The Flat-Earth Myth

Posted on by April 26, 2012
2

It is common to hear critics say that biblical authors and Christians in the early church believed in a flat earth. This myth has permeated our society, but is there any truth to it?

Skeptics and Bible critics love to accuse Christians of believing in a flat earth. This is especially true when they talk about those of us who take Genesis at face value. This kind of rhetoric is also becoming popular in the political arena, with liberal politicians accusing those who disagree with them as being flat-earthers. Where did this whole flat earth idea come from?

Many will say it comes straight from the pages of the Bible. However, the Bible does not teach a flat earth. It does speak of the “four corners” of the earth (Rev. 7:1; 20:8), but this simply refers to the four cardinal directions. Nebuchadnezzar’s second dream (Daniel 4) was about a tree that could be seen “to the ends of all the earth.” This description does not necessitate a belief in a flat earth and even if it did, it is given during a dream—hardly a place to receive scientific insight.

On the contrary, the Bible consistently teaches a spherical earth. Isaiah 40: 22 reveals that God sits “above the circle of the earth.” Jesus said that he would return when people were in bed, working in a field, and grinding at a mill (Luke 17:34–36). Here He referred to one moment in time but it will be at different times of the day for various people. This only works with a round earth; a flat earth would have no time zones. Jesus knew all about the spherical nature of the earth because He is the One who created it.

I remember being taught in school that people used to believe the earth was flat. The ancients believed there were people on the other side of the earth known as antipodes. These people, it was thought, walked upside down. Christopher Columbus allegedly had a difficult time finding a crew because everyone was afraid that they would fall off the edge of the earth. This is what I was taught in a public school. My daughter was taught the same thing at a private Christian school. Nowadays, this story is widely accepted as historical, but is it accurate?

Men have always known the earth was round. In the 3rd century BC, Eratosthenes observed the length of shadow cast in Alexandria (Egypt) and that no shadow was cast near Aswan (Egypt) on the summer solstice. He calculated the size of the earth to within one percent. But did the Church ignore this information and teach a flat earth?

A few figures throughout Church history made statements that some have interpreted as teaching a flat earth. Lactantius (245–325) denied the existence of the antipodes because they would have been walking upside down. St. Augustine denied the existence of these people—not because he believed in a flat earth—but because he thought they would not have descended from Adam and Eve. Augustine was open to the idea of a round earth. Cosmas Indicopleustes (6th century) thought the earth must be in the shape of the tabernacle (rectangular) based on an over-literal interpretation of Hebrews 9:1–5.

Despite the statements, the Church did not teach a flat earth during the time of Columbus. These explorers did not believe they were going to fall off the edge of the earth. Columbus had difficulty obtaining a crew because he was an Italian trying to convince Spaniards to sail with him, and because people doubted whether or not one could bring enough supplies and food for the journey. The people knew that a person could reach the East by sailing west but they did not know about the American continents and so they thought that Columbus would need to sail all the way from Spain to China non-stop. Columbus convinced the authorities that the distance would not be as far as they thought by using different figures than what had been established centuries earlier. Ironically, the authorities were right, but Columbus “lucked out” because he did have enough supplies to reach the Bahamas.

This misinformation may have started with Washington Irving’s publication of his “biography” of Christopher Columbus. This work promoted the lie that the ignorant medieval folks thought the earth was flat and Columbus had to convince them otherwise.

Only a few historians before 1870 and nearly all of them since 1900 mentioned the idea of a flat earth. What happened in that thirty-year period to change society’s perception of ancient man’s understanding of the earth? Two books were published during that time claiming that the medieval church believed in a flat earth (likely borrowing from Irving’s fictional elements in his Columbus biography). John Draper wrote History of the Conflict Between Science and Religion in 1874. In it he accused Lactantius and Cosmas of ignoring Greek science and promoting a flat earth based on the Bible. Andrew Dickson White (founder of Cornell University) published A History of the Warfare of Science and Theology in Christendom in which he repeated Draper’s claims. These were the first two historians to claim that the medieval church believed in a flat earth despite the fact that Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), Roger Bacon (c. 1214–1294), and the Venerable Bede (c. 672–735) taught the earth was a sphere.

Historians now recognize that the Church did not teach a flat earth, yet the lie is still promulgated in numerous books and schools. Even the late Stephen Jay Gould (a leading evolutionist) came to the church’s defense when he said, “For the myth itself only makes sense under a prejudicial view of Western history as an era of darkness between lighted beacons of classical learning and Renaissance revival—while the nineteenth-century invention of the flat earth, as we shall see, occurred to support another dubious and harmful separation wedded to another legend of historical progress—the supposed warfare between science and religion.”

