MacArthur’s Truth War Appears Truth Deficient
John on January 12, 2007 at 4:45 pm
John MacArthur has a new book coming out titled The Truth War. I haven’t read it, but his website has several articles which were “adapted” from this as yet unpublished book. Based on these it appears to me that MacArthur is about to become the recognized head of the Slice of Laodicea (now Christian Research Net) brand of Christianity.
Take, for instance, this article titled “Raising the Error-Alert.” MacArthur’s premise is that the church is in trouble.
[T]he church today is quite possibly more susceptible to false teachers, doctrinal saboteurs, and spiritual terrorism than any other generation in church history. Biblical ignorance within the church may well be deeper and more widespread than at any other time since the Protestant Reformation.
A bit hysterical, but certainly provocative. Clearly the terror metaphor was central enough to MacArthur’s thoughts here that he titled the article with a terror related pun. There’s even a graphic which mimics the Department of Homeland Security’s threat level system. But what is spiritual terrorism exactly? What is it that threatens us so gravely?
Bible teaching, even in the best of venues today, has been deliberately dumbed-down, made as broad and as shallow as possible, oversimplified, adapted to the lowest common denominator— and then tailored to appeal to people with short attention spans.
So it’s a failure of teaching. MacArthur identifies two areas where this failure is happening:
Sermons are almost always brief, simplistic, overlaid with as many references to pop culture as possible, and laden with anecdotes and illustrations. (Jokes and funny stories drawn from personal experience are favored over cross-references and analogies borrowed from Scripture itself.)
If using anecdotes constitutes spiritual terrorism, Jesus must be on the most wanted list.So if that’s the disease I suppose the cure is long, heavily annotated messages with no humor, no narrative and no references to modern culture. So I guess teaching like Jesus is out (Did parables cease in the first century?) Seriously, it seems to me this is very much at odds with the Gospel accounts of Jesus ministry. Even with his disciples, Jesus’ teaching was topical, anecdotal, laden with illustrations and even humor at times. If using anecdotes constitutes spiritual terrorism, Jesus must be on the most wanted list.
Typical sermon topics are heavily weighted in favor of man-centered issues (such as personal relationships, successful living, self-esteem, how-to lists, and so on)—to the exclusion of the many Christ-exalting doctrinal themes of Scripture.
Just to put this in perspective, the article I’m quoting is on MacArthur’s website, the bulk of which is devoted to materials MacArthur has for sale. I have no problem with selling materials, but let’s look at some of MacArthur’s offering in light of his statement:
Typical sermon topics are heavily weighted in favor of man-centered issues (such as personal relationships, successful living, self-esteem, how-to lists, and so on)—to the exclusion of the many Christ-exalting doctrinal themes of Scripture.
So there seems to be a bit of a disconnect there, but in all fairness the bulk of MacArthur’s material is heavily doctrinal. He certainly can’t be faulted for doctrinal deficiency.
As the article continues, we move from general statements about the church to a consideration of the Apostle Paul’s example. After quoting 1 Corinthians 2, MacArthur explains:
Notice that Paul deliberately refused to customize his message or adjust his delivery to suit the Corinthians’ philosophical bent or their cultural tastes. When he says later in the epistle, “To the Jews I became as a Jew . . . to those who are without law, as without law . . . to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:20-22), he was describing how he made himself a servant to all (v. 19) and the fellow of those whom he was trying to reach. In other words, he avoided making himself a stumbling block. He was not saying he adapted the gospel message (which he plainly said is a stumbling block—1:23). He did not adopt methods to suit the tastes of a worldly culture.
This is an exceedingly loaded and slippery approach to this passage. Loaded because it assumes that those he is criticizing (i.e. pastors who add personal stories to their messages) have “adapted the gospel…to suit the tastes of a worldly culture.” Let’s just say these are facts not in evidence.
MacArthur’s reading is also slippery because it comes very close to reversing the plain meaning of the text.MacArthur’s reading is also slippery because it comes very close to reversing the plain meaning of the text. When Paul says “I became as one outside the law” this is more than a general attitude of servant hood. R.C. Sproul says of this verse “When ministering to Gentiles, Paul was willing to live like them, while recognizing that he was never free to disobey God.” When Paul says “to the weak I became weak” (v.22) he is not talking about a feeling of shared malaise but taking on a particular set of beliefs about what is and is not sin. For instance, weakness might take the form of not eating specific foods (1 Cor. 8 ) something which Peter was specifically told by the Lord not to be concerned with (Acts 10). These were practical, cultural considerations about how to best engage those to whom one was preaching.
Paul sums up his thoughts saying “I have become all things to all people that by all means I might save some.” You can look at the verse (v.22) with Greek references here. No matter how you slice it, the meaning is clear. Paul would become whatever was necessary outwardly to help him reach people with the Gospel.
I don’t think the same can be said of John MacArthur. More than others, he has tried to force secondary issues and make them of issues of first importance. As just noted, this means telling a joke in a sermon is a first order issue. That we use hymns and traditional instruments in worship is a first order issue. That God created the earth in six literal days and that the earth is young is a first order issue. That we embrace the five points of Calvinism is a first order issue. And so on. That’s not to suggest these issues shouldn’t be considered, but in each case above the history of the faith is replete with men who did not hold the same views as John MacArthur, as the 1 Cor. 9 passage demonstrates Paul is one of them.
Finally, it can’t be overlooked that MacArthur’s reading of these verses is also directly contradicted by Paul’s sermon in Acts 17. MacArthur’s final paragraph begins:
Paul had no thought of catering to a particular generation’s preferences, and he used no gimmicks as attention-getters.
This is simply irreconcilable with the Biblical account. On Mars Hill, Paul not only used an attention grabbing intro, he backed it up with quotations from popular poets (poets who were writing about Zeus). It was the first century equivalent of quoting Bruce Springsteen lyrics in a sermon and it’s right there in Acts 17.
This is the problem with most of the discernment ministries and truth warriors in the Christian camp. When one examines their statements closely, the truth they are proclaiming often seems at odds with the Bible. If anyone else were to disregard scripture in this manner, John MacArthur would be the first to call them to order. Who’s watching the watchmen?
Category: Books |
I read your blog via RSS and I usually appreciate what I read, so thanks for writing stuff worth reading. I skip by some of my subscriptions but I always make sure to read what’s here.
While I do respect and appreciate a lot of what MacArthur has to say he does say stuff like this a lot and I just can’t go with him there. He tends to demonize people who don’t agree with him on certain doctrinal points. I remember doing a paper on complementarianism vs. egalitarianism and MacArthur referred to egalitarianism as a satanic attack on the church. It’s too bad.
He does have a bit of a point when people like Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, and Paul Crouch are among the most influential on the Christian scene. But there has to be some discernment when it comes to discernment, if that makes sense.
January 12, 2007 @ 8:00 pmSo do you think the book will be without any jokes and stories to make his points? Like his charismatic “zapped by God” story… man that is a classic…
Just thinking out loud again… sorry!
iggy
January 12, 2007 @ 9:04 pmJackson,
Thanks very much for the kind words. It’s good to know you’re out there.
I think we’re in complete agreement on this. A lot of what MacArthur stands for is good and some of his criticism are pertinent, but the dogmatism on every possible point just comes across as arrogance after a while.
Of course we all think we have things figured out to some degree, otherwise we wouldn’t hold the views we do. I don’t blame anyone for having a strong opinion, but there is a history of majoring on the majors within the church that I think is a good idea. With MacArthur it’s either his way or the highway. His way and Jesus’ way are not identical, though I bet he would claim otherwise.
January 12, 2007 @ 9:14 pmI find MacArthur’s sermons to be extremely well done and informative. It appears that he is less precise when analyzing other ministries.
January 14, 2007 @ 2:07 pm“This is an exceedingly loaded and slippery approach to this passage. Loaded because it assumes that those he is criticizing (i.e. pastors who add personal stories to their messages) have “adapted the gospel…to suit the tastes of a worldly culture.” Let’s just say these are facts not in evidence.”
Do not assume he is critizing at all! It’s last point is that Paul did not change the meaning of the gospel message for the cultures around him. The difference between saying Paul is clean of the crime of changing the gospel, and many pastors today are guilty of it is quite a vast chasm. Warning other pastors of danger they might fall into upon misreading that passage is a worthy goal. The Bible is useful for rebuking as it itself says.
Also, the direction of the blog is against MacArthur, not to him. A message rebuking him in Godly fellowship and love is what would be needed here if he was in the wrong, not a message degrading him in the eyes of other brothers in Christ.
January 16, 2007 @ 8:17 amMessage vs. methods, again? Are you sure you really think MacArthur’s main point is putting methods as first issue? I don’t think that’s what’s really here. Re-examine this me’ boys. He is acknowledging a volcano that is errupting. Many of us dedicated contemps are raising the issue in our local congregations. Glad to hear someone is now writing about it.
