Christianity Archives - Page 44 of 106

Tag Archive for: Christianity

A Matter of Days: Interpreting the First Chapter of Genesis

I have been publishing a series of articles addressing how one might best approach interpreting the early chapters of Genesis, and how science might illuminate Biblical texts and guide our hermeneutics.

In this article, I will explore the text of the first chapter of Scripture, Genesis 1, with a view towards determining whether this text commits one to a young earth interpretation of origins or at least the extent to which the text tends to support such a view, if at all.

It is common for young-earth creationists to presume that, if the young earth interpretation of the text can be demonstrated to be the most face-value or simplest hermeneutical approach, then this is the view that one should prefer, and thus the scientific evidence must be shoehorned into a young earth mold. However, as I have argued in previous articles, this does not necessarily follow, since we have to contend with not only special revelation, but general revelation as well. In view of the independent considerations that warrant belief that Genesis is inspired Scripture and those that compel us to affirm an ancient earth and cosmos, interpretations that result in harmony between science and Scripture ought to be preferred over those that put them in conflict. Charles Hodge (1797-1878), a nineteenth-century conservative Presbyterian put it this way[1]:

It is, of course, admitted that taking [the Genesis creation] account by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [“day”] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.… The Church has been forced more than once to alter her interpretation of the Bible to accommodate the discoveries of science. But this has been done without doing any violence to the Scriptures or in any degree impairing their authority.

As I have argued before, ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses in respect to either science or Scripture may reasonably be invoked only if the overall evidence for Christianity is sufficient to bear it. In my considered opinion, the evidence for Christianity, strong though it is, is insufficient to bear the weight of a young earth interpretation of cosmic and geological history. I do, however, think that it is sufficient to bear the weight of an old earth interpretation of Scripture (though I realize that a certain level of subjectivity is required in making this assessment). Therefore, if the text of Scripture does compel one to subscribe to a young earth view, then the hypothesis that Scripture is in error should be preferred over concluding that the earth and cosmos are, in fact, young (i.e. on the order of thousands of years). However, alternative interpretive approaches that do not entail a manifestly false implication should be fairly evaluated before such a conclusion is arrived at.

An important consideration in regards to the assessment of harmonizations, often overlooked, is that the evidential weight of a proposed error or contradiction in Scripture relates not so much to the probability of any one proposed harmonization but rather to the disjunction of the probabilities associated with each individual candidate harmonization. To take a simplistic example, if one has four harmonizations that each have a 10% probability of being correct, then the evidential weight of the problem is significantly less than if you only had one of those since the disjunction of the relevant probabilities would be 40%. Thus, the text would be only slightly more likely erroneous than not (and inductive arguments for substantial trustworthiness may tip the scales in favor of giving the author the benefit of the doubt). In reality, of course, the math is rather more complicated than this, since one has to consider whether any of the harmonizations are overlapping or would imply one another in such a way that the probabilities cannot be added to each other. This principle may be applied to our analysis of the text of Genesis 1 — the disjunction of the various interpretations that can be offered reduces the evidential value of the case from those texts against the text’s reliability. Of course, if some of the disjuncts have a very low probability of being correct, then they will not be of much help.

If it be found that the Biblical text has indeed erred, then we would need to explore the ramifications of that finding. It should be acknowledged that a demonstration of the falsehood of inerrancy would constitute some evidence against inspiration and in turn against Christianity, since one has to acknowledge that there is some pull toward inerrancy if one holds that a book is divinely inspired in any meaningful sense, though I am not convinced that inspiration necessarily entails inerrancy, depending on the model of inspiration that one adopts (perhaps a subject for a future article). However, since inerrancy is an ‘all-or-nothing’ proposition, once a single error has been admitted (and thus inerrancy falsified), the evidential weight against Christianity that is carried by subsequent demonstrations of similar types of errors is substantially reduced. Some proposed errors would be of greater consequence than others. Some errors (such as the reported long life spans discussed in my previous article) would affect only the doctrine of inerrancy (as well as being epistemically relevant to the substantial trustworthiness of particular Biblical books), whereas others (such as the non-existence of a robust historical Adam), being inextricably linked to other core propositions of Christianity, would be much more serious. Another factor that influences the epistemic consequence of Scriptural errors is the source of those errors. Deliberate distortions of fact, for example, have a much greater negative effect on both the doctrine that the book is inspired and the substantial trustworthiness of the document than errors introduced in good faith.

