Throughout the Old Testament, we routinely encounter the mysterious character who goes by the title “The angel of the Lord.” By looking at the numerous appearances of this individual, we can piece together clues as to His identity. The first time the angel of the Lord is introduced, he makes an appearance to Hagar, the servant of Abraham’s wife Sarai. In Genesis 16:7-13, we read,
7 The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. 8 And he said, “Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?”
“I’m running away from my mistress Sarai,” she answered.
9 Then the angel of the LORD told her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her.” 10 The angel added, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.”
11 The angel of the LORD also said to her:
“You are now pregnant
and you will give birth to a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the LORD has heard of your misery.
12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone’s hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers.
13 She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.” 14 That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi; it is still there, between Kadesh and Bered.
What is of particular interest here is that the angel of the Lord speaks as though He is distinct from Yahweh yet also presumes Himself to be the very mouthpiece of God. In fact, he speaks in the first person and says “I will increase your descendants.” This is very peculiar. What’s more, in verse 13, Hagar identifies the Angel of the Lord as “the God who sees me.”
The second time we encounter the Angel of the Lord, He again speaks to Hagar regarding her Son Ishmael. In Genesis 21:17-18, we read,
17 God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. 18 Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.”
Notice that again, in verse 18, the angel of the Lord speaks using the first person (“…for I will make him into a great nation”), thus making Himself the very mouthpiece of God.
The third occasion on we encounter the angel of the Lord is the incident involving Abraham and Isaac on Mount Moriah. Just as Abraham is about to offer up his Son Isaac as a sacrifice unto the Lord, we read in Genesis 22:11-18,
11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.
12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.”
15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”
Again, the angel of the Lord uses the first person and assumes Himself to be none other than God Himself. In verse 12, he states, “you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” The angel also claims to be the one who gave Abraham the instruction to sacrifice his Son Isaac (verse 18) and that “I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.”
The fourth occasion on which we encounter the angel of the Lord is in Genesis 32, in which Jacob famously wrestles with God. In verses 1 and 2, we are told,
“Jacob also went on his way, and the angels of God met him. When Jacob saw them, he said, “This is the camp of God!” So he named that place Mahanaim.” In verses 22-31, we read,
22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”
But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”
“Jacob,” he answered.
28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”
29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”
But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.
30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon.
In this passage, Jacob names the place Peniel, saying that it was “because I saw God face to face and yet my life was spared.” Hosea 12:4-5 also identifies the angel in this scene as the “Lord God Almighty.”
The fifth time we meet the angel of the Lord is the Burning Bush appearance to Moses in Exodus 3. In verses 1-6, we read,
1 Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”
4 When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!”
And Moses said, “Here I am.”
5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” 6 Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.
Curiously, on this occasion, “the angel of the Lord” and “God” are used interchangably. The angel of the Lord here describes Himself as “the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”
The angel of the Lord also appears to Balaam (Numbers 22) and, in similar fashion, to Joshua (Joshua 5:13-15). We also encounter the angel of the Lord four times in the book of Judges. In Judges 2:1-4, we read,
1 The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land I swore to give to your ancestors. I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you, 2 and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.’ Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? 3 And I have also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; they will become traps for you, and their gods will become snares to you.’” 4 When the angel of the LORD had spoken these things to all the Israelites, the people wept aloud, 5 and they called that place Bokim. There they offered sacrifices to the LORD.
Remarkably, the angel of the Lord here identifies Himself as the one who brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt and led them into the promised land. Furthermore, the angel of the Lord identifies Himself as the one who made a covenant with the people of Israel — one which He will never break.
In Judges 6:11-24, we again encounter the angel of the Lord. We read,
11 The angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. 12 When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, “The LORD is with you, mighty warrior.”
13 “Pardon me, my lord,” Gideon replied, “but if the LORD is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our ancestors told us about when they said, ‘Did not the LORD bring us up out of Egypt?’ But now the LORD has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian.”
14 The LORD turned to him and said, “Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian’s hand. Am I not sending you?”
15 “Pardon me, my lord,” Gideon replied, “but how can I save Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family.”
16 The LORD answered, “I will be with you, and you will strike down all the Midianites, leaving none alive.”
17 Gideon replied, “If now I have found favor in your eyes, give me a sign that it is really you talking to me. 18 Please do not go away until I come back and bring my offering and set it before you.”