Are we really preaching the gospel? Gary Poole was my first pastor in a Contemp church. He always explained the gospel for the congregation to understand through whatever culturally relevant programming we threw at him. It has not been the same in our other congregations. The contemporary church that I love & adore is falling prey to soggy, sloppy, shallow doctrine. A big trend is to find something “mysterious, mystical” etc even to the point that pastors have “primed” the pump to create a pseudo movement of the spirit. Nothing is more mysterious, miraculous than someone who is told: Sin seperates us from God. His wrath is justified against us. He sacrificed His own Son in our place as payment for our sins. We must repent (turn away from sin) and let Christ control our lives. (very abridged version) and no offense to you guys, but it seems like I get called arrogant for things like: saying the Bible is sufficient, inherent, asking someone to share/explain what salvation is.
We have the sin of “omission” of the gospel if it is not fully communicated. Yes, you can share the gospel as a Donald Miller style monologue but the point is that the gospel has to be present! Is it? Been rare around here these days. Applause to MacArthur for saying it.
January 16, 2007 @ 9:46 amThe Genesis account is not a first rate issue? Would it be if it was described as Jewish mythology?
January 29, 2007 @ 9:33 pmLaz,
The Genesis account is not a scientific description of creation. The Bible never claims to be a scientific textbook. But that’s not the same thing as saying it’s mythology. In any case, there have been various views on the age of the earth for hundreds of years. MacArthur can choose to pretend that’s not the case, but it is.
January 29, 2007 @ 11:40 pmJohn, Romans 5:17? What about what Jesus said about Creation? Was He wrong in his literal view?
I understand this is a contentious topic but it need not be. I know the Bible isn’t a science textbook (these change from year to year) but when it speaks of origins it’s more authoritative than any man-conceived idea on origins.
January 30, 2007 @ 1:15 pmLaz,
I think you’re trying to have it both ways. Either the Bible is a science textbook or it isn’t. Genesis 1 is either to be taken literally or it isn’t. Like you I believe God spoke the world into existence, but it wasn’t 6000 years ago.
I believe Genesis 1-3 are poetic and yet accurate language, just as I would say about Revelation at the other end of the Bible. What it describes is theologically significant, but not a literal or scientific description of events. I don’t believe God created the earth in six literal days any more than I believe a giant city will come floating down to earth from the clouds (Rev. 21). This is truth in the form of metaphor, something that I believe God frequently uses to communicate with us.
Consider Jesus’ use of parables in his teaching. It’s not necessary that the Good Samaritan be a real person for us to learn from his example. The same is true of the prodigal son, the man who discovered treasure in a field, the pearl merchant, the vineyard workers, the sower, the unmerciful servant, the guests at the wedding banquet, the tenants of the vineyard, the ten virgins and so on. Not everything God says is a literal statement of fact, that doesn’t mean it’s not true.
January 30, 2007 @ 1:45 pmJohn,
January 30, 2007 @ 2:08 pmFine and good, you don’t think (or believe) it was 6000 years ago. What are you basing this conclusion on?
John,
The Bible isn’t a science textbook. Science is always changing. How could the bible possibly “agree” with it?
Genesis 1-3 may have some poetic elements, but it isn’t poetry. Just about any Hebrew professor will tell you that. (Even if it were poetry, poetry can be used to communicate facts.)
I assume that since you included chapter three of Genesis as poetry , you also don’t believe in the literal fall of man? You’re going to run into huge problems trying to give some poetic explanation for Romans 5:12-21.
January 30, 2007 @ 2:08 pmAmy,
Not to speak for John, but I think there is room for interpretation of 6 literal 24-hour days vs. 6 periods of time, as determined by God, be they days or thousands of years. (Day and night weren’t created until Day 4, for that matter…)
Only Genesis 1 is poetry, and I believe it conveys a number of truths, many of them based on numeric analysis of the Hebrew (which is often how Hebrew poetry works). As such, Genesis 1 is written to convey a great deal of truth, but not ‘scientific truth’ as defined by Western Civilization.
As for Genesis 3, my guess is that John is not implying Adam and the fall of man, as I’ve not seen him suggest anything of the sort in past conversations. I’ll let him speak to that, though.
January 30, 2007 @ 3:46 pmIs there room for long periods of time?
Since scientific “truth” suggests long periods of time, must we throw away the clear meaning of Genesis 1 (24 hour days) in order to accomodate this “truth”?
January 30, 2007 @ 5:22 pmLaz,
I wouldn’t call it a “clear” meaning. To say it is “clear” that it was a 24-hour day is tenuous, at best.
As noted earlier, “day” and “night” didn’t come about until day 4. Additionally, the Jewish understanding of “there was morning, there was evening, the Xth day” is that God moves from chaos (darkness/evening) to order/creation (light/morning).
In insisting that “day” HAS TO BE a 24-hour day flies in the face of Hebrew scriptural interpretation by trying to apply a Western concept of concrete truth to an Eastern paradigm. Peter notes that a day to the Lord is as a thousand, using the same term (yom) as Genesis.
I would also argue that, using Paul’s thesis on the evidence of creation – that it gives evidence of God – would contradict a 6,000-year-old universe. When we look at the night sky, we are looking at stars billions of light-years away (which is not in dispute). So, for a 6,000-year-old universe to exist, God needs to have created all of the light from the stars in transit, giving the appearance of creation contradicting its Creator. Or, to put it bluntly, He’s just putting on a light show to trick us.
In examining truth, there are a series of questions/posits to weigh:
1) God’s Word is true, even if every man be a liar.
2) God’s creation gives evidence of its Creator, not contradiction of its Creator. When the laws of nature are bent/broken, it is for a specific purpose (i.e. miracles, Jesus’ resurrection, etc.)
3) Our interpretation of God’s Word, because of our fallibility, may be faulty.
4) Our interpretation of “science”, because of our fallibility, may be faulty.
So – If #1 and #2 appear to contradict each other, we must assume that either #3 or #4 is in effect, and that our interpretation of scientific truth or Biblical truth is faulty.
In the case of Genesis 1, I tend to believe that a 6-literal-day creation is a case of faulty religious interpretation, primarily based on #1) the existence of equally valid interpretations of Genesis 1 which offer no contradiction – particularly in light of our Western propensity to create literalist issues with the Old Testament that never existed before the schism between Jews and Gentiles in the 2nd-3rd centuries; and #2) light from stars and the fossil record.
Regardless – I fully believe God’s Word is true. I am not so arrogant, though, to believe that anyone has the exact correct interpretation of every passage. I believe the Genesis account is a demonstration of His power, a full acknowledgement of His creation of everything in existence, which contains a great deal of abstract truth, as well, as to His nature. The parallels between days 1:4, 2:5 and 3:6 are also key to understanding it, as well as there being no “evening, then morning” on Day 7. Also, per Genesis Rabbah, I find it interesting that the middle word – the key to much of ancient near-east poetry – is the word for ‘seasons’, which is where the words for Sabbath and festivals were derived from.
I take Genesis very seriously, as I do all of the Word, but I won’t lay claim to what it “clearly” says when it really isn’t all that “clear”.
January 30, 2007 @ 7:33 pmVery extensive explanation.
Is the sun needed for day and night? I would say all you need is light and a rotating planet, no? Was light not created on day one? I’m not sure as to the source of this light (I wasn’t there) but the fact is that it was there on day one.
So the Jewish understanding wasn’t 6 literal days? We must remember that Jewish understanding didn’t recognize Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah…
As far as I understand it, the word ‘day’ (yom as you correctly pointed out) is found in the OT and it can have different meanings (a 24-hr period, a period of indeterminate time, or a even a year). Outside of Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times and each time it means an ordinary 24-hr day. That suggests that when yom is tied to a number (as in the case of Gen 1:5, “one day”, or Gen 1:8, “a second day” and so on, it means one 24-hour day.
As far as Peter’s reference to God’s timelessness, the context has nothing to do with creation.
Ah, yes the starlight issue… Was Adam created as a child? or even a zygote? He was created as an adult, so it’s not a reach to say that the same was true of the starry skies.
It’s not until day 4 that God creates the stars. That to me is astounding. Did the whole celestial panorama unfold simultaneously? Would an observer of the events of day 4 be able to see a clear sky like the one we see now? How would this contradict Romans 1:20? This text seems to be saying that the creation and it’s grandness testify to the Creator and thus He alone is worthy of praise not the created things…
I’m glad you brought Paul up, because in Romans 5:17, he makes the following statement:
“For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace…”
It appears to me that Paul is saying that death entered the world through Adam’s sin,. So for the sake of argument lets say that the 6 days were long eras, so during those long eras nothing died?
What about Jesus? Does what He said in Mark 10:6 fit with 6 long periods of time?
“From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female…”
If we’re talking about long eras, then the creation of man and woman occurred a long time from the beginning but with a 6 literal day creation, this is not the case.
Would you consider creation a miracle? I would say it had a specific purpose, no?
Ah the fossil record, what of it? How do they disprove a literal 6 day creation?
Personally, I think the problem is accepting naturalistic theories of origins first and using them to interpret Scripture.