Did God Create a Mature Universe?

A popular mistake made by advocates of young-earth creationism is to assume that if a piece of evidence can be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with a young earth interpretation of cosmic and geological history then that piece of evidence does not support an old earth view and so need not concern them. However, this is quite mistaken. Evidence may tend to confirm a hypothesis even if it can be interpreted in a manner consistent with an alternative view. To count as confirming evidence, it only has to be more probable on the truth of the hypothesis in question than on its falsehood. The more such evidences there are that have to be re-interpreted so as to be in alignment with a young earth perspective, the more ad hoc and therefore implausible the young-earth model of origins becomes.

One attempt to salvage young earth creationism that I often encounter from lay-creationists (though less frequently from academic ones) is to postulate that the earth and Universe were created mature, in a manner akin to Christ’s transformation of water into mature wine (Jn 2:1-11). To many, this postulation has the attraction of allowing one to dismiss the evidence of vast age as saying nothing about how old the earth actually is, in a similar manner to how Adam, having been created mature, would appear to be much older than he actually was. However, this explanation will not work because the geological record appears to tell a story of historical events, including the existence of animal death long before man, something that young earth interpretations of Scripture typically preclude (though I do not find Scriptural arguments for this convincing).

Furthermore, there is a remarkable correlation between the dates that are yielded by the radiometric dating methods and the types of organisms found in the strata. For example, if you were to specify a date yielded by the radiometric dating techniques to a paleontologist (say, for example, rock dating to the Cambrian period), he would be able to predict, with precision, what organisms you would expect to be preserved in rocks dating to that age — as well as what you would not expect to find — regardless of where in the world you identified it. That remarkable correlation is quite unexpected on a young earth’s interpretation of geological history but totally unsurprising on an old earth’s interpretation.

Our observation of distant galaxies, often millions of light-years away from the earth (meaning the light leaving those stars takes millions of years to be observed by an observer on earth), is also something that is highly expected on an old earth interpretation but quite surprising on a young earth interpretation. Positing light created in transit will not help here, since we are able to observe events in deep space (such as supernovae) which, on such a view, would be merely illusory (since the light would never have in fact left those events in the first place). This would mean that much of our stellar observations are illusory, an implication that I find highly troubling. While one can attempt to postulate convoluted ad hoc rationalizations of distant star light, as some have done, it still must be recognized as far less surprising on an old earth view than on a young earth view, and thus evidence that is confirmatory of the old earth view.

A further great difficulty is the need to postulate that all of the meteor impacts with the earth have taken place during the past six thousand years, including the one that caused the meteor crater in the Gulf of Mexico, thought to have resulted in the extinction of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, as well as the meteor that caused the Vredefort Dome, thought to be the biggest impact crater in the world, located in Potchefstroom, South Africa. The latter of those is thought to have taken place more than two billion years ago. If either of those impacts had occurred in the last six thousand years (as required by young earth creationism), the effect on human civilization and animal life around the globe would have been devastating, and yet there is no evidence that such impacts have occurred in recorded history. While some geologists have historically argued that the Vredefort Dome is the result of a volcanic event, this is a minority view that today is not widely accepted. The consensus view is that it is a meteor impact zone, and various lines of evidence support this, including evidence of shock in the quartz grains and evidence of rapid melting of the granite, turning it into glass.