And the LORD said, “I will wait until you return.”
19 Gideon went inside, prepared a young goat, and from an ephah of flour he made bread without yeast. Putting the meat in a basket and its broth in a pot, he brought them out and offered them to him under the oak.
20 The angel of God said to him, “Take the meat and the unleavened bread, place them on this rock, and pour out the broth.” And Gideon did so. 21 Then the angel of the LORD touched the meat and the unleavened bread with the tip of the staff that was in his hand. Fire flared from the rock, consuming the meat and the bread. And the angel of the LORD disappeared. 22 When Gideon realized that it was the angel of the LORD, he exclaimed, “Alas, Sovereign LORD! I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face!”
23 But the LORD said to him, “Peace! Do not be afraid. You are not going to die.”
24 So Gideon built an altar to the LORD there and called it The LORD Is Peace. To this day it stands in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.
Again, the angel of the Lord is identified as none other than “the Lord” Himself (verses 14, 16, 23, 25, 27). In fact, Gideon asks for a sign to confirm that it really is God who is speaking to him. Gideon prepares a sacrifice and God consumes it by bringing fire from the rock. What’s remarkable is that it is only God who is to be worshipped in this manner. When Gideon sees the fire from the rock, he is terrified. He recognises the implications of having seen God face-to-face (see Exodus 33:20), but he is re-assured that he is “not going to die.”
Judges 13:2-25 is the most remarkable of the appearances of the angel of the Lord. The passage reads,
1 Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD, so the LORD delivered them into the hands of the Philistines for forty years.
2 A certain man of Zorah, named Manoah, from the clan of the Danites, had a wife who was childless, unable to give birth. 3 The angel of the LORD appeared to her and said, “You are barren and childless, but you are going to become pregnant and give birth to a son. 4 Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean. 5 You will become pregnant and have a son whose head is never to be touched by a razor because the boy is to be a Nazirite, dedicated to God from the womb. He will take the lead in delivering Israel from the hands of the Philistines.”
6 Then the woman went to her husband and told him, “A man of God came to me. He looked like an angel of God, very awesome. I didn’t ask him where he came from, and he didn’t tell me his name. 7 But he said to me, ‘You will become pregnant and have a son. Now then, drink no wine or other fermented drink and do not eat anything unclean, because the boy will be a Nazirite of God from the womb until the day of his death.’”
8 Then Manoah prayed to the LORD: “Pardon your servant, Lord. I beg you to let the man of God you sent to us come again to teach us how to bring up the boy who is to be born.”
9 God heard Manoah, and the angel of God came again to the woman while she was out in the field; but her husband Manoah was not with her. 10 The woman hurried to tell her husband, “He’s here! The man who appeared to me the other day!”
11 Manoah got up and followed his wife. When he came to the man, he said, “Are you the man who talked to my wife?”
“I am,” he said.
12 So Manoah asked him, “When your words are fulfilled, what is to be the rule that governs the boy’s life and work?”
13 The angel of the LORD answered, “Your wife must do all that I have told her. 14 She must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, nor drink any wine or other fermented drink nor eat anything unclean. She must do everything I have commanded her.”
15 Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, “We would like you to stay until we prepare a young goat for you.”
16 The angel of the LORD replied, “Even though you detain me, I will not eat any of your food. But if you prepare a burnt offering, offer it to the LORD.” (Manoah did not realize that it was the angel of the LORD.)
17 Then Manoah inquired of the angel of the LORD, “What is your name, so that we may honor you when your word comes true?”
18 He replied, “Why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding.” 19 Then Manoah took a young goat, together with the grain offering, and sacrificed it on a rock to the LORD. And the LORD did an amazing thing while Manoah and his wife watched: 20 As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. 21 When the angel of the LORD did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD.
22 “We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!”
23 But his wife answered, “If the LORD had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering from our hands, nor shown us all these things or now told us this.”
24 The woman gave birth to a boy and named him Samson. He grew and the LORD blessed him, 25 and the Spirit of the LORD began to stir him while he was in Mahaneh Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol.