January 30, 2007 @ 8:21 pmAmy,
The estimates of the age of the universe have been revised many times, but always up. The numbers have been fairly consistent since the 1960s in the neighborhood of 13 billion years.
We have overwhelming visual evidence for the creation, birth and death of stars. We can, in effect witness the process by studying different nebulae.
I thought I said exactly that above. And yes I believe the fall was a fact. I think it’s one of the most easily proven things in the Bible.
January 30, 2007 @ 8:55 pmJohn,
January 30, 2007 @ 9:44 pmSo you base your conclusion that the universe is 13 billions of years old on that ‘overwhelming visual evidence’?
Laz,
A few things:
1)
If you look at the two primary branches of Judiasm, the hasidim (a minority, primarily from the Galilee region – descended from Babylonian diaspora Jews who emigrated after the overthrow of the Ptlomaic Greeks – from which came the pharisees) and the priestly Sadducee party, historical record shows that a large percentage of the hasidim accepted Jesus, whose theology and teaching was remarkably close to their own. The Judeans, on the other hand, were either Jew in culture but not religion or were beholden to the Temple and ceremony. As a class, they generally rejected Jesus, and they caused most of the problems for him.
Jesus was particularly hard on the pharisees, particularly 5 (or 6) of the 7 “types” of pharisee, because they had their theology right but their practice wrong (Jesus said to listen to them, but that not to do what they did because they didn’t practiced what they preached.)
After the Bar Kochba revolution in 135 AD, the Sadducees were completely destroyed and scattered. What remained (and still remains, as a Jewish remnant), is completely rabbinic in practice.
To just say “hey, they didn’t read Messianic prophecy right, so all of their theology is suspect” is the exact type of Gentile Christian arrogance Paul warns against in Romans 11. We are an ingrafted branch indebted to the root for its continued nourishment.
There is a growing body of scholarship which suggests that Jesus came at a time when the Jewish people’s understanding of God had finally advanced to the point that they would be able to accept him as Messiah, rather than the Christian tradition (born with Marcion) which said that Jesus came because the religious system had become so corrupt that only he could straighten it out. Remember that only 500 or so years before, they were coming out of a couple thousand years of struggling with idol worship.
2)
I would actually use this to support my position that Genesis 1, as Eastern – not Western – literature is firgurative, first, and literal, second. If we take this literally, then we’d have to reconcile that man was created on the 6th day, which wasn’t at the beginning of creation, and so either Jesus’ comment or the Genesis account would be wrong.
However, if we look at the phrase “From the beginning” as “From Bereshith” (Bereshith being the name of Genesis in Hebrew, which is the first word in the book), it could also be translated “from Genesis, God made them male and female…”
Our problem, consistently, with Old Testament writings is that we try to exegete them as only literalist recordings, when most of them were written hundreds (if not thousands) of years before Greek literalist thought (of which we are part and parcel decendant) was born.
3) I am familiar with the argument of “first death”
However, consistently, death of humans (creatures made in the image of God) is considered on a completely different order than that of plants, birds, bugs or mammals.
4)
Personally, I think the problem is when we latch so hard onto our own interpretation that we confuse it with God’s truth, and we then make it a test of faith.
For hundreds of years, we “knew” – from the Bible – that the earth was the center of the universe, and that everything rotated around it. When Galileo had the gall to teach heliocentrism, he put his neck on the line because the church “knew” he was wrong and a number of folks wanted him to be declared a heretic for accepting naturalistic theories of astronomy first and using them interpret scripture.
Even the Ken Ham and AiG admit that the issue with starlight is a problem they cannot yet explain, and they dismiss the idea of light created in transit as a violation of the nature of God.
I believe that God created the universe however he wanted to do it, and that the record we have (Genesis 1-2) has a number of valid interpretations, of which a literalist one is valid, as is a day-as-age one. Regardless of which is correct, isn’t the primary point of Genesis 1 that God created everything and not random chance?
January 30, 2007 @ 9:53 pmLaz,
A couple thoughts…
1) I think that one of the points that Chris was trying to make was that arguing that God created a “fully mature” universe creates a problem, especially as seen in light of Paul’s statement in Romans 1.
Romans 1:19-20
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
If God and His attributes are plainly seen and understood because God has shown them to us, and if His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived (seen), then we can deduce that God would not create a situation in which what is seen/perceived contradicts what God wants to be known and/or understood by humanity.
And yet we have a situation in which just that is occurring.
The universe appears to be billions of years old. It appears this way because of the scientific laws and properties that operate in the universe which we believe God created (light and light waves, radiation and background radiation, expansion rates and velocity as affected by gravity, dark matter, etc, etc, etc).
Would God create this type of system in the universe that operates according to a plethora of scientific laws, only to also create the universe in such a way that its appearance and operations would provide a misleading conclusion to those observing its operation?
2) The whole “yom” argument is really a non-argument. Both sides can argue convincingly for their position. What is important is that neither side uses their “yom” yardstick as a measurement for orthodoxy. John Ankerberg said it best:
“The age of the earth is not a test for orthodoxy…The fact of Creation is more important than the time of Creation. Their common enemy (naturalism) is a more significant focus than their intramural differences.”
But just to put it in perspective, the whole thing about “yom” being used with a number (ordinal) 410 times is a very one-sided interpretation of the situation.
Jon W. Green, writing for Reasons to Believe, describes the situation this way:
OECs (Old Earth Creationists) regard the Genesis creation account as a factual narrative account of what God did-a literal historic record of God’s fiat creation, not some allegorical story. Like YECs (Young Earth Creationists), OECs reject macroevolution and theistic evolution. Thus, the conflict between young-earth and old-earth creationism is not an issue of the “who” or “how” of Genesis, but a question of “when” God created.
Green goes on to explain that Hebrew scholar Gleason L. Archer says that the ordinal (the # used in conjunction with “yom”) simply defines a symbolic unit of time. According to Archer, “It serves as no real evidence for a literal 24 hour day.” Archer explains that in the Genesis 1 account, the days of creation do not bear a definite article in the Hebrew (THE first day, THE second day, etc). Including the definite article “THE” in the English translations is actually an error. There are no THEs in the original Hebrew and such a definite article would typically be necessary to indicate 24 hr periods of time.
About the “yom” argument, Hebrew scholar C. John Collins, Professor of OT at Covenant Theological Seminary (PhD in Hebrew linguistics) says, “This argument (insisting that “yom” must be a 24 hour period of time) is unsound and uses statistics in an unsound manner.” According to Dr. Collins, “Yom” used with a number in Genesis 1 does not restrict is meaning to a 24 hour day. Hosea 6:2 provides an example of “yom” being used with an ordinal and not referring to a 24 hour period (”He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day…”). In this passage, “yom” is referring to Israel’s ultimate restoration some hundreds or thousands of years in the future. Zechariah 14:7 is another example of “yom” with an ordinal but 14:8 makes it clear that it is not a single day but a period of time spanning at least one summer and one winter.”
3) About your take on Romans 5:17…no offense, but though you might have just been throwing something out as an aside, your “aside” is an odd tack at best and really weird exegesis at worst. Paul is referring to people, not all of creation when he refers to death. Also, the context would seem to indicate that the “death” of which he speaks isn’t physical, it is spiritual (which fits with the Romans paradigm of sin and redemption).
As for me, I’m torn. I’ve studied quite a bit but the young earth/6 day creation thing seems to contradict so much that is evident in what God created. At the same time, evolution has a slew of problems attached to it so “theistic evolution” doesn’t appeal to me. The old earth creation position makes the most sense to me in light of scripture and the visible scientific evidence, but even then it almost sounds like fence straddling between the other two sides.
The upside is that my faith doesn’t rise or fall on a literal 6 days or on 6 ages or even on 6 billion years. As long as someone doesn’t presume to evaluate the quality of my salvation and faith in Christ according to my stance on the creation timeline, I’ve got no worries.
Actually, I’ve got no worries anyway. It is an interesting discussion, but not worth burning anyone at the stake.
January 30, 2007 @ 10:41 pmChris,
thank you for the history lesson. Who were the Jews resisting Paul’s evangelistic efforts throughout the Book of Acts? From which party did they arise?
Look, obviously not all their theology is suspect right? Not all of the Moslems’ theology is suspect either (they are after all, monotheists). By Hebrew scriptural interpretation, I take it you mean the Talmud, correct?
“There is a growing body of scholarship which suggests that Jesus came at a time when the Jewish people’s understanding of God had finally advanced to the point that they would be able to accept him as Messiah”
“Finally advanced”? His own Apostles didn’t believe Him to be the Messiah until His Resurrection appearances.
I thought the NT was written in Greek not Hebrew, though the Greek, “arche” does make your point. However, it’s hard for me to see how Jesus would say the beginning when there are billions of years separating the creation and the creation of Adam and Eve.
Well the issue with Romans 5:17, is that we’re not sure if ‘death’ refers to human death or animal death or both. I will point out Gen 1:30, where God gives man and the animals ‘every green plant for food.’ If there was animal death before the fall was it not a result of predation?
