RSS
Home
A critique of C.S. Lewis's interpretation of disputed Old Testament passages: Part 5
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Paul and the Other Apostles’ Attitude toward the Old Testament
The key to interpreting the Old Testament (and the New, for that matter) is what Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
To say that Scripture is God-breathed is more than saying that God indirectly influenced the writers of Scripture, or that the human authors of Scriptures were inspired to write what they did because of their experiences with God. In saying the Scripture is “God-breathed” Paul is saying that they were literally “breathed out” by God, that is, that everything that is in Scripture is there because God wanted it there. All of it finds its ultimate origin in him. The Bible is not man’s thoughts on God, but rather the very thoughts of God himself. Not all Christians would agree with that, of course. Some branches of the church have somewhat “low” views of Scripture. That’s unfortunate, but I don’t think this makes their Christianity null and void. Lewis’ Christian faith didn’t become null and void due to his rejection of inerrancy. My doctrine professor in college used to say that the doctrine of inerrancy was “not essential for the being of a church, but essential for the well-being of a church.” Sounds rather sensible, doesn’t it?
The Book of Job
When James is encouraging Christians to be patient in suffering, he points out the story of Job (James 5:10-11). “Brothers, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.” It seems that an unbiased reading of this passage would certainly lead someone to conclude that the apostle James believed that Job was a historical person. If Job was in fact parabolic and James, though speaking through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, botched up his estimation of Job’s historicity, doesn’t that cast a shadow of doubt on the integrity and authority of the epistle? It may be true that the book begins, as Lewis said, “about a man quite unconnected with all history or even legend, with no genealogy, living in a country of which the Bible elsewhere has hardly anything to say” but that doesn’t settle the question. Again, from a literary criticism point of view, it may be, as Lewis also said, that “the author quite obviously write as a story-teller, not as a chronicler”, but that doesn’t settle it either. James believed in Job’s historicity. That tells me that our reasons for doubting its historicity are misguided. Job is incredible poetry, yes, but it’s not only poetry. Shouldn’t the apostolic statement about Job as a real person settle the dispute?
Someone could use this line of reasoning:
“If I hold up the Good Samaritan as an example of how we are to live, that doesn’t mean I believe he was a real person. Fictional people can be pointed to as examples, just as historical people can be. Just as I could use the fictional Good Samaritan as an example of kindness, James using Job as an example of patience doesn’t conclusively prove that Job was historical. It doesn’t even prove that James believed he was historical.”
The point should be conceded that we can’t say with absolute certainty that James holding up Job as an example of patience proves Job’s historicity. In the end, how a person interprets Job will depend on their own reading of the text and their reliance of the Holy Spirit as guide.
Noah’s Ark
Turning to Noah, we know that the book of Genesis says that God wiped the human race off the planet, except for Noah and his immediate family. Many disturbing objections have been raised by skeptics over the years regarding Noah and his flood. Some have said that the Biblical story is merely an adaptation of an earlier story about a man named Gilgamesh who experienced a flood. Some scientists argue there is no archaeological evidence for a worldwide flood. Others argue that it would’ve been simply impossible for two of every kind of all the world’s millions of species to fit on Noah’s somewhat small boat. I admit these objections are substantial ones. I’ve heard enough Creation Scientists lecture to feel that the scientific evidence for a worldwide flood isn’t as shabby as some think. Almost every ancient culture under the sun had some myth or legend or other dealing with a universal flood. Doesn’t this reaffirm the fact that all cultures had some faint recollection of the universal disaster, preserving a record of it?
Some Christian scientists point out that there were likely far fewer species back then there are now, and so there wouldn’t have been nearly the demand for room on the ark that we think. I can sympathize with those who disbelieve in Noah and the Ark. What I want to argue (and I could be wrong) is that believing in Noah and his Ark and believing in Christ and his cross go hand in hand. To disbelieve in Noah undermines belief in Christ. Why do I say this? Because Christ’s apostles mention Noah on a number of occasions and because Christ himself does so as well. If the flood didn’t occur, then in the evangelical mindset, the integrity and credibility of the Bible (and consequently, of the Christian faith) is seriously undermined. That's not at all saying that folks like Lewis are not really Christian. That would be absurd to make such a ridiculous accusation of one of the 20th centuries godliest men. What evangelicals are saying though is that being orthodox in interpreting the New Testament, while being unorthodox in interpreting much of the Old, involves a certain degree of inconsistency. In other words, had Lewis been more consistent in his approach to Scripture, he may have either had to become less liberal with the Old Testament or more liberal with the New. Again, none of that is meant as personal criticism against him.
The flood story isn’t an obscure text. It is Genesis, but also referred to throughout the New Testament. We’ve already dealt with Jesus’ own comments about the flood; now let’s look at what the apostles had to say about it. In Hebrews 11:7 the writer of that book mentions Noah as a real, historical person:
“By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.”
For further evidence that Noah was a real, historical person, read Luke 3:36 where Noah, (not to mention Noah’s father Lamech and Noah’s son Shem) is mentioned in the genealogy of Christ. Are we prepared to say that a mythical person was included a genealogy written by a God-inspired apostle as he wrote the Gospel of Christ? Does that not cast a shadow of doubt on the entire remainder of the genealogy of Christ as it is recorded in the gospels? If Christ’s ancestors weren’t real, doesn’t that add fuel to the fire of those hardcore skeptics still trying to maintain that Jesus himself wasn’t real? By the way, Luke isn’t the only place in Scripture where Noah is mentioned in a genealogy. In 1 Chronicles 1, Noah and his sons are mentioned in the tracing of the genealogy leading up to the time of Abraham.
Readers need not assume Lewis doubted the existence of Noah, but he did dismiss the flood story as “fabulous”, unbelievable. Do the New Testament epistles bear this out?
That the story of Noah and the ark was “fabulous” and therefore mythical is a belief that Peter does not endorse. The apostle Peter clearly believed in the historicity of Noah and the flood. In 1 Peter 3:20-21, the apostle says, “…God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved by water, and this water symbolized baptism that now saves you also.” Again, in 2 Peter 2:5, he says, “{God} did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness and seven others.” Furthermore, Peter says that what God did to Noah’s generation is only a precursor to what he ultimately intends to do to the ungodly at the end of the world: They deliberately forget that the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time (i.e. Noah’s time) was deluged and destroyed. By the same word, the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men, (2 Peter 3:5-7).