History reveals that the Church did not teach a flat earth. The Bible does not teach a flat earth. Apparently, John W. Draper invented the flat earth myth in an effort to attack biblical Christianity. Modern critics are following his lead, as are liberal politicians who use the same rhetoric. Ironically, these people use the term to label someone as ignorant, when in reality, they are the ones who are ignorant of real history.

Too Much Jesus: Is that Even Possible?

Posted on by July 10, 2015
5

Many Christians believe that we must interpret all passages of Scripture by stressing what they teach us about Jesus. Is this a faithful handling of the text?

I recently had a friend send me an article explaining how we often teach or preach the wrong message when we talk about David and Goliath. I would certainly agree that most people include many misconceptions when sharing this account, such as the idea that David was a little guy, but this article was much different. The article was from Tim Keller, a popular pastor and author, and it advocates what he called a Christo-centric reading of the text. I’m not real familiar with Mr. Keller’s work, so please don’t view this as a commentary on him, his ministry, or his love for the Lord, but rather a critique of the view that he promoted in his article, Moralism vs. Christ-centered Exposition.

The Christo-centric Approach

The so-called Christo-centric approach (or Christ-centered exposition) is nothing new, but it seems to be growing rapidly in its popularity today, and I have many good friends who hold to it. Essentially, this approach makes an effort to connect every passage in the Bible to Jesus. I’ve heard some say that every passage is about Jesus, or that the whole Bible is about Jesus. Some take a slightly more guarded approach and look for foreshadows or types of Christ in each text, and some talk about how it is all one big narrative of redemptive history. This idea actually extends into many disciplines of the Christian life, so I’m sure I won’t be able to address all of it. My focus will be on the interpretive method.

Now, before I go any further, I need to say that I unequivocally believe that Jesus is the central figure and theme in Scripture, and that the Bible from the start points people to the Savior and their need for Him. So, in a sense, it is a narrative of redemptive history, but that is different than saying that the whole Bible is about Him. After all, there are many passages about God the Father and the Holy Spirit as well.

Is the story of Naaman and Elisha really all about Jesus? We need guard against reading our own ideas into the text.

Is the story of Naaman and Elisha really all about Jesus? We need guard against reading our own ideas into the text.

A few years ago, I was discussing this issue with a pastor who holds to this approach. I asked him what the account of Naaman the Syrian was about in 2 Kings 5 (the Syrian military commander who visits Elisha to be cleansed from his leprosy). My friend said something like, “Are you kidding? That’s all about Jesus. A Gentile comes to the Jewish holy man to be cleansed.” I happen to believe the passage is about Naaman the Syrian commander who visits Elisha to be cleansed from his leprosy. Could we draw some parallels to Jesus as my friend  has done? Sure, but that is different than saying the text is actually about Jesus. Also, how can we be sure that the parallels we draw are what we are supposed to take from the text, especially since the Bible doesn’t make those parallels for us?

It seems that Tim Keller would agree with my friend. Here is what he said in his article about David and Goliath:

For example, look at the story of David and Goliath. What is the meaning of that narrative for us? Without reference to Christ, the story may be (usually is!) preached as: “The bigger they come, the harder they’ll fall, if you just go into your battles with faith in the Lord. You may not be real big and powerful in yourself, but with God on your side, you can overcome giants.” But as soon as we ask: “how is David foreshadowing the work of his greater Son”? We begin to see the same features of the story in a different light. The story is telling us that the Israelites can not go up against Goliath. They can’t do it. They need a substitute. When David goes in on their behalf, he is not a full-grown man, but a vulnerable and weak figure, a mere boy. He goes virtually as a sacrificial lamb. But God uses his apparent weakness as the means to destroy the giant, and David becomes Israel’s champion-redeemer, so that his victory will be imputed to them. They get all the fruit of having fought the battle themselves.

This is a fundamentally different meaning than the one that arises from the non-Christocentric reading. There is, in the end, only two ways to read the Bible: is it basically about me or basically about Jesus?

I truly appreciate the desire these men have to preach the gospel and to tell people about Jesus Christ. He’s our Creator, Savior, and Lord, and He is worthy of all our praise and worship. Nevertheless, I believe there are some very real problems with the approach, and I have put this off for a while, because it almost sounds heretical to oppose it (what Bible-believing Christian wouldn’t want to talk more about Jesus?). But I think it ultimately does a disservice to the Old Testament and the Bible as a whole. I believe it downplays the significance of the Old Testament text, thus undermining its authority, and misrepresents some of the words of Jesus to support the idea that the Old Testament is really all about Him.