Let me make something clear, I don’t think this age of the universe (earth) issue is a test of faith. It’s not a sign of orthodoxy. I believe someone can be a follower of Christ while subscribing to an old universe (or earth).
But let’s be honest, scientific theories based on naturalistic presuppositions have forced some of us to wedge billions of years into the text. In my view, the text is clear on the time it took God to create (6 days). If we’re talking about long periods what about Gen 2:2-3? Are we presently in the 7th day still?
You’re absolutely right though, the primary point of the Genesis account is that God created everything. Let me remind you that when the Big Bang was first proposed, the scientific community vehemently opposed it, why? Because the model suggested that the universe (at the time thought to be infinite) had a beginning. Well what’s wrong with that? Well that would fit Genesis 1:1 and well as respectable scientists they couldn’t have that…
Time (lots of it) is one of evolutionary theory’s necessary components (chance being the other, though this is not a consensus). When we submit ourselves to naturalistic assumptions (like an old universe) we are in essence supporting these theories which require vast amounts of time be viable.
As far as Galileo is concerned, does not Isaiah 40:22 speak of the earth’s roundness? The scientific establishment of his time were the ones who at first opposed his heliocentric model. The first serious attack on religious ground came from a layman who challenged him because Galileo’s model meant the abandonment of certain Aristotelian views. There is one difference with Galileo’s theory and current naturalistic theories. One can prove in the present that the earth revolves around the sun, while naturalistic origin theories deal with past events which cannot be verified (outside of time travel).
Yeah Ken Ham and AiG do claim that but on their website you can find a book written by physicist Russell Humphreys titled, “Starlight and Time” that puts forth a cosmology that deals with this issue.
Good stuff man, the discussion… almost forgot, what about the fossil record?
January 30, 2007 @ 10:51 pmJohn,
You said “I believe Genesis 1-3 are poetic and yet accurate language, just as I would say about Revelation at the other end of the Bible. What it describes is theologically significant, but not a literal or scientific description of events. I don’t believe God created the earth in six literal days.” That’s why I thought you were implying that poetry isn’t used to communicate facts.
Chris,
Yes, days can be theoretically translated as periods of time. It certainly isn’t the most common sense translation because of the addition of “evening” and “morning.” What Jewish interpretation of days are you talking about – - The Jewish interpretation that would have been understood during Moses’ day, or some interpretation that has come about because Jews also try to reconcile the miraculous with reason?
Doesn’t one end up with just as many “scientific” problems if one insists on making those days long periods of time. How would the ecosystem have handled for example, having plants, with no animals, including microscopic ones whose existence is critical to the survival of some plants? What would a sudden creation of fish have done to the balance of the plants living for millions of years in the ocean on their own?
Chris, you said, “Only Genesis 1 is poetry, and I believe it conveys a number of truths, many of them based on numeric analysis of the Hebrew (which is often how Hebrew poetry works). As such, Genesis 1 is written to convey a great deal of truth, but not ’scientific truth’ as defined by Western Civilization.”
I don’t think that from a Hebrew point of view you could make a clear case that Gen 1 is poetry, and Gen 2 and 3 are not, although perhaps it has more poetic literary devices in it.
But, imagining that it were “more poetical,” are you implying that poetry = not truth? That’s how I’m understanding you. Genesis 1:27 is a great example of parallelism, which is the most unique aspect of Hebrew poetry. I accept Genesis 1:27 as fact. Also, at least 40% of the OT is poetry. There’s poetry in the prophets, in the Psalms, and even embedded in narrative texts. Poetry is used to communicate truths about the nature of God, about future events, commemorating historical events.
The correct interpretaion is not always a literal one, but do we force a non-literal interpretation on something, or imply that it is better, because a literal interpretation doesn’t fit our scientific understanding?
January 31, 2007 @ 9:58 amFirst of all, kudos to everyone for well thought out questions and challenges. Seriously, while it appears I don’t completely agree with anyone but myself in this case, I’m impressed that all of us are giving this some good thought and not just having knee-jerk reactions.
I just wanted to respond to a question Amy asked:
This is really a great question. My answer, in line with some of what Scott said, is that we do need to try and “harmonize the accounts.” Usually that phrase is used in reference to the four Gospels. I’m using it in the sense that Aquinas did.
We have from God two distinct testimonies, the testimony of nature and that of the scripture. Both come from him and according to Romans, both speak of him. So what do we do in cases where the two things conflict, such as the apparent age of the solar system or the universe itself.
One option is to claim the science is wrong. This is the path chosen by the young earth creationists. Their bottom line argument is that creation has “an appearance of age.” As Scott has already said, this doesn’t work for me at all. It means that God created things in such a way that they are inherently deceitful.
Furthermore, this approach doesn’t make sense to me because everything after Genesis and in our present experience operates according to process. For instance, birth is the culmination of a nine month process of gestation. We know this beyond doubt. It is God’s way of creating life, even with Jesus. So a 6 literal day interpretation of Genesis creates a strange split in God’s methods. During the six days he creates life fully formed by fiat. After the six days he allows natural processes to take over. Again, I don’t see God as being in a hurry in this way.
The birth of stars that we seem to witness in space is, I believe, a process. It’s not the appearance of a process that never happened. The light from distant quasars (which may be the first galaxies just a billion or so years after the big bang) was not created in transit. I believe it represents a real process.
Even the Young Earth Creationists acknowledge that there does appear to be a process happening. As a result some of them have tried to argue that there really is a process at work but that it has operated at a different rate in the past. It’s a clever solution to the problem of deceit, but I don’t think there is much evidence that, for instance, the speed of light was 10 times faster at some point in the past.
All of that to say, yes. I think with appropriate caution we need to be willing to let the testimony of creation influence our interpretation of the testimony of scripture. There are some cases of course where the scientific view is completely at odds with the scriptural one. I think Laz brought up the issue of creation ex nihilo. Aquinas wisely chose to side with scripture over the best science of his day (Aristotle). It took 700+ years for science to validate that choice.
I think the age of the earth and of the universe is a settled question scientifically. Aristotle was really only guessing. Today we have multiple lines of evidence all pointing the same direction, i.e. the universe is very old.
Finally, just because it’s fun, I can’t help but mention the theory proposed by Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder. He adds relativity into the question and asks: Where is the clock? In other words, the measurement of time is partly dependent on the matter density where the clock sits. An expanding universe is one in which the passage of time is different at the beginning than at some much later and therefore less dense point. So Schroeder argues that the six days could be both literal and encompass 13 billion years if we allow that the clock being used to measure the days was, essentially, riding the expansion. I don’t know if it’s true, but it’s certainly a clever way of saying “You’re both right.”
January 31, 2007 @ 11:29 amLaz,
I don’t think I could restate anything better than Scott above, so I won’t touch on those issues. So, just to tie up (or continue discussion, whichever the case may be) some things:
1) From whence were the Asia Minor Jews? Primarily, they were of two sources. First, there were diaspora Jews with similar beliefs to the hasidim (pious and “orthodox”, but not in the modern sense). Secondly, and in some cases, predominantly, were Jewish converts of Galilean hasidim who were missionaries in the century prior to Christ’s birth. In this second case, women highly outnumbered men, because they didn’t have to undergo circumcision and because Judiasm treated women far more fairly than Greek culture.
In both cases, their primary resistance to Paul was 1) Allowing Gentiles in w/o circumcision and observance of dietary and ceremonial law; 2) They saw the worship of Jesus as violation of the first commandment – “you shall have no other gods before Me”; and 3) The “messianic ideal” was not developed much, if at all, beyond Israel, so the role of Messiah was not well understood.
The first question was dealt with by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.
John, specifically, deals with the second question in a number of ways, the most important of which is in the opening verses of his gospel. “In the beginning was the Word…” This is rooted in Genesis 1:1-3, where God is spoken of as plural (Elohim), and identified as Creator, Spirit and Word. John is specifically identifying Jesus as God the Word – which would then not break the first commandment.
The third question is primarily dealt with by Paul in his preaching in the synagogues, where he could use the Hebrew Scriptures to describe the need for, and the coming of Christ.
If you look in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, there is significant evidence that much of the Jewish population recognized Jesus as Messiah, and that in a number of places there were Christians worshipping with Jews in Synagogue (I’ve got pictures of recent finds from my visit to Laodicea last year which also suggest confirmation of this).
The “time being right” for Jesus to come comes from the development of Messianic theology – which began after the death of Judas the Macabee in the latter part of the second century B.C. Additionally, the understanding of the “Kingdom of God” was more fully developed during the same time period. Both of these had to be in place for anyone to accept Jesus as Messiah and his teaching. While people did doubt him, it was because they were expecting a political kingdom, not just a spiritual one. It is a testament, though, to the power of his message after his resurrection, that such a large majority of the hasidim accepted him. Because of all the intricacies of Messianic thought and varying opinions (kind of like eschatology today), getting that many religious Jews to agree on that topic is nothing short of miraculous.
