by Harry Osborne
|
Before
reading this rejoinder, the reader is asked to read and carefully consider the
original article, The Serpent That Was
Not There, and brother Marty Pickup's response. The search for truth is
assisted by careful and prayerful consideration of all teaching while searching
the Scriptures daily to see if the things said are so (Acts 17:11). The pursuit
of truth is the purpose of this discussion and I appreciate Marty's willingness
to discuss the issues involved in an open and honorable manner. If further
discussion on these issues is desired, the pages of Watchman Magazine have been offered to publish such. Brother
Pickup began his response by saying, "I apparently expressed myself very
poorly," further stating, "I greatly regret my choice of words seeing
that those words have been read in such a wrong way." While I appreciate
and share Marty's recognition that hindsight could improve our phraseology, our
brother clearly stated his views both in his lecture manuscript and in his
response. In the original article, brother Gibson and
I understood him clearly the first time, understood him stating the same view
to each of us in separate correspondence, and understood his re-affirmation in
his response. Since brother Pickup regrets the words used in his Both Satan
& a Literal Serpent Were There Let
us make the issue clear. Brother Pickup maintains that Genesis 3 definitely
affirms the presence of Satan in the temptation of Eve. On that point, we agree
because the Scripture so teaches. However, Marty does not definitely affirm the presence of a literal, beast-of-the-field
serpent as speaking to Eve. Our brother believes it is possible
to legitimately interpret the Scripture's reference to the "serpent"
as a symbolic reference to Satan. Thus, he denies that we must affirm what the
inspired record clearly affirms as fact. The Scripture says the serpent was a
"beast of the field" (Gen. 3:1), not a possible "metaphorical name to designate Satan" as Marty
postulates. To that serpent, the Lord said, "You are cursed more than all
cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go, and
you shall eat dust all the days of your life" (Gen. 3:14). The text does
not use the word "serpent" as "a way of designating the
devil himself," as our brother suggests, but to the contrary, the serpent
is numbered with the animal creation: "all cattle" and "every
beast of the field." Thus, the
"serpent" of Genesis 3 was not "a figurative use of a
word," as brother Pickup sees possible, but a literal serpent given a
literal curse. That is what the text
affirms as historical fact. Justifying other
"possibilities" amounts to opposing this obvious, literal fact
recorded in the inspired record. Brother Pickup cannot claim to defend
the historicity of Genesis 3 while denying one of the central, historical
figures recorded therein -- the literal, beast-of-the-field serpent. Our brother denies the effect of his teaching by saying, "A
figurative use of a word does not mean that its referent is unhistorical or
unreal." No, Jesus' figurative reference to Herod as a "fox" did
not make Herod unreal (Lk. A Possible Maybe
or the Certain Truth? In his response, Brother Pickup reaffirms his "opinion"
that "one needs to at least consider the possibility that 'the serpent'
terminology of Genesis may have been intended as a metaphorical designation of
Satan himself." He adds, "I only offered this view as a possibility to be
considered by thoughtful Bible students." Yet, one may
"consider" a view that denies the literal interpretation of the text and then reject it as false. One does
not need to accept a "metaphorical" interpretation to be a
"thoughtful Bible student." Indeed, a truly thoughtful Bible student
will let his thoughts conform to the text, rather than making the text conform
to his human opinion (2 Cor. 10:5). A number of brethren have carefully
considered Marty's manuscript and their thoughtful consideration has moved them
to reject what he calls a "possibility" because they accept the
literal facts stated in the text. Brethren,
it is not commendably "open-minded" to present as equally viable a metaphorical
interpretation and a literal
interpretation for facts stated literally in the
Scripture. Over the past few years, we have heard an ever-growing number of
Bible truths being downgraded to possibilities. As God views it, there is no
other acceptable "possibility" than accepting literal truths of
Scripture as literally true! When Shane Scott and Hill Roberts affirmed a non-literal
interpretation of the creation account, Ferrell Jenkins said we could not be
sure whether the "days" of Genesis 1 were literal days or ages. Thus,
we were asked to tolerate the possibility
of a figurative interpretation. We were told it was academically preferred to
present the various views of the creation account as mere options, leaving it
to students to decide which of the viable options to pick without showing that
one is true and exposing the others as false. As noted in the original article, The Serpent That Was Not There, Marty Pickup took the same approach
saying he thought 2nd Peter and Jude should be included, but then
added, “I can’t just be dogmatic about that, I’m not a hundred percent certain
about that” (The Canonicity of the
General Epistles, Florida College Annual Lectures, [8 Feb. 2000]). One
wonders what would happen if a student in brother Pickup's class
"thoughtfully considered" those points which made Marty "not a
hundred percent certain" about the authenticity of 2nd Peter
and Jude, and concluded that he would reject those books of the Bible. How
would brother Pickup non-dogmatically deal with that student? Do not be
deceived, sharing doubts and presenting multiple options will result in others
adopting such to the destruction of their faith. We build faith in people by
exposing and refuting the various possible errors, while teaching and defending
the certain truth of God's word. Similarity with
Modernism? After denying the necessity of accepting the presence of the literal serpent in the garden with Eve, brother Pickup assures us that such a view is totally unconnected with modernism. Yet, as noted in our original article, Dr. Bert Thompson reacted to Marty's lecture manuscript saying, "Modernism has indeed hurt us deeply." Another well-known opponent of modernism among evangelicals, Edward J. Young, said: "If there were no snake but merely
an appearance, we might very well question the historicity of the narrative,
for if the Bible spoke of a snake but did not mean a snake, we might