Manoah is instructed in verse 16 to make his offering to the Lord. The reason given is that “Manoah did not realize that it was the angel of the LORD.” Manoah needed this explanation because he was going to offer this to the man, but did not even regard him as an angel, let alone the Lord Himself. Verses 17 -18 remind us of the wrestling match between the angel of the Lord and Jacob back in Genesis 32, in which the angel declines to give His name, instead saying, “Why do you ask my name?” The statement given in verse 18 of Judges 13 (“it is beyond understanding”) has also been rendered “it is Wonderful.” This bears a striking resemblance to Isaiah 9:6, in which one of the names given to the promised incarnate divine Messiah is “Wonderful.” When Manoah and his wife make an offering to the Lord, the angel of the Lord ascends in the flame. This reminds us of the sacrifice of Christ who, being God incarnate, was made a sacrifice unto the Father. The ascension of the angel of the Lord in the flame which rises from the burnt offering on the alter carries much symbolic significance and undoubtedly represents the coming sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin.
Like those who had encountered the angel of the Lord before them, Manoah and his wife are fearful for their lives, as they recognise the implications of having seen God face-to-face.
In summary, we have seen that:
- The angel of the Lord is repeatedly identified as God.
- The angel of the Lord performes miraculous signs.
- People expect to die after having encountered the angel of the Lord face-to-face, but none of them actually do die.
- The name of the angel of the Lord is “wonderful”.
So, to conclude our discussion, who is the angel of the Lord? As we read all of those accounts and piece together the consilience of clues, it becomes evident that the angel of the Lord is none other than the pre-incarnate Christ Himself. This makes sense in the context of the apostle John’s description of Christ as “the word” of God (see John 1:1). Moreover, as John’s gospel explains in 1: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” And as Hebrews 1:3 declares, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.” Christ describes Himself as the mouthpiece of God on earth and the revelation to mankind of what God is like (see Matthew 11:27). In fact, all that Jesus is and does interprets and explains who God is and what He does (see John 14:8-10).
Furthermore, it is the angel of the Lord who gives the command for the filthy rags to be taken off Joshua in Zechariah 3, and for him to be clothed in fine garments. The immediate context indicates that this is intended to symbolise the restoration of the priesthood of Israel. The text also symbolises, however, Christ clothing us with the garments of righteousness (Isaiah 61:10).
The angel of the Lord represents a christophany — a pre-incarnation appearance of Jesus Christ. It also adds yet another example to the powerful and compelling cumulative case from the Bible’s remarkable internal coherence and interconnectedness — a phenomenon which can surely only be explained by the Bible’s divine origin.
British Geneticist Robert Saunders Weighs in on Signature in the Cell
CrossExaminedReaders may recall my exchange with British geneticist Robert Saunders (here and here) following Stephen Meyer’s lecture at the Lord McKay dinner in London (which you can now watch here). At the time, Saunders admitted that he had not read Signature in the Cell, nor had he attended the lecture. It was, therefore, not entirely unexpected that Saunders failed to understand Meyer’s core arguments.
Click here to continue reading>>>
The Intolerance of those Fighting for “Tolerance”
College Events, Culture CrossExaminedThis is an article on my I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist presentation that a homosexual group protested last night at Ohio University. Notice one student said that I shouldn’t be speaking because anyone opposed to homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage is “hateful.” The people who say they are fighting for “tolerance” are often the most intolerant! All Americans– regardless of our moral or religious views– need to speak out against such totalitarianism before we are not able to speak at all.
Overall, the evening went very well. Most of the protesters (whom I thanked for coming) stayed for the entire two hour presentation and heard the evidence for Christianity and the Gospel. Despite the content of the presentation, the protestors only asked questions relating to morality and homosexuality– nothing about the evidence presented for truth of the Bible.
Who is the Angel of the Lord?
CrossExaminedThroughout the Old Testament, we routinely encounter the mysterious character who goes by the title “The angel of the Lord.” By looking at the numerous appearances of this individual, we can piece together clues as to His identity. The first time the angel of the Lord is introduced, he makes an appearance to Hagar, the servant of Abraham’s wife Sarai. In Genesis 16:7-13, we read,
What is of particular interest here is that the angel of the Lord speaks as though He is distinct from Yahweh yet also presumes Himself to be the very mouthpiece of God. In fact, he speaks in the first person and says “I will increase your descendants.” This is very peculiar. What’s more, in verse 13, Hagar identifies the Angel of the Lord as “the God who sees me.”
