Compromise?

"[They examined] the Scriptures daily to see if [these things] were so."  (Acts 17:11)

“It is not appropriate that you begin your apologetic by compromising on the book of Genesis,” a pastor told me after I shared with him that I embrace the “old-earth position on the creation days of Genesis.  I had been eager to meet him since he had recently hosted and moderated a public debate on the existence of God at his church.  In response to his challenge I replied firstly that I had done my homework on this matter.   And I denied participation in compromise since that question has been settled in my favor by measuring my position against the actual text of Genesis in the original Hebrew language.  When he accepted a copy of my essay, “The Biblical Demand to Take Another Look: Ten ‘Compelling’ Exegetical Reasons The Creation Days of Genesis Are Non-24-Hour,” I thanked him for caring enough to challenge my position.  Typically my suggestion to young-earth creationists that there is a legitimate alternative to the 24-hour-creation-day position is met with such deep-seated resistance that independent investigation of the actual text of Genesis rarely happens.  For adherents to that position, there is no God-pleasing alternative to even be entertained.  Departure from their default position is regarded as tantamount to spiritual betrayal.    

Yet there are fundamental questions that demand to be addressed, particularly in the face of their certitude.  First of all, exactly what standard can young-earthers employ that is so crystal clear as to vanquish the legitimacy of challenge?  Although Martin Luther embraced the 24-hour-day position, he conceded on the very first page of his “Lectures on Genesis” that the language of the creation account of Genesis is “difficult” (Jaroslave Pelikan, ed. Luther’s Works: Genesis. v.1. (Concordia, 1958), p.3.).  The suggestion by some that the text to the contrary is simple betrays an ignorance of the actual text in the original Hebrew language.  Luther writes that it is required of teachers of Scripture that we understand the scriptures in question at that level (Walter Brandt, ed. Luther’s Works v.45. (Fortress, 1962), p.359f).

Second, is our commitment as interpreters primarily to the Scriptures, or is it to a priori (assumed beforehand) beliefs about what we must find there (in the passage in question)?  When Luther stood before the Diet of Worms he concluded his remarks by saying “my heart is captive to the word of God” (Roland Bainton. Here I Stand. (Abingdon, 1950), p.185).  The spirit of Luther’s reformation is expressing openness to revisiting Scripture again and again with the purpose of achieving further clarity on its truth (Acts 17:11).
 

Third, along similar lines, are we committed to diligent independent study for ourselves as to what the Bible actually says?  The Bible never exempts Christians from the disciplined effort to dig deep and search out the truths of God’s revealed word (2 Timothy 1:15).  I must refrain myself from the full disclosure of the multitude occasions within my own denominational sphere where I have been met with repeated refusal to take a further, serious look at the text of Genesis

The success of the advancement of the Gospel is at stake in the calling of Christians to equip ourselves by means of a clear view of Holy Scripture.  At the same time that I deny the option of compromise, I urge, to the contrary, ever deeper study of the Bible.  There is always more that each Christian can know about God’s word.  Whenever the word “compromise” arises in our conversations, let us each endeavor not to compromise with our prejudices, but return to our primary source of truth, God’s Word alone.