Additionally, the rabbi/disciple system utilized by Jesus had been in existence for about 120 years, and was the model upon which he built to spread his message of the Kingdom of God. It is another key factor in the time being right (from a good standpoint, rather than a negative one).
2) Jews are not analogous to Muslims, in practice and in orthodoxy. Modern Judiasm’s “no” to Jesus is a “yes” to the same God we both worship, for the same reasons as their ancient counterpart – the first commandment. So, for a Jew to enter the Kingdom, all that is required is for him/her to recognize Jesus as the fulfilment of Messiah. For a Muslim, however, he/she must not only accept Jesus as Messiah, but he/she must also accept everything that led up to Messiah Jesus as the work of YHWH, not Allah.
We, as Gentile Christians, have a common misperception that Jews believe in a works-based religious system and ours is faith-based, which could not be further from the truth. This was one of the primary teachings of the heretic Marcion, but is not borne out by the Biblical and historical records. (Suggested reading: “Paul the Jewish Theologian” by Brad Young).
3) While the oldest copies of the gospels we have are in Greek, the “Synoptic Problem” shows that they shared at least one common source – written or oral – whose language was Hebrew. In fact, Matthew may have been originally written in Hebrew. In the synoptics, there are a number of Hebraisms that are translated literally into Greek, making the greek somewhat inelegant/stilted, which linguists have identified as additional evidence. These are similar to the Greek translations of the Septuigent (another document Christendom said had to be studied in the Greek before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls proved the original Hebrew and revealed a number of insights into scriptural meaning).
Hebrew was the common teaching language for Jewish religion in the Second Temple period, and, as such – with the aforementioned rationale, as well – I often go to the Hebrew rather than the Greek.
[See Bivin & Blizzard “Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus” or Bivin’s follow-up work. Also see the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research and Jerusalem Perspective.
Regarding Jewish sources, I don’t consider them anywhere near as valuable as scripture, but I do consider them as valuable (if not moreso) that post-2nd Century Christian writings – particularly the parts of the Jerusalem Talmud from rabbis who were contemporary or previous to Jesus’ ministry.
Amy – the Jewish commentary on Genesis I consider most is the early (time-wise) writings of Genesis Rabbah (basically a commentary on Genesis (and each book of Torah) more than a century before Jesus’ birth. There was no agenda to reconcile with “science”, nor to make any commentary on the Christian sect.
Additionally, my understanding from a couple Jewish/Hebrew sources is that Genesis 1 is written in the form of poetry (on the page) and that Genesis 2 breaks with the pattern, moving into prose (which is why there is an odd break between 1 and 2). Poetry does not imply there is no truth. What it does imply, though, is that you would expect truth to be symbolic and experiential, rather than expositional and literal. (See the example of Trinity above.)
I’ve got more, but I need to go for most of the evening…
Chris
January 31, 2007 @ 2:39 pmJohn,
Do you believe that evolution took place during those long periods of time giving rise to new life forms, or that God let long periods of time elapse before he created new forms with His spoken Word?
Although I could not accept the idea of creatures evolving in the way traditionally taught in most science textbooks, I could accept that possibly 24 hours was longer/shorter than 24 hours
My concern with people accepting a non-literal 6 day is that I believe that many people accept it because:
1) They start with the assumption that scripture has to line up with science. They believe that by believing in a non-literal 6 day creation they are enabling scripture and science to complement each other. Many of them are not scientists, and haven’t even studied the issues – they just jump at the solution of non-literal 6 days as reconciling their faith with their understanding of science. Some people who have this attitude seem to think that they have finally discovered a way to fit scripture into their thinking, and that this makes them better/smarter/more enlightened than people who hold to the silly, old-fashioned idea that creation actually took place in 6 days. Many of these people have never read anything by young earth creationists, considered what the flood could have done, etc. (I am not trying to imply that you have this arrogant attitude.)
To me, starting with the notion that scripture needs to line up with science if possible is a fallacy because:
1) Science is always changing.
February 1, 2007 @ 1:55 pm2) Where does one stop in feeling that scripture needs to agree with science? Many things in scripture don’t line up with science: life after death, the idea of a person taking abstract sins upon himself so that people aren’t punished, a God who always has existed . . .
3) In the end creation by God, however it happened, cannot be proven scientifically.
4) People who accept periods of time as a good answer to creation often don’t even think of all the problems such a method of creating brings about. Besides the ecosystem problems, I imagine there are many other things of which I haven’t thought. From a theological point of view, the greatest problem is reconciling the idea that death didn’t enter the world until the fall with the idea of other things (plants, animals) living millions (?) of years without any death. Do people who accept long periods of time as the way of creation but who believe that Adam’s fall brought death, believe that his fall only brought death to humans, and that other forms of life were already dying?
Chris,
You said, “Poetry does not imply there is no truth. What it does imply, though, is that you would expect truth to be symbolic and experiential, rather than expositional and literal.”
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that symbols used in poetry represent what is true and are more difficult to interpret than prosaic facts.
Also, poetry can easily communicate literal facts, in Hebrew as well as English. Simply look at the Psalms.
Are you aware of any Jewish works (outside of scripture) written during the period of the OT period that discuss creation? Why would you consider Genesis Rabbah as representative of Jewish thought before 1st century BC? Is it a book of oral traditions or is it simply one Rabbi’s opinions?
I would think that the Mishna (sp?) should be enough evidence that Jewish works can differ from scripture.
John I wonder if there are any non-secular Jews who are scientists who are involved in evolution/creationist debates?
February 1, 2007 @ 2:21 pmAmy,
While I realize that the Wikipedia may contain a number of errors, it often is better than most of what you can quickly pull together on the net.
Here’s the entry on Modern Jewish Creationism:
There also a more extensive article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_evolution
Bottom line – Jewish sources back to the destruction of the Temple had varying opinions (even more diverse then most of Christianity).
Genesis Rabbah is a collection of rabbinic commentary on Genesis going back to some rabbis who lived prior to Jesus, and a number after, as well. It is not at all apologetic in nature, nor does it attempt to reconcile questions about days, literal or figurative.
Instead, it examines the different sections for different facets of meaning. For example, it is the first recorded commentary to examine the parallels between days 1:4, 2:5, and 3:6, further noting God’s continual creative process. It also identifies the opposite of God not as Satan or “evil”, but chaos/void – and that God’s creative process continues to remove chaos from the world, but that man’s sin re-introduces chaos.
It is by this concept that rabbis would explain “why bad things happen to good people” – it is the chaos remaining in the world because of man’s sin, and not the fault of God.
How is it useful, though, in the current debate? I find it most useful in seeing the richness that is in Genesis without the need to even consider whether a 6-24-hour-day creation took place or whether it occurred over a period of time, or whatever. Personally, it has never been an issue for me beyond “God created…” – I don’t really consider the “how” all that important.
Instead, when you see in Genesis 3 the fall of man, you see man reverse the direction of creation (back toward chaos), because God created man in His image, which gave man the ability to choose. As such, the world is now ‘broken’.
This gives way to the teaching concept of Tikkun Olam, which translates “repairing of the world”, a phrase which appears in the “Aleinu”, a prayer that traditionally was proclaimed by Joshua after Moses’ death. In this prayer, still said today, is the phrase l’takken olam b’malkhut Shaddai which means “to repair the world in the Kingdom of God.” This was taught in rabbinic circles that this would be the purpose of the coming of the Messiah – which we know has been fulfilled.
I don’t know if this helps at all, but I hope so…
February 1, 2007 @ 3:41 pmAmy,
Yes, but science is truth-tropic, i.e. it does change but towards better understanding.
I see you meaning, but none of those things is strictly scientific. Science is essentially a process of seeking the best causal explanation. One can’t prove or demonstrate, for instance, the existence of God.
I agree. Faith is required for that. But science can help us understand what happened after that point. What science can’t do is tell us what it means.
Personally, I’ve never been convinced that sin brought physical death. For one thing, Adam was put in the garden with the tree of life. The tree of life was the fruit that would give him eternal life. But Adam sinned and was ejected from the garden and cut off from this fruit. So it seems to me that eternal life was not a built in function of man, it was “a fruit” of obedience to God. Not coincidentally, this is just the situation we are in with regard to salvation today. Jesus, the second Adam, restores us to the condition of having a choice (posse peccare et posse non peccare).
Second, immediately after Adam’s sin, God arrives and slays and skins an animal to make clothing. It’s true this happens after Adam’s sin, but did Adam’s sin affect God? Clearly physical death in this case was not sin, since God can not sin.
Third, I don’t see a promise anywhere in scripture that God intends to grant or restore immortality to all things, such as worms and trees. But if that was part of God’s original plan, why would he not restore this part of creation as well. I guess it’s possible he intends to and just didn’t let us know, but it seems like a weak argument to me.
I have other reasons but if these don’t give you pause, the others won’t either.