These are only the beginning of the scientific challenges to young-earth creationism. Cumulatively, the numerous lines of evidence that convergently point in the direction of an old earth and cosmos are quite overwhelming. While I could talk for some time about the scientific challenges to young-earth creationism (perhaps a subject for a future article), the primary purpose of this article is to assess the extent to which, if any, the text of Genesis inclines one towards a young earth interpretation of cosmic and earth history. It is to this that I now turn.

Can One Interpret the Creation Days to Be Literal and Consecutive While Rejecting Young Earth Creationism?

Before I address the question of whether the ‘days’ of creation week are best understood to be literal and consecutive, I will first assess whether it is possible to take the ‘days’ to be literal and consecutive while simultaneously rejecting the implication of young-earth creationism. There are two major schools of thought that answer that question in the affirmative, and so I will here offer a brief discussion of those approaches.

In 1996, John Sailhamer put forward the view (which he calls “historical creationism”) that, whereas Genesis 1:1 depicts the creation of the Universe, Genesis 1:2-2:4a describes a period of one week (that is, seven solar days) during which the promised land was prepared and human beings were created in it.[2] Sailhamer’s book has some impressive endorsements, including John Piper[3], Mark Driscoll[4], and Matt Chandler[5].

Sailhamer argues that the meaning of “earth” in verse 1 is different from the meaning in verse 2. He argues that in verse 1, its connection to the word “heavens” indicates that it is being used to refer to the cosmos. He argues, “when these two terms [sky and land] are used together as a figure of speech, they take on a distinct meaning of their own. Together, they mean far more than the sum of the meanings of the two individual words.”[6] When these words are used together, argues Sailhamer, they “form a figure of speech called a ‘merism.’ A merism combines two words to express a single idea. A merism expresses ‘totality’ by combining two contrasts or two extremes.”[7] Sailhamer uses the example of David’s statement that God knows his sitting down and rising up.[8] This statement expresses the fact that God has exhaustive knowledge of everything that he does (Ps 139). Thus, concludes Sailhamer, “the concept of ‘everything’ is expressed by combining the two opposites ‘my sitting down’ and ‘my rising up’.”[9] Sailhamer draws the parallel between this and the reference to the sky and land in Genesis 1:1. He notes, “by linking these two extremes into a single expression — ‘sky and land’ or ‘heavens and earth’ — the Hebrew language expresses the totality of all that exists. Unlike English, Hebrew doesn’t have a single word to express the concept of ‘the universe’; it must do so by means of a merism. The expression ‘sky and land’ thus stands for the ‘entirety of the universe.’”[10] Sailhamer argues (correctly in my view) that Genesis 1:1 is not, as some have suggested, a title or summary of the chapter, but rather refers to a distinct divine act that took place prior to the six days described in the remainder of the chapter.[11]

If only Genesis 1:1 describes the creation of the Universe, then what is the remainder of the chapter about? Sailhamer suggests that it describes God preparing the promised land for the occupation of mankind. He points out, correctly, that the Hebrew word אֶ֫רֶץ (“eretz”) generally refers to a localized region of the planet, rather than to the earth as a whole, so it is quite legitimate to translate the word as “land” rather than as “earth”. For example, the same word “land” is contrasted in Genesis 1:10 with the seas. Sailhamer notes that “the ‘seas’ do not cover the ‘land’ as would be the case if the term meant ‘earth.’ Rather the ‘seas’ lie adjacent to the ‘land’ and within it.”[12]

Sailhamer argues that the expression תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ (“tohu wabohu”) is best translated not as “formless and void” (which suggests that the earth was an unformed mass) but rather as “deserted wilderness”, which, he argues, sets the scene for God’s work to render the land inhabitable to mankind.

