Theologically Sound. Culturally Relevant.


Exposing The Gospel Coalition’s Liberal Bible Commentary On Creation

Last month, The Gospel Coalition unveiled an incomplete commentary on the Bible, a work that they were fundraising to complete. Tim Keller, on of the founders of The Gospel Coalition is an avowed theistic evolutionist. We knew there would be problems with this commentary. Unsurprisingly, the problems begin on page one, or Genesis 1.

T. Desomond Alexander is the writer of the Genesis commentary for the Bible. He is academically decorated and has an emphasis on the first five books of the Bible. On the Creation account, Alexander begins:

1:1–2 Genesis 1:1–2:3 sets the scene for understanding the story that follows. In describing the creation of the world, the opening chapter of Genesis reveals how God has organised the world, commissioning humans to rule over it on his behalf. It is not written from a scientific perspective to explain the mechanics of what God did.

Liberals immediately feel the need to put a disclaimer on God’s word. This was the first red flag in the commentary.

The focus of the chapter is on how space and time have been organized or structured by God. Verses 1–2 introduce the creation account, which is arranged around seven days…. Days 1–3 will record how God gives form or structure to what he is creating, and Days 4–6 will record how God fills creation.

One of the key elements of time is our measuring of them, in which measuring days and weeks began with God in Genesis 1. Keep this in mind. The next portion focuses on the chapter, which while not free of problems, is not the main issue or evidence of liberalism in the Genesis commentary. The conclusion of the creation account which takes us to Genesis 2:1-3 is as follows.

Day 7 breaks the pattern found in Days 1–6. God’s work of creating is finished. He rested (or perhaps it might be better to translate the Hebrew text as, “he ceased”), not because he was tired, but because the task of continuing what he had started now falls to others.

Alexander implies that mankind now shouldered the burden of Creation, a fact not taught in Scripture. Christians understand that God is the creator and sustainer of all things. But the real purpose of this quibble over the word “rested” in which he undermines the occurrence of a seventh day, suggesting that it was merely the completion. Alexander concludes:

There is no expectation that God is going to start a second week once the seventh day is over. This suggests that the seven-day framework in Genesis 1:1–2:3 is meant to be understood as a literary analogy, rather than a historical week of seven days each lasting twenty-four hours.

Usually theological liberals try to argue that there are two creation accounts, that days should be translated as eras, or some sort of God-guided Darwinian evolution. The Gospel Coalition instead argues that the entire seven day framework is an analogy. They are not answering the question of seven days or seven eras, they are denying them entirely, writing them off as a “literary analogy.” And the fact that the Creation was completed in a week does not lead to a second week described in the text is a weak sauce, non sequitur fallacy to draw the conclusion that Alexander articulates.

The Gospel Coalition vs ChatGPT

After reading the liberal commentary of The Gospel Coalition, I asked ChatGPT to write a theologically liberal commentary of Genesis 1, but try to pass it off as theologically conservative. Here’s what it said.

It is important to note that the book of Genesis, like all scripture, must be read and understood in its historical context. As such, it is crucial to understand that the creation story in chapter 1 should not be taken literally, but rather as a metaphorical representation of God’s power and authority over the world.

When interpreting the text, we must remember that the author’s intent was not to provide a scientific explanation for the origins of the universe, but rather to convey a deeper truth about the nature of God and humanity’s relationship with Him.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the Bible is not a science book and should not be treated as such. The Genesis account should not be used to prove or disprove scientific theories about the origins of the universe, but rather to teach us about the character and nature of God.

In conclusion, while the book of Genesis may contain literal elements, it is ultimately a metaphorical representation of God’s power and authority over the world, and should be understood as such. And as Theologically conservative, we should respect the authority of God’s Word and the wisdom of the ancient people who wrote it, rather than imposing our modern scientific understanding on it.

The two main bullet points of this subversive computer compiled commentary are the disclaimer in the beginning and it’s belief that Genesis 1 is “a metaphorical representation of God’s power and authority over the world.” The Gospel Coalition goes further to detail how the seven days weren’t really seven and they weren’t really days.

The Gospel Coalition’s Bible commentary is hot garbage right out the gate, which is an unsurprising development from a woke online ministry.

Powered by RedCircle

Support the Evangelical Dark Web

By becoming a member of Evangelical Dark Web, you get access to more content, help drive the direction of our research, and support the operations of the ministry.
Receive the Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.


One Response

  1. Who funds TGC? Follow the money. I was told by someone with inside info that Goldman Sachs funds it. My source bragged about it, “If only Christians knew TGC was funded by Jewish investment bankers…” Wish I had more solid proof but it’s difficult to get at their books.

Leave a Reply

Get Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.

Join 5,117 other subscribers

Trending Posts