at Calvin College, elaborates: “We know more about the physical makeup of the universe than the author of Genesis 1 did, even though he was divinely inspired while we are not” (168). Harlow continues, “When taken on its own terms and read in its own context, [Genesis 1] shows itself not to be a historical narrative and certainly not a scientific one” (181). However, Genesis 1 does show itself to be what Martin Sicker terms anthropocentric: “Man is its central feature; everything else is only of contributory importance. . . . This depiction of the centrality of man in the universe is of great moral consequence for mankind. It asserts that although man is physiologically and chemically a part of nature, by virtue of the unique manner of his creation he is at the same time radically different from all other created beings” (Reading Genesis Politically 2). Though framed in an ancient cosmology, this is a radical departure from the Mesopotamian understanding of humanity. (11-12)

I couldn’t disagree more.

First of all, Daniel Harlow wrote an almost absurd essay on inerrancy in 2007. Do read this to get a glimpse of the type of attitude that deLange is gleaning from (and, listen to my brief response to Harlow here, 6:02).

Second of all, it is simply unfounded to say “Genesis 1 shows itself not to be a historical narrative.” I would point to David C. Scaer, “Problems of Inerrancy and Historicity in Connection with Genesis 1-3.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 47.1 (1977): 21-25, and more apologetically, Brain Schwertley’s “The Historicity of Adam.”

But let me be even more concise than I was in the opening to this series.

If Genesis 1-3 (or commonly, “1-11″) is just stories that didn’t actually happen (Harlow, deLange, Karl Barth, etc.), then Adam and Eve are not real, historical persons. And if Adam was not a real, historical person, then:

1. Why does Paul use Adam as a type of Christ (antitype) in Romans 5, when no explicit typological relationship in Scripture has anything but real, historical objects?
2. Why is Adam listed among the genealogies of real, historical men in Gen. 5:3 ff.; 1 Chron. 1:1 ff. Lk 3:38?
3. Why did Paul say in Acts 17:26, “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth”?
4. What did Paul mean by saying Adam had a “natural body” in I Corinthians 15 (and how would a mythical body give any weight to Paul’s argument for a resurrection? Was the resurrection merely symbolical or figurative?)?
5. Why did Paul refer to a chronological sequence of events in Genesis 2 in 1 Cor. 11:8-9?
6. Why did Jesus refer to the historical events of Genesis 1-2 in Mt. 19:4-6; cf. Mk. 10-6-8 if Adam and Eve were but mythical figures in a mythical marriage?

Clearly, playing around with liberalism has its consequences. Plugging in a mythical, non-existent Adam into the whole of the Scriptures destroys the truthfulness of them. And, is not the chief end of liberalism and all false teachings, the undermining of God’s Word?