The Gnostics Are Coming! (Thomas Purifoy of “Is Genesis History” Accuses John Walton…of Gnosticism?)

Last month, I took part in an online debate regarding Noah’s flood: was it a worldwide flood, a local flood, or should Genesis 6-9 be understood as an example of ancient Near Eastern (ANE) mythological literature? My take, as it has been for the past twenty years, long before I knew anything about the creation-evolution debate, was that when it comes to genre, the story of Noah’s flood, and indeed Genesis 1-11 as a whole, needs to be understood as a variation of ANE mythological literature that articulated ancient Israel’s fundamental beliefs and worldview regarding God, human beings, and the created order—it is entirely inspired, entirely true, but it was not meant to be understood as a literal historical account.

That is a really big issue, but it isn’t the issue that I will be directly addressing in this post. What I want to address is an online article by Thomas Purifoy Jr. of the young earth creationist Is Genesis History? project entitled, “The Gnostic World of John Walton.” One of my fellow debaters recently shared it on Facebook, with the caption: “Joel’s ‘myth’ view turns out to be Gnosticism in new packaging.” I found this to be quite interesting. After all, I never thought I was a Gnostic, and John Walton’s take on Noah’s flood, as expressed in his new book, The Lost World of the Flood, is not the same as mine. Needless to say, this charge of Gnosticism was somewhat baffling. After reading the article, I felt I just had to comment on it.

Now, the article was extremely long, rambling, and, I would argue, rather incoherent. In a nutshell, Purifoy tries to argue that since John Walton argues that neither Genesis 1 nor Genesis 6-9 are trying to provide blow-by-blow, “just the facts, ma’am” historical accounts, therefore John Walton is a Gnostic who gets his philosophical outlook from Immanuel Kant.

My contention is that Purifoy seemingly has no clue as to what Gnosticism nor the philosophy of Kant is about, and his attempts to link Walton with both is just horrifically bad. (Incidentally, I wrote an entire series on “Is Genesis History?” Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5) 

A Side Note About John Walton
I do want to be clear on a couple things about John Walton. First, I thought The Lost World of Genesis One was fantastic. I also think his commentaries are great, and his Old Testament Introduction is clear and insightful. I’m going to be using in in my OT Introduction course this upcoming fall.

That being said, I haven’t been as impressed with his other Lost World books. Last fall I wrote a 5-6 post series on The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, and my ultimate take on it was that (A) it provided great and insightful information, but (B) I felt it was poorly presented and written. Just recently I read The Lost World of the Flood, and quite frankly, I hope he doesn’t write any more of these books. If they are geared toward the typical person in the pew, I feel that such a person will read Walton’s Lost World of the Flood book and have no clue what he is saying. I will probably write a critique of it at some point in the future.

The Lost World of Genesis One, though, is clearly his best one. In it, he argues that the purpose of Genesis 1 was not to give a blow-by-blow historical/scientific account of exactly how God created the material universe. Rather, Genesis 1 was artistically describing the how God created functionality and order out of primeval chaos, and how He created the cosmos to be His Temple. When reading Genesis 1 within the context of ANE literature, such a reading makes perfect sense.

Thomas Purifoy’s Take on Walton
Now the first thing Purifoy does in his article is take what Walton wrote specifically about Genesis 1 (i.e. that it isn’t attempting to give a scientifically accurate historical account), and then paint it as if Walton was “questioning whether the Bible could be used to know what actually happened in the past.” This is something I have found that YECists often do: they misrepresent what is being said. I can guarantee you that John Walton does not believe the Bible does not tell us of what happened in the past regarding the early Church, Jesus, and ancient Israel. His simple point is that, when looked at in the historical context of the ANE, it is apparent that Genesis 1 isn’t trying to do history.

But, of course, by taking Walton’s comments about Genesis 1 and expanding them to give the impression Walton doubts the historicity of the entire Bible, Purifoy is being purposely dishonest. The result is that he is actually slandering Walton and mispresenting his views.

The second thing Purifoy does is essentially question Walton’s motives. One of the things Walton says is that since Genesis 1 isn’t about giving a blow-by-blow historical account of material origins, that means we can let science do what science does without fearing that it is “contradicting” the Bible. This is true. Yet Purifoy spins this by implying that the real reason Walton interprets Genesis 1 the way he does is so that he discounts the “traditional interpretation of Genesis” and replace it with “heterodox ideas” like evolution.