In short, I do not believe the Christo-centric approach faithfully deals with the biblical text, even though I have no doubts that my friends who hold to this view have a deep love and respect for our Savior. Can I back up these claims? I’ll do my best, and you can decide whether or not my arguments hold water. If not, let me know, and I’ll be happy to revise, correct, or scrap them.

Objections to the Christo-centric Approach

I agree with the idea of using an account like David and Goliath as a springboard to the gospel, but I have serious reservations about doing it the same way Keller mentioned. I make a distinction between interpreting Christo-centrically and making application Christo-centrically. Keller and others commit eisegesis, because they often read their own ideas into the text. This is opposed to exegesis, which is to read out of the text, essentially allowing the text to speak for itself. This is something we all need to be careful about, because we all approach Scripture with certain biases, so we must be careful to examine what the text actually states.

In the example above, Keller changed the meaning of the passage to fit the preaching point that he wants to make. 1 Samuel 17 doesn’t tell us that Israel cannot go up against Goliath. It says that the Israelites were afraid to fight him (1 Samuel 17:11). Someone could have done it if he would have trusted God, but all of them were afraid (except David). It’s very similar to the fact that the Israelites could have taken the promised land earlier if they would have trusted God.

The story of David and Goliath is often misunderstood, particularly as it relates to David's size, but should we really be interpreting it according to Keller's Christocentric approach? Image from http://www.biblepictures.org/.

The story of David and Goliath is often misunderstood, particularly as it relates to David’s size, but should we really be interpreting it according to Keller’s Christocentric approach? Image from http://www.biblepictures.org/.

Neither does 1 Samuel 17 present David as a “vulnerable and weak figure, a mere boy.” I’m tempted to give Keller a pass on this, because it is such a common misconception, but if you are going to tell others how to preach the account of David and Goliath, then you need to get the details right. The Bible actually calls David a mighty man of valor, a man of war—before he ever fought Goliath! (1 Samuel 16:18). Also, just before fighting Goliath, David told Saul that he had killed both a bear and a lion with his hands (1 Samuel 17:35). This was no little boy going to fight Goliath. David was a mighty man, much smaller than Goliath, but a mighty man indeed. I have written extensively on this, and my article David: Little Guy or Mighty Man of War provides three more lines of evidence to show David was not a helpless lad when he fought Goliath.

In Keller’s desire to make this passage about our shortcomings and Christ’s fullness, he has changed the meaning of the passage. In light of what the passage really says about David, consider what would happen if we use Keller’s hermeneutic. Maybe it’s about how we are really mighty men (or women), but with Christ, we can be even greater. That simply isn’t biblical. From Keller’s view, since David foreshadowed Christ, was Jesus really weak and vulnerable, a mere boy when He went to the Cross? The Bible repeatedly shows that Jesus was in complete control of the situation, so this fails as well. This highlights the primary danger of this approach—you can make the text go in any direction you want it to go.

As soon as he asks, “How is David foreshadowing the work of his greater Son?” Keller is imposing an non-biblical framework on the text. Where does the Bible ever tell us that David is foreshadowing the work of Christ? That idea is forced into the text.

There’s an easier way to connect the passage to Christ, and it’s one that I believe is faithful to the text. In this passage, David demonstrates tremendous faith in God, and God uses him to do something incredible. God’s name is glorified as David gives Him the glory for the victory. What does that mean for us? The God who worked through David is the same God that we believe in. As we depend on Him, He can accomplish much through us.

One of my friends who holds the Christo-centric approach said that my view makes the passage just history (“history” was spoken with some derision). So was this just history then? Yes and no. Yes, it is history, but it is the history of a people who were repeatedly spared and saved by God, and through whom the Savior would ultimately come. Paul told the Corinthians that these things (some of the Old Testament events, particularly while in the wilderness wandering) happened for our example (1 Corinthians 10:11). Notice, he didn’t say they were about Christ.

Keller sets up a false dilemma. It is not the Christo-centric vs. the all about me approach. There is an all about me approach that some people take, and it is false. But I believe it is just as false to make a passage about Christ that is not about Him. Is the Book of Esther about Jesus? It doesn’t even mention God in the entire book. This doesn’t mean that it doesn’t connect to the history of the people through whom the Messiah would eventually come, but the book is not about Jesus. It’s about Esther, Mordecai, King Ahasuerus, and Haman, and how Mordecai and Esther were used to save the Jewish people from extinction. Did God orchestrate this so that they would be in the right place at the right time? I certainly believe that He did, but the book doesn’t tell us that.