February 1, 2007 @ 8:36 pmChris, thanks again for another enlightening history lesson but it still doesn’t explain the Eleven’s doubts regarding their Rabbi being Messiah. Maybe it was because they were uneducated?
“For a Muslim, however, he/she must not only accept Jesus as Messiah, but he/she must also accept everything that led up to Messiah Jesus as the work of YHWH, not Allah.”
Doesn’t accepting Jesus as Messiah mean that everything before that was the work of YHWH? By the way, don’t Arab Christians refer to YHWH as “Allah?” Very much like Mexicans refer to YHWH as “Dios”?
If God is Triune, how does the Jew (who of course denies this) worship the same God the Christians do? (I know the answer is complicated but indulge me)
February 1, 2007 @ 8:52 pmJohn, forgive me if I’m dealing in semantics but:
better understanding? I’m guessing you’re dealing with the overall body of work and not specific examples of dearly held conclusions that turned out to be erroneous (spontaneous generation, an eternal universe, mtDNA is only inherited from mom, et al)
a true ‘better understanding’ can only come from God (as Scripture states) so how does a process that can’t prove or demonstrate the existence of God, lead to ‘better understanding’?
Here is the crux of the matter. Romans 5:12 reads:
“Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men”
What is the reason for you not being convinced? Is it ‘scientific’ estimates of the age of the earth that tint your presuppositions?
Does Adam’s sin affect God? I don’t know. Does our sin affect God?
By the way, what is Paul talking about in Romans 8:20?
“For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God”
I’m not sure if ‘creation’ also covers worms and trees, though the image of worms and trees being liberated is appealing :)
February 1, 2007 @ 9:13 pmLaz,
Where do you think Christians even came up with the concept of Trinity? Jews also understand God as Triune from Genesis 1:1-3.
In Genesis 1:1, God is called “Elohim” which is plural. In this same verse, He is revealed as Creator. God the Creator is also understood to be God the Father.
In Genesis 1:2, He is revealed as Spirit/Breath – the Ruach Ha Kodesh (Holy Spirit, Divine Wind). The Ruach Ha Kodesh is seen throughout the Hebrew Scriptures – In Genesis 41:38, 2 Samuel 23:2, I Kings 22:24, Micah 3:8, Isaiah 48:16 and other places in the OT, as well.
In Genesis 1:3, He is revealed as Word. This third part of God was understood to be manifest in the Messiah, who would come to complete creation – to repair Adam’s damage. John reveals God the Word to be Jesus in John 1:1.
As for Muslims, you will hear some people interpret Islam as worshipping YHWH, but its root and basic understanding is that Allah was the Moon God, and He is not Triune. “Dios”, on the other hand is just Spanish for God.
As for the 11 not fully believing until after his resurrection, the reason would be twofold: 1) The disciples were most likely aged 14-20 at the time of the Crucifixion; 2) Jewish eschatology was such that it was commonly believed that the coming of the Messiah would also bring about the judgment, and that the Romans would be overthrown – in much the same way our eschatology suggests a number of possibilities for end time events, though I suspect we’ll all be surprised by how it comes down…
February 1, 2007 @ 9:42 pmLaz,
You, John and Chris have a good exchange going so I won’t try and step into the mix except to possibly correct you on one thing. You said, “By the way, don’t Arab Christians refer to YHWH as “Allah?”
My wife is Egyptian and is the product of a marriage between an Egyptian Orthodox (her father) and an Egyptian Protestant (her mother). The names that are used to refer to God by Egyptian Christians are in a completely different context than Muslims references to “Allah.” Yes, “Allah” means “God,” and occasionally Arabic Christians may use the term “Allah,” but typically it is as part of their cultural colloquialisms such as the common saying “En Shah Allah” which means “Allah/God Willing” and as generic references to God in a general sense.
Egypt being a predominantly Muslim country, Islam has had over 1000 years to shape the culture thus those colloquialisms are embedded deeply into the language and idioms.
But in the context of church and worship, the Arabic language is far more nuanced (in a similar vein to the Hebrew language). They have multiple names for God which are used in a variety of contexts. The most common one is probably “Abba” (Father).
Because of the Islamic use of “Allah” as their predominant term of reference for God, non-Muslims typically make a point to use other names/terms of reference when speaking of their own faith and beliefs.
I just wanted to throw that out because I know that if my in-laws read your comment, they would want to be sure that there was clarity in this idea, especially since language and the meaning language carries is so important to their culture.
Scott
February 2, 2007 @ 8:48 amLaz,
Yes, I am talking about the overall direction. The cases you give are good examples of science being truth-tropic.
I agree with you that there is a sense in which the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. However, I think there is also a great deal of technical ground where someone’s perspective has little effect. For instance, one can be an effective chemical engineer or a mathematician without believing in God.
I believe it’s true that death came to all men. Adam’s sin led to him and thus the entire human race being ejected from the garden, from communion with God, and thus man was cut off from the tree of life. Hence, man still has life but it is not the full and eternal life God intended (unless one is regenerated via the Gospel).
God does not sin. Whether or not he can in some theoretical way is another question. But he surely does not and so slaying (ending the life) of an animal is not sin.
Creation is fallen along with man. I’m not certain all the ramifications of this, but I don’t think the death of trees (for instance) was a result or that the restored world will necessarily involve trees that live forever. I’m not saying that’s impossible just that I don’t see the evidence in scripture for that position.
For one thing, Adam was given the right to eat plants and animals were given the right to eat “every green plant.” This is prior to the fall. So you might argue that God’s original plan was for all of us to be vegetarians (I’m completely serious), but I don’t think you can argue that God’s plan was for nothing that lived to die. Certainly the plants were going to die when they were eaten and since seeds are mentioned as well, I think we can presume this was God’s way of recreating what had been eaten (via a process of growth). Why else have seeds?
So on some level, death was a part of creation prior to the fall. Again, since the tree of life was outside man, I see no reason to believe that God created man with eternal life as a built in characteristic. Eternal life was always a conditional benefit of living in communion with God, one which was lost through sin and which can be regained by restoring that communion in Christ.
February 2, 2007 @ 10:08 amJohn,
In your last paragraph to Laz are you using “eternal life” to describe living forever generally, or only “living forever with God?” Do you believe in eternal punishment?
Regarding the “overall direction” of science, the attitude that I hear consistently communicated on NPR is that whatever the “new” theory is, it is a theory that is without question legitimate and practically factual. The previously held theory, which was no doubt presented in its time in the same way, is easily cast aside. There are all kinds of insinuations that the “new” theory has been derived by unquestionable methods, and is practically fact because “scientists (i.e., “gods”) finally have all the information they need to come closer to the truth.
Over the next one-hundred years I predict that the “new theories presented as facts” will look quite unlike the theories of today.
Along with feeling like there is an attitude of “what scientists communicate is not really theory but fact,” I find so many of the things I hear discussed by very intelligent men simply laughable, which makes me doubt whether I can trust any of their conclusions.
RE: physical death and sin, I didn’t mean to imply that causing physical death = sin, rather that death entered into the world because of Adam’s sin. God wasn’t sinning when he killed the animal.
You said, “I don’t see a promise anywhere in scripture that God intends to grant or restore immortality to all things.” I agree with that, but I still wonder whether or not their would have been death of animals before Adam. There’s probably no proveable answer to that question. But, if there had been no death before Adam it makes the case for millions of years of undying animals on the earth unreasonable.
February 2, 2007 @ 11:20 amChris,
Thanks for the references.
Do your last few paragraphs about “chaos,” starting, “Instead, it examines the different sections for different facets of meaning . . . ” represent your own viewpoints as well?
And if so, then do you not believe in Satan?
And, do you believe that God came to redeem the world or to restore it? Do you believe that this earth will one day be destroyed?
I assume that what is being translated as “chaos” is from Gen 1:1. You probably already know this, but “tohu bevohu” (sp) in Gen 1:1 is really a problem to translate. I believe only one of these words – tohu – occurs in one other place (Isaiah?) where it is translated as empty. Bottom line: Nobody really knows what this phrase means.
Whereas the fact that there sin came into the world through Adam, that man needs a redeemer (not a restorer of creation,) that there is a real evil being (Satan), etc, is clearly taught in scripture.
By the way, I think much of current Jewish religion is similar to what religion everywhere is becoming. I heard a lady Jewish rabbi a couple weeks ago who said basically, “It’s not what we believe that is important. It’s our actions, feeding the poor, taking care of the widows. We all need to find the “god” in each other.” Sound familiar?
February 2, 2007 @ 11:39 amAmy,
I’ll let John answer your questions, as well, but just to throw in my $0.02:
(I’m a registered professional Chemical Engineer, with a primary background in the science (rather than mechanical) branch of the profession. I fully understand the difference between hypothesis, theory and law – and I agree that much of what gets reported as ‘fact’ is often just conjecture).
I believe in a place of eternal punishment. I have seen a case for annihilation at a point in which time no longer exists as we know it – based on Revelation 20:14-15. Because the lake of fire is a “second death”, they posit that this second death – destined for those not written in the Book of Life, per Rev 20:15 – is an actual “death”, after which those souls no longer exist.