The second time we encounter the Angel of the Lord, He again speaks to Hagar regarding her Son Ishmael. In Genesis 21:17-18, we read,
Notice that again, in verse 18, the angel of the Lord speaks using the first person (“…for I will make him into a great nation”), thus making Himself the very mouthpiece of God.
The third occasion on we encounter the angel of the Lord is the incident involving Abraham and Isaac on Mount Moriah. Just as Abraham is about to offer up his Son Isaac as a sacrifice unto the Lord, we read in Genesis 22:11-18,
Again, the angel of the Lord uses the first person and assumes Himself to be none other than God Himself. In verse 12, he states, “you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” The angel also claims to be the one who gave Abraham the instruction to sacrifice his Son Isaac (verse 18) and that “I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.”
The fourth occasion on which we encounter the angel of the Lord is in Genesis 32, in which Jacob famously wrestles with God. In verses 1 and 2, we are told,
In this passage, Jacob names the place Peniel, saying that it was “because I saw God face to face and yet my life was spared.” Hosea 12:4-5 also identifies the angel in this scene as the “Lord God Almighty.”
The fifth time we meet the angel of the Lord is the Burning Bush appearance to Moses in Exodus 3. In verses 1-6, we read,
Curiously, on this occasion, “the angel of the Lord” and “God” are used interchangably. The angel of the Lord here describes Himself as “the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”
The angel of the Lord also appears to Balaam (Numbers 22) and, in similar fashion, to Joshua (Joshua 5:13-15). We also encounter the angel of the Lord four times in the book of Judges. In Judges 2:1-4, we read,
Remarkably, the angel of the Lord here identifies Himself as the one who brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt and led them into the promised land. Furthermore, the angel of the Lord identifies Himself as the one who made a covenant with the people of Israel — one which He will never break.
In Judges 6:11-24, we again encounter the angel of the Lord. We read,
Again, the angel of the Lord is identified as none other than “the Lord” Himself (verses 14, 16, 23, 25, 27). In fact, Gideon asks for a sign to confirm that it really is God who is speaking to him. Gideon prepares a sacrifice and God consumes it by bringing fire from the rock. What’s remarkable is that it is only God who is to be worshipped in this manner. When Gideon sees the fire from the rock, he is terrified. He recognises the implications of having seen God face-to-face (see Exodus 33:20), but he is re-assured that he is “not going to die.”
Judges 13:2-25 is the most remarkable of the appearances of the angel of the Lord. The passage reads,
Manoah is instructed in verse 16 to make his offering to the Lord. The reason given is that “Manoah did not realize that it was the angel of the LORD.” Manoah needed this explanation because he was going to offer this to the man, but did not even regard him as an angel, let alone the Lord Himself. Verses 17 -18 remind us of the wrestling match between the angel of the Lord and Jacob back in Genesis 32, in which the angel declines to give His name, instead saying, “Why do you ask my name?” The statement given in verse 18 of Judges 13 (“it is beyond understanding”) has also been rendered “it is Wonderful.” This bears a striking resemblance to Isaiah 9:6, in which one of the names given to the promised incarnate divine Messiah is “Wonderful.” When Manoah and his wife make an offering to the Lord, the angel of the Lord ascends in the flame. This reminds us of the sacrifice of Christ who, being God incarnate, was made a sacrifice unto the Father. The ascension of the angel of the Lord in the flame which rises from the burnt offering on the alter carries much symbolic significance and undoubtedly represents the coming sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin.
Like those who had encountered the angel of the Lord before them, Manoah and his wife are fearful for their lives, as they recognise the implications of having seen God face-to-face.
In summary, we have seen that:
So, to conclude our discussion, who is the angel of the Lord? As we read all of those accounts and piece together the consilience of clues, it becomes evident that the angel of the Lord is none other than the pre-incarnate Christ Himself. This makes sense in the context of the apostle John’s description of Christ as “the word” of God (see John 1:1). Moreover, as John’s gospel explains in 1: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” And as Hebrews 1:3 declares, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.” Christ describes Himself as the mouthpiece of God on earth and the revelation to mankind of what God is like (see Matthew 11:27). In fact, all that Jesus is and does interprets and explains who God is and what He does (see John 14:8-10).