justifiably wonder whether it did not do the same thing with other objects
mentioned in this chapter. If the word 'snake' is simply a symbol for something
else, how do we know that other things which we meet in this chapter are not
also mere symbols? It is not amiss then to lay our stress upon this first word, and to insist that the chapter begins by directing our
attention to a real snake" (Genesis
3: A Devotional and Expository Study, pp. 7-8). Why would these men, who have no personal axe to grind with our
brother, see the effect of his teaching as aiding modernistic ends? When
brother Pickup claims that only a believer in the verbal and plenary
inspiration of Scripture would take his position, we are left to wonder what
the position of a full-fledged modernist would be with regard to the reality of
a literal serpent in the garden with Eve. If Marty's view assists acceptance of
the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture, would a modernist oppose that
inspiration by affirming the presence of a literal serpent in the garden with
Eve? No, a modernist would merely take Marty's "possibility" of
denying a literal serpent to its logical next step, denying it absolutely. Battling
Modernism? In his response, brother Pickup also noted that he "has spent
his academic life fighting modernists face-to-face," also adding, "I
have spent my entire life studying the Bible, proclaiming it publicly, and
refuting modernists who impugn it." We certainly accept our brother's
desire to oppose such views that deny the clear teaching of God's word, but we
must test the fruit of all claims by the actions seen (Matt. The above questions take on added seriousness given brother Hill
Roberts' teaching that the temptation account of Genesis 3 is to be interpreted
predominately as figurative, not literal. In a series of 19 lessons on Genesis
1 through 3 (posted at www.lordibelieve.org), brother Hill Roberts also
appealed to the concepts of paganism to reach conclusions about the exegesis of
this passage. He noted, Serpent – shows up “out of the
blue” – Who is this Serpent? Remember, this story is being given by God through
Moses to the Hebrews at After setting up his point about the identity of the serpent in
Genesis 3, brother Roberts concluded, "Remember this is Satan The
Snake, not snakes in general" (Lesson
#17). What brother Pickup leaves as a "possibility," brother Roberts is ready to openly affirm. Since brother
Pickup defends this as a viable option, he could not rebuke that affirmation.
(Might he even see it as evidence of brother Roberts'
thoughtful Bible study?) If you have no problem with that conclusion, please
consider the next step taken by brother Roberts. Regarding the two trees
specifically mentioned in Genesis 3, Hill said the following: Do you suppose that there was (or is) some literal
“magic” fruit which, if Adam could just get his hands on it to eat it once,
would inoculate him against God’s sovereign will concerning justice for his
sins? Point: by the time we get to the
end of chapter 3, the trees seem more symbolic than literal. What is more
important: 1) to understand the exact physical appearance of these two trees as
experienced by Adam and Eve, or 2) to understand what the trees meant to them,
to the Israelites, and to us? (Lesson #14). The tree image is highly apocalyptic: they show up
not only here, but also in Ezekiel and Revelation. That something is symbolic
does not mean it isn’t real. Symbols are often based on reality. The trees were
and are very real. They may not
always be made of literal cellulose and chlorophyll, but the objective imagery
clearly conveys their reality (Lesson #14). Again, do you suppose there is literally some
“magic” fruit one can eat that will transform a human into God? It must be understood symbolically (Lesson #14). The
symbolical "possibility," defended by Marty, has been changed to a
symbolical "must" by Hill.
Does brother Pickup see a danger worth fighting yet? Neither does
brother Roberts stop with trees that are not there. In the second lesson of
brother Roberts' series, he quotes from J.M. Houston to set forth his basic
presumption that much of the creation and temptation accounts are not literal,
but must be interpreted as a symbolic
"polemical against the false cosmogonies and cosmologies of the ancient
world" (The New International Bible
Commentary with the New International Version, ed. F.F. Bruce, 50). This
basic premise leads to this claim: At times, the mention of
mythical sea-monsters suggest deliberate denial of their existence as deities,
but more usually they are mentioned allegorically as being no more than God’s
creatures (Lesson #2). Dear
brother or sister, does it alarm you to see Hill Roberts set forth teaching
which says a creature was "mythical" despite the Bible's presentation
of it as literally existent? Such concepts are at the very foundation of
incipient modernism. While it is true these views are held by many so-called
"conservative" scholars in Evangelical circles, we would do far
better to stand with the Bible text and refute such teaching, rather than
adopting or defending their conclusion. Where can we find brother Pickup's
"fighting" and "refuting" such teaching? If Marty would
openly battle such error "face-to-face" as he desires to do, it would
certainly help in opposing that which strikes at the foundation of true faith
in God's word. Will brother Pickup oppose this teaching by Hill Roberts or is
it just the next "possibility" to be tolerated? Brother
Pickup has posted his reply on brother Ferrell
Jenkins' web site which has also been repeatedly used to defend and commend the
work of Hill Roberts. Surely brother Jenkins must see
that his defense of brother Roberts must cease in the light of such blatantly
false teaching. We will ask that he also post this rejoinder in fairness
allowing both sides of the issue to be heard and considered by his readers. Conclusion It should alarm faithful brethren to see the growing willingness
to label literal Bible truths as "figurative,"
"metaphorical," "symbolical," "allegorical," or
even, as Hill Roberts admits, "mythical." How do we effectively fight
and refute the encroachment of error? We oppose and expose it at the very
outset before it gains a foothold from which to assault faith. A nation does
not aid its defense by tolerating the thoughts and concepts of the enemy to be
accepted as equally viable options to its own fundamental beliefs and
principles. (Surely, of all people, we should understand that fact in post-9/11
[Please read and consider Marc Gibson's response to Marty Pickup
upcoming in the |