Well, to be clear, interpreting Genesis 1 as speaking of a literal 6-day creation a mere 6,000 years ago is not the traditional interpretation. Peter Bouteneff wrote an entire book, Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Creation Narratives, in which it is made abundantly clear that the way Mr. Purifoy and the modern YECist movement interprets Genesis 1 does not reflect the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1. In addition, evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious dogma. Right or wrong, it is not a “heterodox idea.”

Enter Gnosticism
Now the heart and soul of Purifoy’s comments on Walton is his claim that Walton is actually advocating for Gnosticism. Purifoy defines it this way: “a philosophical view of the world that thinks specialized, hidden knowledge is necessary to understand what is true,” and then concludes that since Walton is interpreting Genesis 1 in a different way than what he is familiar with, that therefore Walton’s views must be gnostic.

Of course, Purifoy doesn’t really give an accurate explanation of Gnosticism.  Gnosticism was a heretical movement during mostly the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries. It taught that the material world was bad, that a lesser, evil deity had created it, that Jesus wasn’t a real human being, and that he had come into the material world only in the guise of a human being with a material body in order to dispense secret knowledge to a select few, and that secret knowledge involved essentially information as to how to go about releasing oneself from the material world and becoming a pure spirit.

Walton’s point about Genesis 1 is that it isn’t a scientific/historical account of the origin of the material universe. There is nothing that Walton says that resembles Gnosticism in any way, shape, or form. But Walton does say that he came to his conclusions through his academic work as a Biblical scholar—true. That knowledge came about by means of academic study.

…and that is the opening Purifoy needs: “For Dr. Walton, this knowledge is found in his ‘lost world’; it can only be recovered by scholars like himself. Such knowledge provides true insight into reality.” Translation? Purifoy has just equated academic study with Gnosticism! For Purifoy, learning is heretical. That is simply unbelievable.

But Purifoy isn’t done: “According to Dr. Walton, Biblical truth is not dependent on real history. Instead, ‘truth is found in the narrator’s interpretation, which we accept by faith, regardless of whether or not we can reconstruct the events. His interests are not concentrated on human history but on God’s plans and purposes.’ This is the goal of gnostic thinking: the separation of human history from God’s plans and purposes.”

First off, Walton does not say that Biblical truth is not dependent on real history. He is saying Genesis 1 isn’t trying to history—Genesis 1 is teaching metaphysical truths regarding the nature of God, the worth of human beings, and the purpose of creation. Purifoy is purposely twisting Walton’s words to make it seem that Walton is saying nothing in the Bible is historical. Second, what Walton says about history and interpretation is correct, and again Purifoy is purposely twisting what he is saying. For example: in addition to the Biblical account of Sennacherib’s invasion in II Kings 18-19, we also have Sennacherib’s own account of that same invasion. Both accounts are about real history, but II Kings 18-19 gives the true interpretation of that historical event. Sure, Sennacherib gives a few more historical details that II Kings 18-19 leaves out, but the truth regarding the significance of that event (namely, that YHWH spared Jerusalem and vindicated Hezekiah) is to be found in II Kings 18-19.

How Purifoy takes something like that and concludes that Walton is trying to “separate human history from God’s plans and purposes” is beyond me.

Let’s Conflate Genesis with Jesus…and Let’s Throw “Heresy” Around
Purifoy then does something that is often done in YECist circles: imply that if you don’t believe Genesis 1 is giving scientific, historical details, then you must be a Jesus-denier. For after stating that early Gnosticism denied that God would ever enter the material world in the person of Jesus, Purifoy then says, “In these latter centuries, Gnosticism says truth is found in knowing God could not have created dirt, water, and life in a few days, or formed two people immediately from dust and a rib or destroyed the earth with a global flood during the 600th year of Noah’s life.”

Let’s be clear: this is ridiculous. Gnostics held to the philosophical conviction that the material world was bad, and that God would have nothing to do with it—it was, at its heart, a denial of the goodness of creation. By contrast, the conclusion that Genesis 1 isn’t giving historical details isn’t a denial of the goodness of creation—it is based on understanding how people in the ancient world wrote.

And if that isn’t enough, Purifoy then flat-out states that Walton’s interpretation of Genesis 1 is heretical: “It is a heresy that stands in opposition to the Biblical view that teaches a direct connection between God’s original acts of creation and His absolute control of every event in time.” This is astounding on two points. First, Walton doesn’t say God isn’t involved in creating the world, or that He isn’t in control of creation. He is simply saying (AGAIN) that Genesis 1 isn’t trying to give a blow-by-blow account of exactly how God did it.