Furthermore, it is the angel of the Lord who gives the command for the filthy rags to be taken off Joshua in Zechariah 3, and for him to be clothed in fine garments. The immediate context indicates that this is intended to symbolise the restoration of the priesthood of Israel. The text also symbolises, however, Christ clothing us with the garments of righteousness (Isaiah 61:10).
The angel of the Lord represents a christophany — a pre-incarnation appearance of Jesus Christ. It also adds yet another example to the powerful and compelling cumulative case from the Bible’s remarkable internal coherence and interconnectedness — a phenomenon which can surely only be explained by the Bible’s divine origin.
The GULO Pseudogene and Its Implications for Common Descent
CrossExaminedL-gulonolactone oxidase (GULO), the final enzyme in the biosynthetic pathway of ascorbic acid (vitamin C), is a subject that comes up often in discussions of common ancestry. The functioning GULO gene allows most plants and many animals to produce vitamin C from glucose or galactose. In some taxa, however, the GULO gene does not function in this capacity and is given the “pseudogene” label. The GULO gene is thought to be broken in humans (Nishikimi and Yagi, 1991), primates and guinea pigs (Nishikimi et al., 1994; Nishikimi et al., 1988), as well as in bats of the genus Pteropus (Cui et al., 2011).
Click here to continue reading>>>
Did They Really Exist? A Biblical and Scientific Defence of Adam and Eve
Theology and Christian ApologeticsThe historicity of Adam and Eve is a question which strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. If the primordial pair did not exist, then the historical and Biblical doctrine of the fall becomes extremely difficult to maintain. The apostle Paul clearly linked God’s redemptive plan and Christ’s atonement for sin with the fall described in Genesis (e.g., see Romans 5:12-21). We read in Romans 5:12-14,
In 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, we similarly read,
Further evidence that Paul took Adam as a literal historical figure can be found in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 where he appeals to this doctrine in order to make an argument concerning the role of women in the church with respect to men. Paul writes,
Indeed, Jesus Himself clearly understood Adam and Eve to have been historical figures. In response to questioning from the Pharisees about marriage and divorce, Jesus declared (Matthew 19:4-6),
As if that wasn’t enough, the genealogies recorded in 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 treat Adam as a historical figure. The literature associated with second temple Judaism also recognized Adam as a historical individual. The context and genre of the book of Genesis does not give any indication whatsoever that it is intended to be non-literal or ahistorical in the sense that much of apocalyptic literature (e.g., the book of Revelation) is. If we read the book of Genesis as metaphorical, at which point do we stop? The life of Abraham (to whom we are first introduced in Genesis 12) is clearly connected to the history that came before him, going all the way back to Adam. Those who discard Genesis 1-11 as metaphorical but understand Genesis 12 onwards to be historical are being inconsistent. The narrative simply does not allow for this interpretation.
Christians may have disagreements about peripheral matters such as the age of the earth. As I have discussed before, I don’t think that Genesis commits one to accepting a young earth position. However, the historical existence of Adam and Eve is another matter — it is a Gospel issue. Without a historical Adam and Eve, and without a historical fall, the doctrine of the atonement and redemption makes very little sense.
Having presented some Biblical reasons for thinking that Adam and Eve were literal historical individuals, I want to turn my attention to some of the common scientific arguments which are advanced against the notion of a historical Adam and Eve.
Minimum Effective Population Size
It is argued by many that coalescence theory and analysis of single nucleotide polymorphisms/linkage disequilibrium (SNP/LD) show that the mean effective population size for the hominid lineage is 100,000 individuals over the course of the last 30 million years. According to some theories, a genetic bottleneck occurred in the hominid lineage during the Middle Pleistocene with, according to one recent study, a mean effective population size of only 14,000 individuals. A range of values for the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) is given as “450,000-2,400,000 years for the autosomes, and 380,000-2,000,000 for the X chromosome,” (Blum and Jakobsson, 2011).