One concern I have about Sailhamer’s thesis is that, while it is true that the phrase “the heavens and the earth” is a merism that refers to the entire Universe, this merism shows up not only in Genesis 1:1 but also in 2:1, which states “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.” This verse seems to indicate that the entirety of Genesis 1 is concerned with the heavens and the earth, i.e. the Universe as a whole, not only to a localized region of the earth. The Sabbath commandment also refers to God having made in six days “heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them,” (Exod 20:11). This also seems to suggest strongly that the perspective of Genesis 1 is global rather than local. A further problem is that it seems rather unlikely that the word “earth” refers in Genesis 1 to some specific “land”, since the “earth” is contrasted with the seas (Gen 1:10). Furthermore, the waters of the fifth day are populated with the great sea creatures (Gen 1:21), which indicates that it refers to the oceans.

A more recent attempt to harmonize an interpretation of the creation days that takes them to be both literal and consecutive, known as the cosmic temple view, has been put forward by Old Testament scholar John Walton of Wheaton College.[13] Walton interprets the days of creation as a chronological sequence of twenty-four-hour days. However, he writes that these days are “not given as the period of time over which the material cosmos came into being, but the period of time devoted to the inauguration of the functions of the cosmic temple, and perhaps also its annual re-enactment.”[14]

Walton argues that Genesis 1 does not concern material origins at all. Instead, he asserts that the text concerns assignment of functions. Walton argues that, during the days of creation week, which he takes to be regular solar days, God was “establishing functions”[15] and “installed its functionaries”[16] for the created order. Walton concedes that “Theoretically it could be both. But assuming that we simply must have a material account if we are going to say anything meaningful, is cultural imperialism.”[17] Walton maintains that the thesis he proposes is “not a view that has been rejected by other scholars; it is simply one they have never considered because their material ontology was a blind presupposition for which no alternative was ever considered.”[18] However, as philosopher John Lennox rightly points out, “Surely, if ancient readers thought only in functional terms, the literature would be full of it, and scholars would be very aware of it?”[19]

Moreover, it is not clear exactly what is entailed by God assigning functions to the sun and moon, and the land and sea creatures if, as Walton maintains, this has nothing to do with material origins. Analytic philosopher Lydia McGrew also notes that[20],

…it is difficult to figure out what Walton means by God’s establishing functions and installing functionaries in a sense that has nothing to do with material origins! Perhaps the most charitable thing to do would be to throw up one’s hands and conclude that the book is radically unclear. What could it mean for all the plants already to be growing, providing food for animals, the sun to be shining, etc., but for these entities nonetheless to lack functions prior to a set of specific 24-hour days in a specific week?

What would creation week have looked like from the standpoint of an earthly observer? According to Walton, “The observer in Genesis 1 would see day by day that everything was ready to do for people what it had been designed to do. It would be like taking a campus tour just before students were ready to arrive to see all the preparations that had been made and how everything had been designed, organized and constructed to serve students.”[21] Furthermore, Walton claims, the “main elements lacking in the ‘before’ picture are therefore humanity in God’s image and God’s presence in his cosmic temple.”[22]

Walton asserts that in the ancient worldview it was possible for something to materially exist but not to exist functionally. He claims that “people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system. Here I do not refer to an ordered system in scientific terms, but an ordered system in human terms, that is in relation to society and culture.”[23] Walton places great emphasis on the meaning of the Hebrew verb בָּרָ֣א (“bara”), meaning “to create”. He offers a list of words that form objects of the verb בָּרָ֣א and asserts that the “grammatical objects of the verb are not easily identifiable in material terms.”[24] Walton lists the accompanying purpose or function that is assigned to each of the created entities. He then attempts to suggest that “a large percentage of the contexts require a functional understanding.”[25] This, however, does not exclude a material understanding. Even more odd is Walton’s statement that “This list shows that grammatical objects of the verb are not easily identified in material terms, and even when they are, it is questionable that the context is objectifying them.”[26] However, the chart that Walton presents lists objects of the verb that are material entities — including people, creatures, a cloud of smoke, rivers, the starry host, etc. It is certainly true that not all of these usages of the verb בָּרָ֣א refer to de novo special creation. For example, the creation of Israel (Isa 43:15) was not a special de novo material creation by divine fiat. However, even our English verbs “to create” and “to make” can have this flexibility of meaning, and its precise usage can be discerned from the context. If I say that I am going to create a new business, I do not mean that I am creating employees and office space de novo. Likewise, when the psalmist asks God to “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me” (Ps 51:10), while “create” is not being used here in a material sense, the genre is clearly poetic, and so caution should be exercised about extrapolating the meaning of a metaphorical usage of the word to its regular usage. A yet further problem with Walton’s interpretation of the verb בָּרָ֣א as having only an interest in function in Genesis 1 is the fact that, as C. John Collins has noted, “1:26-31 are parallel to 2:4-25; this means that the ‘forming of the man using dust (2:7), and the ‘building’ of the woman using the man’s rib (2:22), are parallel descriptions of the ‘creation’ of the first human of 1:27. Hence it makes sense to read 1:27 as a description of a material operation.”[27]