I know of no biblical basis for the Christo-centric approach. Nowhere does the Bible say that every passage in the Old Testament should be understood Christo-centrically. Certainly, we have different insights than the original audience because we can look back through the lens of the New Testament, but that does not change the meaning of the original passage. I believe it is actually a form of “all about me” (to use Keller’s term) when we make it Christo-centric, because then we are essentially allegorizing the passage and making it to be about what we want it to be about. In all seriousness, I shudder to think how we should preach the account of Amnon and Tamar (2 Samuel 13) using Keller’s Christo-centric approach. Or what about the account in Judges 19 of the Levite’s concubine who was savagely raped throughout the night by the wicked men of Gibeah to the extent that she died. Is this passage really about Jesus, or is it about a sad chapter in Israel’s history, which nearly led to the extinction of the Benjamites, or something else?

Our task is to understand what the text states. If it is didactic (like one of the epistles), then we follow its teachings. If it is narrative, then we note the examples (good and bad) and follow or don’t follow accordingly, try to understand the big picture of how God worked through these things, and praise Him for what He has done.

Did Jesus Say that the Whole Old Testament Was About Him?

Those who promote the Christo-centric approach generally defend their view by quoting Luke 24:27. Take a close look at the two statements below. The first is the actual text of Luke 24:27, the second is how most Christo-centric proponents explain the verse.

1)      “And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” (Luke 24:27)

2)      And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them that all of the Scriptures were things concerning Himself.

I think this is one of the major areas where the Christo-centrists get off the track. Although these statements sound similar, there’s a huge difference between them. Jesus did not say that every passage was about Him. Luke tells us that Jesus went through Moses and the Prophets and showed the two disciples on the road to Emmaus the things concerning Himself.

Classic picture by Robert Zund of Jesus talking to two disciples on the Road to Emmaus. What did Jesus explain to them as they walked?

Classic picture by Robert Zund of Jesus talking to two disciples on the Road to Emmaus. What did Jesus explain to them as they walked?

Think about it, they took less than a day to make that walk from Jerusalem to Emmaus—it’s only about 6 miles, so they could have done it in about two hours, and Jesus may not have even been with them that long. I seriously doubt that He explained every single Old Testament passage to them. The text clarifies for us what He did talk about: “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” So what did He talk to them about? It seems very likely that Jesus told them about the sufferings of the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament. They already believed and focused on some parts of the Old Testament, so He explained to them the parts that they did not believe (or focus on), such as the suffering and death of the Messiah. Even after this encounter, they still focused on the earthly reign of the Messiah (Acts 1:6), which is just part of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah.

Another popular verse used by Christo-centric proponents is John 5:39. Jesus said, “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.” Obviously, the “Scriptures” are the Old Testament. So Jesus said that the Old Testament testifies of Him. That’s it. He didn’t say that every passage was about Him or that the whole thing was about Him. That idea is read into the text by Christo-centrists.

In a similar manner, one could accurately say that the Old-Testament is about the Jewish people. Certainly, most of it is about them, but not all of it. And the statement “the Old Testament is about the Jewish people” doesn’t claim that every passage is about them. The problem is that the Christo-centric proponent already has it in his or her mind that every passage really is all about Jesus, so when they see verses like these, it is easy to make the unwarranted jump to say that everything is about Him.

This is why I stated earlier that I believe this approach is actually “basically about me” even though they are trying to make it about Christ. That’s the problem. If a given passage isn’t about Christ, and we try to make it about Him, then we are imposing our ideas onto the biblical text because we want it to be about Jesus. That is eisegesis.

Again, I appreciate the strong desire these folks have to connect the Scriptures to Christ, and to help people see the integrated message throughout Scripture. But I cannot understand how this can be the proper way to interpret the Bible, nor do I see any New Testament writers or figures treating the Old Testament in that manner. I believe we have to be careful to let the text itself tell us what it is about, rather than trying to apply some overarching framework not found in Scripture and that causes us to push our own thoughts into the text—even if it sounds like a really good idea.

Once again, I am confident that my friends who hold this view love the Lord, and have a sincere desire to serve Him and spread the gospel. However, I believe their approach is not biblical and ultimately leads them to misinterpret numerous passages. Also, there is no way to have any certainty if you are accurately interpreting the text, because it ultimately comes down to what you want it to mean and what potential parallels you draw to Christ.