The trouble with such attempts to estimate the effective population size and times of most recent common ancestors is the number of simplifying assumptions which are involved in the calculation. These include:
The problem is that human populations change in size, migration in and out of the population does occur, humans selectively mate, mutation rates are often not constant, and selection does occur. Indeed, rates of recombination are also known to differ with respect to a location on the chromosome. Attempts at estimating effective population sizes and coalescent times, therefore, are rendered difficult by their high dependency on the assumptions made and the constancy of the pertinent variables. This makes it extremely hard to make dogmatic claims in this regard.
Let’s take an example to illustrate this point. One research paper examined 377 short tandem repeat (STR) loci pertinent to 1,056 individuals from 52 different populations (Zhivotovsky et al., 2003). The study inferred that modern humanity arose from a common ancestral population living between 71 and 142 thousand years ago from a relatively small population size (less than 2000 individuals). A previous study estimated this ancestral population size to be comprised roughly of 500 individuals (Zhivotovsky et al., 2000). This non-congruity was apparently resultant from the use of varying number of loci by the two studies as well as use of different sample sizes.
The Y-Chromosomal Adam Paradox
It is widely known that molecular dating based on the male-specific Y-chromosomal DNA tends to give somewhat more recent dates for the most recent common ancestors of modern humans than does molecular dating based on the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA. This has been argued by some to show that Adam and Eve lived tends of thousands of years apart from one another. Though there are obviously alternative explanations for this phenomenon, one interesting hypothesis relates to the genetic bottleneck pertinent to the great flood described in Genesis. In that case, the most recent male common ancestor would be Noah (Noah’s three sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, boarded the ark along with their respective wives). The most recent female common ancestor, however, would be Eve. This would quite readily account for the discrepancy between the data yielded from the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA sequences.
Where Did Cain Get His Wife?
The first thing to take notice of is that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters besides Cain, Abel, and Seth. According to Genesis 5:4, “After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.” It is also noteworthy that Genesis 5 records very long life spans, with people living up to an age of 900 years. Given this, Dr. Hugh Ross argues that “the possibility existed for a veritable population explosion. In fact, the world’s population could have approached a few billion by the time of Adam’s death at the age of 930.” There is some Biblical support for thinking that there was a reasonable population size following Cain’s murder of Abel. According to Genesis 4, Cain is given a mark “so that no one who found him would kill him.” This presupposes that there was a population size sufficient such that (a) there were people who might find Cain in the wilderness, and (b) Cain might be mistaken for someone else.
The possibility that Cain may have married his sister raises the old question of incest. It is not until the book of Leviticus, however, that laws are given against marriage between siblings. Adam and Eve were probably created genetically pure. It is, therefore, likely that the genetic defects resulting from the marriage between siblings would not present an issue for the first couple of dozen generations.
Summary and Conclusion
In conclusion, attempts to estimate coalescent times and effective population sizes are fraught with problems and require that we make a number of unrealistic assumptions. Perhaps it is possible that some of these estimates pertain to the human population sometime after the creation of Adam and Eve. The question of Cain’s wife is effectively resolved if we suppose that genetic defects resulting from the marriage between siblings was a later development. The existence of a historical Adam and Eve, however, is foundational to a full and proper understanding of the Gospel and Christ’s role as the “second Adam.” “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ, all will be made alive,” (1 Corinthians 15:22).
Mr. Bonhoeffer Goes to Washington
Culture CrossExaminedMy friend and best-selling “Bonhoeffer” biographer Eric Metaxas brilliantly wove wit and humor through a speech against dead religion at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday. Calling on the heavenly witnesses of Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer, Metaxas courageously defended life and natural marriage before about 4,000 people and with President Obama and Vice President Biden sitting just a few feet away from him. This entertaining yet powerful and pointed talk is well worth 29 minutes of your time (Eric’s speech starts at about the 35 minute mark. President Obama’s speech follows).
Is Banning Same Sex Marriage Discrimination?
Culture CrossExamined[Note: This is an exchange which took place between myself and an anonymous correspondant regarding a recent article I published on Blogos.org (and also posted here). The correspondant’s comments are appended below and immediately followed by my response.]
Dear Blogos Editor,
First of all, congratulations on your new site. I’m glad and excited for your new venture and pray that God would bless and prosper your mission. As a Christian, I stand side by side with you all in contending with the faith. God bless you all.