Michael Jones, a popular Christian YouTube apologist, has in recent years championed Walton’s thesis. To Walton’s arguments in support of his contention that Genesis 1 does not concern material origins, Jones adds a very odd argument.[28] He cites Jeremiah 4:23-26, which says of Israel,

23 I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. 24 I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the hills moved to and fro. 25 I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the air had fled. 26 I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a desert, and all its cities were laid in ruins before the Lord, before his fierce anger.

Jones comments[29],

If Genesis 1 is about the material creation of all things, we should expect the same language in reverse to be disintegration of the materials spoken about. However, when Assyria conquered Israel and deported all the elites, we don’t suggest the fabric of space/time ripped open and the land of Israel popped out of existence. Instead, we understand the kingdom went from a productive functioning society to a chaotic land. The light from the sun literally did not stop shining on that region. It was just part of the cultural expression to say the kingdom went from an ordered society into disorder. And thus, the reverse in Genesis 1 would only suggest that God took a disordered chaos and ordered it to be a functioning temple for himself and the humans therein, not the beginning of all matter as we know it.

While Michael Jones has a brilliant mind and has made very welcome contributions to the field of apologetics, this interpretation reflects a total disregard of the rhetoric of Jeremiah. The prophet is using a portrayal as if it were the case that the sun had gone out, and “there was no man, and all the birds of the air had fled.” He is not making an ontological statement.

Furthermore, the arguments that Walton adduces in support of his contention that in the ancient worldview it was possible for something to materially exist but not to exist functionally seem to me to be very weak, even seeming to undermine his position. Walton, for example, asserts that in Hittite literature, there is a creation myth that speaks of “cutting heaven and earth apart with a copper cutting tool.”[30] He also quotes the Egyptian Papyrus Insinger as stating regarding the god, “He created food before those who are alive, the wonder of the fields. He created the constellation of those that are in the sky, so that those on earth should learn them. He created sweet water in it which all the lands desire.”[31] Walton also says that the Babylonian creation epic, Enuma Elish, has Maduk “harnessing the waters of Tiamat for the purpose of providing the basis of agriculture. It includes the piling up of dirt, releasing the Tigris and Euphrates, and digging holes to manage the catchwater.”[32] However, it is not clear to me how these texts support Walton’s thesis. No argument is offered for why the ancients did not believe that the gods physically separated the heavens from the earth. Just because we, as modern readers, take the face value reading of those texts to be manifestly false does not mean that an ancient audience necessarily would have. Walton also offers no argument to support the conclusion that either the author or audience of the text concerning the Tigris and the Euphrates did not interpret the text to say that Marduk physically released the rivers and constructed the holes to manage the catchwater.

Another key issue here is that there is no reason to believe that assignment of function and an interest in material origins are in any sense mutually exclusive. It is a non-sequitur to reason that since the the word בָּרָ֣א is often associated with a mention of functional assignment that it therefore had no connotations regarding material origins. Functional assignment and material origins go hand-in-hand, since material design is what allows an entity to perform its function.