Secondly, it is a historical fact that at no time in Church history was a YECist literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 ever set down as a fundamental to the faith. There are a number of Church Fathers who didn’t read Genesis 1 that way—none of them are considered heretics.

Now, that being said, I understand that coming from someone like me, who actually wrote a book called The Heresy of Ham, this might sound hypocritical. But let me clearly explain something: Purifoy is claiming it is heresy to read Genesis 1 in any other way than literal history—that is demonstrably false. What I deemed “the heresy of Ham,” wasn’t mere belief in a young earth, or a belief that Genesis 1-11 is literal history. A lot of Christians read Genesis 1-11 that way, but that isn’t heretical. What is heretical is to do what both Ken Ham and Thomas Purifoy clearly do: set up a literal-historical interpretation of Genesis 1-11 as a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith and put adherence to that on the same theological level as belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

Purifoy “Responds to the Gnostic World”
In the second part of his article, Purifoy lists three ways Christians should respond to the “Gnostic world” that John Walton is promoting (even though Walton isn’t promoting Gnosticism at all). Purifoy prefaces this by alluding to the second century Church Father Ireneaus, who showed that the best way to confront Gnostic errors was by comparing them to what Scripture actually says. Here is why this is the high point of irony. Ireneaus wrote a book called Against Heresies, in which he confronted the Gnostic heresy of the day. In that book, one of the Gnostic teachings that he singles out as heretical and having not ever been taught by Church Tradition is the teaching that God had originally created a perfect world, and that Adam and Eve were perfect. I write about Ireneaus in these posts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

In those posts, I said I found it ironic that on this point it is YECism that actually is spouting a teaching similar to Gnosticism, and that Ireneaus himself calls such a teaching heretical. Now, to be fair, unlike Purifoy, I’m not saying YECism is Gnosticism. But I am saying on this one point, it shares a similar view regarding Genesis 1-2. If Purifoy really is concerned about being faithful to how the early Church interpreted Genesis 1-2, perhaps he should do himself a favor and actually read Ireneaus.

In any case, Purifoy’s responses to the non-existent Gnosticism that he accuses Walton of promoting can be summed up as follows: “I believe Genesis 1-11 to be literal history. Walton says that when one reads Genesis 1-11 in its ANE context, one should realize its primary goal is not to write history the way modern 21^st century Americans write history—therefore, I’m going to accuse him of Gnosticism and claiming the entire Bible isn’t historical.”

This is all utterly nonsensical. At the end of his article, though, Purifoy’s real concerns come through when he claims that “Dr. Walton’s gnosticism” threatens the most basic Christian doctrines. It becomes apparent that Purifoy really believes that if God didn’t literally create the world in six days, 6,000 years ago, if there wasn’t a literal, historical couple named Adam and Eve, and if there wasn’t a literal worldwide flood 4,000 years ago, then the entirety of Christian theology falls apart: if God used millions of years, then He apparently can’t be good; if there wasn’t a historical Adam and Eve who were originally perfect and then “fell” from that perfection, then apparently we have to deny the existence of sin, and we have to conclude that Jesus didn’t come to save human beings from sin; and if Genesis 1-11 isn’t literal history, then we have to deny the very authority of Scripture. Or simply put, as Purifoy says, “The result of accepting Dr. Walton’s gnostic worldview is the slow destruction of the historical foundation upon which Christianity is based.”

Let me be clear: none of that is true. Sadly, though, it’s all or nothing for Purifoy, as it is with (it seems) most YECists—if Genesis 1 isn’t literal history, then apparently Christ died for nothing. Sadly, the foundation of Purifoy’s faith isn’t the death and resurrection of Jesus, and it isn’t rooted in the conviction that God has acted in the history of ancient Israel to bring about the fulfillment of the covenant He made with Abraham. No, apparently, the foundation and root of Purifoy’s faith is in a particular interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that was never set forth as a fundamental tenet of the faith in the early Church or by any early Church Father.

Or more simply put, the foundation of Purifoy’s faith seems to be, not so much the Bible, but more The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris.