However, I must disagree with you in one point in the fact that you say banning gay marriage is not discrimination. If I were to ban interracial marriage, and tell two people they cannot be married based on their race, it would be discrimination. The Lord himself shows discrimination, he chooses to save those who believes in his Son, and reject those who do not. There’s nothing wrong with a government being discriminate in some cases, as long as its based on an objective set of morals. In this case, that would be the Word of God. If we want America (or any country) to judge on spiritual matters, they must judge ALL spiritual matters, which means we must also persecute heretics, and we both know from history how that works out. If a society would want to base their government off the Bible, I would be excited, but wary. But the nation that has been murdering infants for over 50 years and that has done some very deplorable things in warfare, needs whole-scale moral reform, not just knit picking to ostracize certain sinful groups, and promoting others. That is my opinion. God bless.
Anonymous
Dear Anonymous,
Regarding my recent article concerning the issue of same sex marriage in Scotland, you expressed disagreement with what I wrote. You remarked,
This is not quite what I said. Maintaining the traditional concept of marriage as an exclusive life-long union between one man and one woman does discriminate. However, it is not discrimination against persons, but against behaviour. As I previously stated, all laws are discriminatory in this sense. As I explained in my previous article, there are a number of reasons why the institution of same-sex-marriage is not conducive to society’s best interests. Homosexuals have — or at least should have — equal rights to anyone else when it comes to such things as employment, benefits, medical care, etc. Likewise, they have equal rights to marry anyone of the opposite gender. It is not merely equal rights that homosexuals seek, but rather special rights — that is, the right to fundamentally redefine the age-long institution of marriage. You also committed a category error with respect to your comparison of same-sex-marriage with interracial marriage. Again, this is an issue of discrimination against behaviour, and not against persons. There are plenty of former homosexuals; whereas there are no former Africans. Similarly, denying a schoolboy the right to get changed in the girls’ changing rooms is not discrimination against boys but rather against a particular behaviour. In any civilised society, certain restrictions on what is permissable have to be set in place.
You further commented,
I don’t think any of the arguments in my previous article made appeal to the Word of God.
You continued,
There are three things that any government can do in relation to a given behaviour or activity. They can (i) prohibit an activity; (ii) permit an activity; or (iii) promote an activity. The institution of same-sex-marriage attempts to make the move from merely permitting an activity to actively promoting it. As I stated in my article, the majority of homosexuals living in areas where same-sex-marriage is legal do not get married. Why? The purpose of their campaign is not primarily for the purpose of marriage, but rather for legitimisation of their practice.
You concluded,
Again, the arguments I described in my previous post made absolutely no appeal to the Bible. I quite agree, however, that Christians ought to be careful not to single out homosexuality as if it were the ‘chief of all sins’. The world is in need of moral reform, and this includes matters such as abortion. The church also needs to be careful not to be found guilty of double standards. As Jesus explained in Matthew 7:4-5, “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” The church must be careful to walk in purity and integrity, and not fall into sin.
– Jonathan McLatchie
Joining the Conversation: Perspectives on the Discussion with James Shapiro
CrossExaminedI have followed with interest the discussion (“Is James Shapiro a Design Theorist?”) initiated by Bill Dembski and now involving James Shapiro, Ann Gauger and Douglas Axe. The nub of the issue seems to relate to conflicting conceptions about what constitutes a legitimate scientific explanation (what philosophers call the “demarcation problem”).
Click here to continue reading>>>
British Free Schools that Teach Intelligent Design as Science Will Lose Funding
Culture CrossExaminedThe British Guardian newspaper reports on recent developments in UK governmental policy on teaching evolution in free schools (which, though state funded, are normally not required to follow the national curriculum):
Click here to continue reading>>>
On the Origin of Mitochondria: Reasons for Skepticism on the Endosymbiotic Story
CrossExaminedWith regret, ENV recently noted the passing of biologist Lynn Margulis. Margulis, a scientist whom I admired greatly, was never a stranger to controversy, going so far as to call neo-Darwinism “a complete funk” and asserting that “The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer by intelligent design or ‘God did it.’ They have no alternatives that are scientific.” She was a scientist who wasn’t afraid to think creatively, disregarding the scorn of her colleagues. According to the Telegraph, a response to one grant application she made said: “Your research is crap. Don’t ever bother to apply again.”
Click here to continue reading>>>