Having rejected interpretations that propose to harmonize an old earth perspective with an interpretation of the creation week as being a series of six consecutive solar days, we must now address the question of what interpretive paradigm makes best sense of the text of Genesis 1, and it is to this question that I now turn.

In the Beginning

In Genesis 1:1-3, we read,

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

It has been often noted that verse 3 marks the first occurrence of the phrase “And God said…”. This expression is used to denote the commence of each of the six days of creation week (vv. 3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24). Thus, it may be argued, the first day of creation week begins in fact in verse 3, not in verse 1. Therefore, by the time that one reaches the first day of creation week, the heavens and the earth already exist. Therefore, irrespective of what one thinks about the age of the biosphere (a separate discussion), Scripture is completely silent on the age of the Universe and the earth — even if the days of creation week are taken to be literal and consecutive. Moreover, when God says “Let there be light” (Gen 1:3), marking the commence of the first ‘day’ of creation week, this can be understood as God summoning the dawn of the first day, since the expression “Let there be…” does not necessarily indicate that something came into being — e.g. the Psalmist says “let your steadfast love, O Lord, be upon us,” (Ps 33:22), which does not imply that God’s steadfast love had not previously been with them.

This argument is not without objection. For example, some writers take verse 1 to be a summary heading of the whole account rather than describing an event that took place an unspecified time prior to the first day of creation week.[33] However, Hebrew scholar C. John Collins notes that this interpretation is less likely, since “the verb created in Genesis 1:1 is in the perfect, and the normal use of the perfect at the very beginning of a pericope is to denote an event that took place before the storyline gets under way.”[34] John Sailhamer also adduces a few reasons that make it more likely that Genesis 1:1 describes an event that happened prior to creation week, rather than being a summary title.[35] First, Genesis 1:1 is a complete sentence and makes a statement, which is not how titles are formed in Hebrew. For instance, Genesis 5:1 serves as a title for the verses that follow, and reads like this: “This is the book of the generations of Adam.” Second, verse 2 begins with the conjunction “and.” This, however, is surprising if Genesis 1:1 is intended to be a summary heading of the whole chapter. Sailhamer notes that if 1:1 were a summary title, “the section immediately following it would surely not begin with the conjunction ‘and.’”[36] Third, there is a summary statement of chapter 1 found at its conclusion, in 2:1, which would render a summary title at he beginning of chapter redundant. It seems rather unlikely that the account would have two summary titles.

Perhaps the strongest argument for understanding Genesis 1:1 to be a summarizing title of the entire pericope was presented by Bruce Waltke.[37] He argues that the combination “the heavens and the earth” is a merism referring to “the organized universe, the cosmos.”[38] He argues that “this compound never has the meaning of disorderly chaos but always of an orderly world.”[39] He further contends that “disorder, darkness, and deep” suggest “a situation not tolerated in the perfect cosmos and never said to have been called into existence by the Word of God.”[40] However, C. John Collins responds to this argument by noting that the expression “without form and void” (Gen 1:2) is not a phrase for “disorderly chaos” but rather it depicts the earth as “an unproductive and uninhabited place.”[41] He points out that “There is no indication that the ‘deep’ is any kind of opponent to God; indeed, in the rest of the Bible it does his bidding and praises him (compare Gen. 7:11; 8:1; 49:25; Pss. 33:7; 104:6; 135:6; 148:7; Prov. 3:20; 8:28). And since God names the darkness (Gen. 1:5), there is no reason to believe that it opposes his will, either.”[42]

In any case, while there is ongoing scholarly debate between those competing interpretations, reading Genesis 1:1 as a description of events that take place prior to creation week is at the very least plausible, if not somewhat favored as the most likely meaning. Thus, there is certainly no room for dogmatism that Genesis 1 commits one to a young Universe or earth, regardless of what one thinks about the age of the biosphere (which will relate to how one understands the ‘days’ of creation week).

