It’s hard to underestimate the positive impact Dr. Jordan Peterson has had on Western culture. His fight for free speech, beginning in 2016, has blazed trails that we probably won’t fully appreciate for decades. His expertise in psychology has allowed him to speak piercingly to the hearts of today’s generation, opening many eyes to the dangers of narcissism and far-left radicalism. He’s even been able to speak into Church culture and encourage Christians in many ways.
But there’s a problem: His understanding of the Word of God is extremely problematic and needs to be discussed.
You see, for Dr. Peterson and many academics, the Bible is not the Word of God, it’s a word of God — and that’s a big problem. Instead of treating the Bible as God’s infallible Word, it’s seen as a reflection, an allegory of sorts, for spiritual truths. Bible characters aren’t really people from history; they’re “archetypes” or metaphorical figures that represent the human condition.
Recently, two of the world’s most famous atheists asked Peterson about this on his own podcast — and his response was less than satisfactory.
Dodging the Questions
Peterson invited Richard Dawkins and Alex O’Connor (otherwise known as the Cosmic Skeptic) onto his show to discuss his stance on the Bible. And while Peterson brought up some good points about the relationship between Christianity and science, and how a materialistic worldview can’t support itself, he floundered when he tried to defend the Bible’s importance.
His guests repeatedly asked whether he thought the Bible was based on history or whether it was just an allegory. They asked if he thought Cain and Abel were real historical figures, if the Virgin birth really transpired, and even if the resurrection of Jesus was real. But instead of responding straightforwardly, Peterson seemed to play dodgeball and continually avoided the questions.
For a Christian, the whole exchange is disappointing to watch. At one point, O’Connor openly confronted Peterson’s evasions.
“I think there are a number of questions which Professor Dawkins has asked quite directly that we still haven’t really heard an answer … you must understand that when Professor Dawkins is asking you, ‘Do you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin?’ he means something like a biological fact … saying, ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I’m not qualified to comment’ is an answer to that question, but is that your answer — that you don’t know?”
To which Dr. Peterson responded:
“I would hold to this: that there are elements of the text that I don’t know how to, that I’m incapable of fully accounting for. I can’t account for what the fundamental reality of the significance of the notion of the resurrection is.”
A Reliable Record Supported by Science
The problem with Peterson’s answer isn’t that he doesn’t want to defend the significance of the resurrection, but that he’s trying to divorce its significance from its basis in reality. Dawkins, to his credit, is rightly dealing in the realm of empirical facts — things which we believe to be true in the world around us. Peterson, however, seems to think that the Bible is only important in the realm of values and metaphors.
But the Bible wouldn’t have any significance if it wasn’t true in the world of facts in the first place. It’s important for followers of Christ to know that the Bible is not merely a book about values, but about God revealing His values to the world through actual history. As the Apostle Paul says regarding the resurrection:
“and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins … If we have hoped in Christ only in this life, we are of all people most to be pitied.” (1 Corinthians 15:17, 19).
If miracles like the resurrection didn’t happen in real time and space, then trying to draw significance from them, according to Paul, is a pitiable thing to do. I get it; trying to answer questions from smug atheists who mock and condescend to you can feel uncomfortable and intimidating, but trying to evade the facts won’t help anyone.
The truth is that the miracles recorded in the Bible are not only believable, but supported by a wealth of evidence. The biographies of Jesus are chock full of historical data and details that make them some of the most reliable records of life in the ancient world. And for over a century, archaeology has also only confirmed the accuracy of the biblical timeline and proved critics wrong. Unless you come to the table with an axe to grind, believing that miracles are impossible from the outset, there’s no reason to deny that what the Bible teaches about history is false. In fact, many famous critics who investigated the facts of the matter for themselves, including people like C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Alister McGrath, and Lee Strobel to name a few, ended up becoming passionate defenders of the Bible’s historical accuracy instead.
My hope is that Dr. Peterson will eventually take his metaphorical lenses off, investigate the matter more seriously, and follows in their footsteps.