I tend to lean toward the literal interpretation of Matthew 25:46 as being a more correct (though not in conflict with Rev), as it is a straightforward teaching, whereas this section of Revelation seems to rely on symbolism more than literalism.
I also see a third possibility, alluded to above, in that our understanding of what ‘eternal’ means is based on our understanding of time – which is all we have words for. However, in light of string theory and the dimensionality of time (see a little bit more about it here), it is possible that both explanations could be right, depending upon how one views time outside of our experience.
As for the ‘fossil’ (more appropriately, the ‘geological’) record, 6000 years is way too short to adequately explain the K-T mass extinction, the terra strata that can be tied to asteroid collisions, the fossil record, itself – all in addition to the issue of starlight. The explanations I’ve seen for these at AiG truly strain credibility. I do believe that Christian scientists have taken the right tack in assuming that the interpretation of ‘religious truth’ should be first considered as constant when examining scientific evidence. However, there does come a point (like with Galileo), where God’s physical record of creation and the evidence it provides outweighs our interpretation of God’s written record.
Just to touch on Galileo again, it was not the roundness of the earth that was in question, but whether or not everything rotated around it – its place in the universe. The Astronomical view of the world for thousands of years BC, and hundreds of years AD was that the earth sat in the center of a huge hollow shell. The constellations all were attached to the shell (called ‘the veil’) and formed ‘the heavens’. Between the earth and the heavens existed 7 stars (sun, moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn). The path through these stars needed to be navigated to reach the veil. Beyond the veil, God existed (which is why the veil in the Temple, as described by Josephus, was a rich purple/blue with stars and constellations on it – because God lived beyond the veil).
The church, at the time of Galileo, still held to this type of view of the universe, and used Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10; Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:4-5 and 1 Chronicles 16:30 as some of their proof-texts for their position. Yes, some of Galileo’s opposition came from contemporary scientists, but his primary opposition was from within the church because his theories conflicted with the ‘religious truth’ of their view of the world.
As for Romans 5 and associated verses, there are a number of systematic assumptions about Jesus’ sacrifice which then get applied back to Genesis 1:27. Ken Ham and similar YEC’s make the same mistake scientists do – separating their own interpretation of an overall ‘system’ from the actual text (evidence) being examined. Using my 4-point scale above, they assume that ‘pre-fall death = no Jesus’ is #1 (religious fact), when it is really #3 (religious theory). This is why you end up having folks like Ham giving lectures and saying ‘If there wasn’t a literal 6, 24-hour day creation, then Jesus sacrifice is for nothing and Christianity falls apart’ – which domatically is greatly to the detriment of the church.
Using Romans 5 (which is, in my opinion, dealing with both physical and spiritual death), I do not see that it is an adequate proof-text for their being no death of animals/plants – death of humans is always treated as something separate from animal death, and when animal death comes into place is specifically in sacrifice, not predation or accidental death.
Also, as you look at God’s creation moving from chaos to order, it does not detract from His creation that death would exist prior to the creation of man. Until the creation of man, nothing had been made in God’s image, and so the chaos was not completely removed from the world (in fact, some chaos remained after Adam was created but prior to the fall, demonstrated by Adam’s role in naming of the animals). So, it is not unreasonable to expect that animals and plants would have lived and died prior to the fall.
Where my discomfort with OEC lies is the same as Scott – is it just straddling the fence? For myself, I am comfortable enough with my own exploring of avenues and arguments to have what I believe is a well-thought-out rationale for where I’ve landed – not just an expedient way of avoiding conflict. Were I to give percentages of surety, I would say I’m 80% convinced of OEC, 15% of YEC and 5% something I/We haven’t thought of yet, but would still maintain that God’s Word is true.
February 2, 2007 @ 12:54 pmChris,
Well Said…
Wow, you should have your own blog…uh…never mind! :-)
Scott
February 2, 2007 @ 2:21 pmAmy,
Again, I think the fact that eternal life was a fruit, not an inbuilt part of our nature is very suggestive. Also, if God does not sin and God killed an animal, killing an animal (animal death) was not sin.
On the lake of fire and eternal conscious punishment, I have long believed it, but I am increasingly skeptical. I’ve been reading some 7th day adventist teaching on this topic and I think they make a very good case. The idea that we do not naturally have eternal life is one piece of this argument, but I believe it’s fairly clear from the text that this is the case. We are not eternal beings apart from God. Whether it’s in Genesis or Revelation, eternal life flows from God to those in communion with him. It is not a part of our makeup. We are dust.
And on that topic, if you look at the use of “eternal” other times in the New Testament, it often does not have the meaning of “endlessly enduring” but something more along the lines of “irrevocable.”
Frankly, my position on eschatology has changed my outlook significantly. I look out at the vast swath of American Christianity that subscribes to the Left Behind views of Jesus return and I think “They’re so completely sure and yet so completely wrong.” It makes me wary of relying on anyone’s assertions about what the Bible says. I’ve become comfortable being in the minority.
February 2, 2007 @ 2:23 pmJohn,
February 2, 2007 @ 2:54 pmagain, “I didn’t mean to imply that causing physical death = sin, rather that death entered into the world because of Adam’s sin. God wasn’t sinning when he killed the animal.”
Amy,
Yes, I get that and I wasn’t trying to suggest that’s what you were saying. I’m saying that if causing physical death (of an animal) is not sin then it’s hard to see how God’s intent for animals (prior to the fall) was that they should live forever.
February 2, 2007 @ 3:35 pmJohn,
February 2, 2007 @ 3:43 pmWhatever the truth is about animals immortality before the fall, I am convinced that if chihuahuas were around before the fall, God would have found some way to insure that they would NOT live forever.
John,
Your comment regarding SDA beliefs about annihilation got me wondering if that belief originated from the prophecies/visions of Ellen White, or whether it originated from someone’s bible study.
Anyway, I came across this comment: “I gues this is in a pre annilation disposition because according to ELLEN G. WHITE. THERE IS NO HELL OR PLACE OF TORMENT.” on this site:
http://www.onelordonefaithonebaptismforum.com/forums/forum9/415-1.html
I read in another place that Ellen White may have gotten a number of her “visions” from contemporary sources. I imagine “contemporary sources” could include someone else’s bible study.
February 2, 2007 @ 4:00 pmAmy,
I always thought that chihuahuas were examples of demons in corporeal form…kind of like the “sons of god” mentioned in Genesis, only much more annoying!
Scott
February 2, 2007 @ 4:03 pmI am sure there is a recipe somewhere for Chihuahua Stew… That may have been the plan from the beginning.
February 2, 2007 @ 4:08 pmAmy,
I believe that all of creation is groaning for Him, per Romans 8, and that, as Jesus said – ALL things will be renewed. There will be a new heavens and a new earth, and the present world, as it is, will cease to exist. I believe that redeeming and restoring are both roles of the Messiah, who is Jesus.
HOW this will be accomplished, will be up to God.
I believe that Satan’s role is what his name implies – an accuser or prosecuting attorney. His role is to accuse and convict humanity of their sin, and that he is complicit in that sin’s occurrence (demonstrated numerous ways, but most explicitly in Job). After Jesus’ death and resurrection and return, there will be no need for him, so he and his angels will be destroyed in the lake of fire.
Sin, which is the choice of chaos over order, entered the world when Adam chose to disobey the words of God. It was a reversal of the creative process.
Your notes on Judiasm are as true for it as for Christianity. I think you’d be hard pressed to say that all of Christendom believes what that femail Rabbi taught. There is almost as much diversity within Judiasm as there is within Christianity. When I look for historical documentation, I try to follow the stream of hasidim/orthodox thought, and not more liberal branches (or conservative Kabbalistic branches)
However, I believe that Jesus’ message was about the kingdom of God; and I believe that Paul, when he taught, taught both about Jesus’ message (the kingdom of God) and his person and role. We in the conservative branch of Christianity have so overemphasized the latter (with catchphrases like “faith, not works”) that we often only pay lip-service to the former. The liberal branch of Christianity has often (like you noted above) overemphasized parts of the former that they only pay lip service to the latter.
Neither is correct. I believe, as Jesus taught and his audience understood, that the kingdom of God exists now wherever people (not just individuals, but groups of individuals) have given Him Lordship and that it has future implications, after we die. Its implications are now and today, and in the future.
The whole discussion of “what is required to be saved?” is the wrong question when it only focuses on the future. “Being saved” is not the point – recognizing Jesus for who he is and following his instructions by bringing about the kingdom of God is how we are saved (today and tomorrow), and is the first step is belief. If we believe and love God, we will obey Him – which will bring about the kingdom – not out of fear of punishment, but out of love and gratitude.