Some scholars argue that Genesis 1:1 should in fact be translated, “When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void…”[43] Such a reading would be consistent with Genesis 1 not referring to the special creation of the Universe from nothing but rather bringing about order and organization to a chaotic and formless void. However, C. John Collins states that “the simplest rendering of the Hebrew as we have it is the conventional one (which is how the ancient versions in Greek and Latin took it).”[44] The main argument for this alternative translation is the lack of a definite article in the opening words. The text as we have it says בְּרֵאשִׁית (“bere’shit”), whereas proponents of the translation under discussion would argue that the traditional translation would make more sense if it instead said בָּרֵאשִׁית (“bare’shit”). However, as C. John Collins notes, “Because we have no evidence that any ancient author found this a problem, the conventional reading stands.”[45] This too is an item of ongoing academic debate. However, even if the alternative reading is correct, we would not lose anything since plenty of other Biblical texts indicate that the Universe is temporally finite, and that God brought it into being ex nihilo.

Are the ‘Days’ of Genesis 1 Literal?

Discussion of the interpretation of Genesis 1 has tended to focus on the proper translation of the Hebrew word יוֹם (“yom”). Perhaps the best-known representative of the old earth position is Hugh Ross of “Reasons to Believe,” though I often find his interpretations to be somewhat strained and far-fetched. Hugh Ross notes that “the Hebrew word yom, translated ‘day,’ is used in biblical Hebrew (as in modern English) to indicate any of four-time periods: (a) some portion of the daylight (hours); (b) sunrise to sunset; (c) sunset to sunset; or (d) a segment of time without any reference to solar days (from weeks to a year to several years to an age or epoch.” [46] This is correct, but, as in modern English, the context allows the reader to discern which of those literal meanings is in view.

In Genesis 2:4, we read,

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

Here, the Hebrew word יוֹם refers to an indefinite but finite period of time, corresponding to definition (d) offered by Hugh Ross above. However, the context makes it obvious that this is the reading that is in view. In English, we also use expressions like “back in the day” to refer to an indefinite but finite period of time, and there is no ambiguity about whether it refers to a literal day or a longer period of time. Likewise, we might say “the day was almost over”, and that would make it clear that the the word “day” is intended to be understood as referring to daylight hours, corresponding to definition (a) of Ross’ set of literal meanings. Young earth creationists typically respond to Ross’ proposed translation, rightly in my view, by observing that the use of the words “evening” and “morning”, combined with an ordinal number, in referring to the days of creation week, makes it clear that a solar day is in view, either of a 12 hour or 24 hour duration.[47] What is often overlooked, however, is that settling the issue of translating the word יוֹם does not in itself indicate whether it is intended to be understood literally or figuratively. It also does not indicate whether the days are strictly consecutive, or whether there may be gaps between each of the days. Those are logically downstream questions of the issue of translation and must be addressed separately.

Is there any example in Scripture where the word יוֹם is clearly best translated as “day” in the regular sense, and yet is not intended to be understood literally? Indeed there is. In Hosea 6:2, we read,

Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up. 2 After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.

The context here is that Israel has been subjected to God’s judgment. This text is a call for Israel to return to the Lord to receive healing and restoration. Whereas the Hebrew word יוֹם is used here (the same word translated as “day” in Genesis 1) along with an ordinal number, the word “day” is clearly being used in a non-literal sense and refers almost certainly to a longer period of time. The usage of the word “day”, when combined with an ordinal number, in a non-literal sense here at least renders it possible that the word “day” in Genesis 1 is being used in a non-literal sense as well. This does not by itself make it probable, but it at least opens up the possibility.