A Final Postscript
In a postscript to his article, Purifoy added a brief discussion in which he attempted to tie Walton’s interpretation of Genesis 1 with the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Like his attempt to link Walton with Gnosticism, this too is a train wreck. Purifoy points out that in Walton’s book, Walton makes the fundamental claim that there is a difference between modern science and Scripture when it comes to origins. Modern science is concerned with understanding the natural processes that led to the material universe, whereas Genesis 1 is concerned with emphasizing the metaphysical truth that God created everything and has power over the natural world—again, this is true.

But Purifoy would have the reader think that this is somehow a regurgitation of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Now, I’ve written about Kant a little bit on my blog, but for brevity’s sake, here is what one needs to know. Kant’s philosophy completely divided the material world (i.e. the “objective” realm of science and reason) and the spiritual world (i.e. the “subjective” realm of faith and belief). The result was that “faith” was seen as simply a matter of personal opinion, whereas “science” was seen as the ultimate arbiter of truth in world.

Now let’s be clear: at no point does Walton make that claim. All he says in regard to Genesis 1 is that it isn’t talking about literal history, and therefore, it is okay to let science do its thing by studying rock layers and stars. And if it concludes the universe is 14 billion years old, fine—that’s not contradicting Scripture, because Scripture isn’t trying to give a scientific/historical explanation in the first place. Walton is not claiming that the “spiritual world” and the “material world” have nothing to do with each other. I’m quite sure that Walton believes God created the material world.

Therefore, to accuse someone who says, “I don’t think Genesis 1 is doing science or history,” of claiming there are two separate realities that have nothing to do with each other, and that science is “epistemologically ultimate”—that is beyond nonsensical.

In any case, Purifoy ends his article with a dizzying flourish of nonsense. How does he respond to Walton’s Gnostic-Kantian philosophy (that Walton does not subscribe to)? Try to follow along as I summarize his points:

• So, if Walton is right about Genesis 1, then “where do God’s actions actually intersect evolution?”
• Scientia is the Latin world for knowledge, just as gnosis is the Greek! (You see? Walton accepts science over the Bible! Gnostic!)
• We cannot divide the material and metaphysical worlds, like Kant and Walton do […although Walton doesn’t!]
• We need to look to the Apostle John who, in John 1, clearly stated that Jesus was the God-Man, and that in him there is the dynamic relationship between God and creation! [I’m pretty sure Walton would agree with that; and I’m pretty sure that has absolutely nothing to do with saying the author of Genesis 1 isn’t trying to give a science lesson].
• “When man sinned, however, he confused this relationship. We see it when Adam and Eve thought they could cover their physical bodies to hide their spiritual shame. As a result, man began to worship the physical world itself, somehow thinking he could use it to control the metaphysical. Isaiah satirizes this worldview and shows how it always leads to a lie. (Isaiah 44:9-20).” [Translation? If you don’t read Genesis 1 as literal history, then you are confused and are worshipping the physical world by your acceptance of modern science. And Isaiah mocked pagan idolatry…which is apparently no different that the Gnostic-inspired modern science!]
• “Language is what God always uses to reveal His metaphysical/physical interaction to save real people in the space-time world. This is the reason why anyone who looks at the Bible as a whole must also accept that Genesis is an accurate reflection of God’s acts in time.” [Translation? Much of the Bible is about historical events…so is Genesis 1—if you don’t believe me, you’re a Gnostic who denies God has anything to do with history.]
• Don’t believe Walton—he’s dangerous.

Conclusion
Although I am a fan of Walton, I am not afraid to criticize him. I feel, especially in his more recent Lost World books, his language tends to be much too verbose and confusing for the general reader. The result is that it opens the door for people like Purifoy to step in and tell confused readers, “Let me tell you what he’s saying,” and then proceed to make the most ludicrous and dishonest claims and accusations against him, and those confused readers will say, “Oh wow! Gnosticism? That’s bad! Walton is bad! He’s saying the Bible isn’t about history! He doesn’t believe Jesus is God!”

And this is why there is much truth in Alexander Pope’s famous lines, “A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not that Pierian spring; There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain; And drinking largely sobers us again.”

Purifoy’s article sums Pope’s lines up perfectly. The article throws out “a little learning,” but in reality, is just the ramblings of someone drunk with the YECist presuppositions, baseless assertions, and a whole lot of slanderous accusations. Purifoy’s article is an insult to Biblical Studies, an insult to science, and an insult to traditional Church theology.

In a word: it is insulting.