February 2, 2007 @ 6:41 pmJohn,
funny you should mention this, just today I was engaged in an evolution-creation discussion at work. I told a co-worker that one can be a good physician and not buy into the GTE (general theory of evolution). Initially he didn’t agree but then he realized that his answer came from a naturalistic presupposition, and acknowledged that a physician can be effective as that and not buy into GTE. I think Richard Dawkins talked about making belief in GTE a prereq for getting a medical degree…
Maybe not trees but there is Isaiah 11:6-8 (Christ let me know if it’s out of context):
Could this future state of affairs also have been the way it was before the Fall? I do believe that we were vegeterians before the Fall. As far as the animals, they could have been.
Yes they were but do plants have life in the sense that the “living creatures” (Gen 1:24) referred to as nephesh chayyah in the Bible do?
February 2, 2007 @ 8:19 pmLaz,
You said, “I do believe that we were vegetarians before the Fall.”
Do you mind if I ask why you believe that? I’ve had conversations in the past with people who have put that idea out there, but they’ve never been able to give any sort of Biblical and/or extra-Biblical support for that belief. It has always come down to their conclusion that vegetarianism seems like a purer way to live and a more peaceful way to live, thus it must have been that way before the fall.
My position has been that if we were intended to be vegetarians before the fall, then why were we created improperly by God? We (humans) live as omnivores with a body that is designed to handle both meat protein and plant fiber. Our teeth are designed to handle both meat and vegetables (“to cut and to cud”). Our digestive systems from the stomach to the small and large intestines are designed to handle animal flesh and produce. Our bodies are designed to need protein (especially complex proteins found in the flesh of animals) and fruits and vegetables.
And animals as vegetarians? Lions as herbivores? What use would they have for enormous canine teeth if they were going to be eating grass, grains and other greens?
Unless you want to argue that humans and animals evolved after the fall and developed particular digestive systems to fit their station in the hierarchy of fallen creation, I think you are going to have problems proving your supposition.
You asked whether plants have life in the sense that they living creatures did in Genesis 1:24. I guess I’m not sure why you feel that the living animals would be different from the living plants. Do you think that Genesis creates a hierarchy of sorts? When God gave Adam dominion over all living things, didn’t that mean that he had dominion over everything that was lower than humanity, both plant and animal both on land and in the water?
Isn’t the whole concept of the “uniqueness” of man rooted in the idea that we were created as the pinnacle of God’s creative efforts…a little lower than the angels and yet able to experience the Grace and Love of God in a way that they (the angels) never will?
February 2, 2007 @ 10:49 pmScott,
I believe this because of Genesis 1:29-30
By the way I’m not vegetarian by any stretch of the imagination. I love my steak, and I would go as far as to say that anyone who only ate chicken (no beef) is still a vegeterian :)
It is interesting to me that it is not until Genesis 9:2 that we read this
Yes Abel did sacrifice animals but did he eat them?
“Lions as herbivores”? Perhaps you should check out Isaiah 11:7, I cited it above. “The lion will eat straw like the ox” This refers to a future event, presumably the Messianic Age. Why couldn’t this have been the case before the Fall?
As far as adaptations better suited for a carnivorous lifestyle (large canine teeth), the following question could be asked: Did not God foresee the Fall? Could he not have included the genetic material for these types of adaptations? Could this pre-existing information be triggered when everything went to pot after the Fall? Species do change, there’s a misconception (esp. among evolutionists) that creationists believe species are fixed but this is not so.
I don’t know if there is a ‘hierarchy’ but it is interesting that plants are never referred as “nephesh chayyah” (living creatures). Also, the plants are given for food in Gen 1 but it isn’t until Gen 9 that the animals are also given for food. Hierachy? I don’t know but a distinction is made, don’t you think?
I thought our uniqueness came from us being made in the image of God. I do wonder if this applies to angels?
February 3, 2007 @ 6:42 amLaz,
A few random thoughts. Please follow me down the rabbit hole and see how far we go…
So your argument is one partially based on silence? In other words, you would say that since Genesis 1 mentions plants and trees but doesn’t mention animals, then animals weren’t part of the original intent of mankind using them as nourishment?
About Isaiah 11:7, though it might be prophetic in a sense, that passage also reads (as do many) as poetic language/hyperbole to make a larger point, namely that in the day of the Messiah’s return/reign, peace will be the order of the day in a way that the Children of Israel had never known before.
For example, is it literal or figurative language when Isaiah says in 11:4-5 “and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked. Righteousness shall be the belt of his waist, and faithfulness the belt of his loins…”? Are these images (rod of the mouth, killing breath, belt of Righteousness, Faithfulness loin belt) literal? Wouldn’t the poetic language here be used as figurative language/hyperbole to stress the point that the Messiah will rule and judge (and punish) in his ultimate wisdom while his righteousness and love for his people will moderate his wrath and cause him to never abandon the promises he has made throughout time?
I agree that it is possible that God included the genetic material to allow for these changes/adaptions, but as I understand the basic concept of evolution and adaption, such changes would seem to be more in line with evolution. Adaption allows for relatively small changes over time caused by external and/or environmental influences. But a change from herbivore to omnivore or carnivore would be a total change of internal operations. I have heard of animals changing their eating patterns, developing new methods of finding food, and even changing from one food source to another based on availability. But what you are talking about seems far closer to evolution.
At the same time, if you believe that evolution is not really an “option,” then you are left with God making an immediate and drastic change in the physiology of his creation. This kind of change is possible, but again you seem to be extrapolating from silence rather than from explicit Biblical indications.
Also, if you begin to posit a “Did not God forsee the Fall” mind-set, then you could be opening a huge can of worms related to all aspects of Creation, God’s intent before-during-after Creation, and God’s creative processes such as: If God forsaw the Fall AND created all of Creation to survive after the Fall, then wouldn’t that mean that God created a type of self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts where He made Creation to survive something that hadn’t happened, but in creating the ability to survive it He encouraged its occurance?
If I may, for the sake of argument let me take this a step further. Wouldn’t a logical extension of what I described above be that, if God forsaw the Fall but didn’t take steps to prevent it but instead gave humanity/Creation the tools to survive it, then wouldn’t that to a certain extent fly in the face of the Calvinist view of God’s forknowing and also predestining those whom He would call Children of God? In other words, if God had foreknowledge of the Fall but did nothing to prevent it and left men/women to choose, then wouldn’t it follow that God would have foreknowledge about who might choose to follow Him but do nothing to influence the decision/lock people in until their choices have actually been made under their own volition?
As I said….some random thoughts!
Ah, the beauty of blogging!
Scott
February 3, 2007 @ 8:04 amScott wrote:
So early in the morning?? I am exhausted from some movie I saw last night, and I haven’t even had my first cup of coffee, and you’re already up and running Scott! I can barely read the Blog, much less think deep thoughts…
No blonde jokes, thank you.
February 3, 2007 @ 9:04 amScott,
Is it really based on silence when one considers Genesis 9?
Regarding Isa 11, I believe it’s describing conditions that will be in effect at some future date. A future date when “the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God” (Rom 8:21)
Could one ask the same questions regarding the Fall and the Incarnation?
As to your last paragraph, that is a question that has been tying up theologians for a long time and I have not taken up either banner, Calvinism or Arminianism. I will say that it seems to me that why couldn’t God be sovereign and humans have free will? Am I missing the point of this contentious issue?
February 3, 2007 @ 9:23 amChihuahuas…the other white meat.
I’m with Laz on the vegetarianism thing. Seems like more than silence when God states “I give you this.” That sort of implies “Hey, but not this other thing I didn’t mention.”
Anyway, if we now acknowledge that death (at least of plants) was part of the plan prior to the fall, I think it makes the possibility that animal death was also part of the plan. It also suggests that God allowed for a process (birth, life, death) in the natural order prior to the fall.
As for humans, I’m with Augustine on this one. Had Adam and Eve not sinned, they would have remained in the garden and been given to eat from the tree of life. Eventually man would have been confirmed in eternal life.
And since I am not a Calvinist, I don’t believe the fall was decreed by God. I believe that Adam had and Eve had a real choice (allowed by God) just as everyone who hears the Gospel has a choice in how they respond. And while God probably knew the outcome before it happened (middle-knowledge), he did not ordain it but only allowed it.
Amy, I don’t know anything about the source of SDA teaching. I do know that they were considered heretical for some time, but were taken off that list by none other than cult expert and Ken Silva’s favorite guy, Walter Martin. Anyway, the ideas stand or fall on their own. Have you looked at any of their teaching on annihilationism or soul sleep?
February 3, 2007 @ 10:26 amDear Friend,
Keep up the good work.
March 11, 2009 @ 9:34 am[...] Sound familiar? Right now, truth is under attack, and it’s going on within the boundaries of evangelicalism. There’s a lot at stake and there’s no middle ground—no safe zone for the uncommitted in this war. [T]he church today is quite possibly more susceptible to false teachers, doctrinal saboteurs, and spiritual terrorism than any other generation in church history. Biblical ignorance within the church may well be deeper and more widespread than at any other time since the Protestant Reformation. (Source). [...]
May 28, 2010 @ 10:00 pm