How, then, are the days of Genesis 1 best understood? There are a number of clues in the text that the days are not meant to be understood literally. C. John Collins observes that, whereas each of the six workdays has the refrain “and there was evening and there was morning, the nth day,” this refrain is missing from the seventh day.[48] Collins suggests that this may be explained by positing that the seventh day on which God rested has not come to an end, like the other six days, but continues even to the present time. In support of this, Collins appeals to two New Testament texts — John 5:17 and Hebrews 4:3-11. In the former reference, Jesus gets into trouble for having healed a man on the Sabbath day. Jesus responds by saying that “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” Collins suggests that Jesus should be interpreted to be saying here, “My Father is working on his Sabbath, just as I am working on my Sabbath.”[49] Collins concludes that “we can account for that most easily if we take Jesus to mean that the creation Sabbath still goes on.”[50] In Hebrews 4:3-11, the author of Hebrews quotes Psalm 95:11, which indicates that unbelievers will not enter the “rest” of God (v. 3). The author then notes that God “rested” on the seventh day (v. 4). The author asserts that Joshua did not give the Hebrews “rest”. Since the context of Psalm 95:11 is God forbidding the Hebrews who had left Egypt from entering the promised land, the contention of the author of Hebrews that Joshua did not give the people true “rest” indicates that he does not understand Psalm 95:11 literally. Rather, there is a Sabbath rest for God’s people to enter into. And how can God’s people enter into God’s rest? By resting from their works as God did from His (v. 10). Collins concludes, “This makes good sense if ‘God’s rest,’ which he entered on the creation Sabbath, is the same ‘rest’ that believers enter—and thus God’s rest is still available because it still continues.”[51] This interpretation is not a modern one. Indeed, Augustine of Hippo wrote in his Confessions that the seventh day of creation “hath no evening, nor hath it setting; because Thou hast sanctified it to an everlasting continuance.”[52] What are the implications of this insight? Collins notes, “If the seventh day is not an ordinary one, then we may begin to wonder if perhaps the other six days have to be ordinary.”[53]

John Collins also points to Genesis 2:5-7, in which we read,

5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— 7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Collins notes that this text is “out of step with the sequence of the days in the first story: there, God made the plants on the third day, as we find in 1:11-12.”[54] Furthermore, “2:5-6 says that those plants weren’t there because it hadn’t yet rained (which is the ‘ordinary providence’ reason for plants not being there), while Genesis 1 has them being created (which is a special situation).”[55] These texts are best harmonized by taking Genesis 2:5-7 to be referring to a localized region of the earth, not to the globe as a whole — that is to say, in a specific region of the planet, “no small plant of the field had yet sprung up” since it had not yet rained. That the origins of plants described in Genesis 1:11-12 refers to a different event from that described in Genesis 2:5-7 is apparent given that Genesis 2:5 indicates that the reason why the bushes and plants of the field had not sprung up is because there had been no rain, which implies that the plant growth relates to God’s ordinary providence, not to their special creation by divine fiat, as in 1:11-12. In other words, it was the dry season. Collins points out that “In Palestine, it doesn’t rain during the summer, and the autumn rains bring about a burst of plant growth. So verses 5–7 would make good sense if we supposed that they describe a time of year when it has been a dry summer, so the plants aren’t growing—but the rains and the man are about to come, so the plants will be able to grow in the ‘land.’”[56] Collins concludes, “The only way that I can make any sense out of this ordinary providence explanation that the Bible itself gives is if I imagine that the cycle of rain, plant growth, and dry season had been going on for some number of years before this point—because the text says nothing about God not yet having made the plants.”[57] If this is the case, then this would suggest that the length of the six days of creation could not have been that of an ordinary week, since it would imply that the cycle of seasons had been going on for some time.

One may observe that Genesis 1:11-12 does not necessarily entail that God created fully grown plants de novo, since the text indicates that “The earth brought forth vegetation…” This would allow one to take plant growth as taking place by God establishing the cycle of ordinary providence. However, since vegetation and fruit trees take more than a day to grow and develop by ordinary providence, this would likewise entail a creation week that is rather different in terms of duration than our typical week. In my opinion, positing that Genesis 1:11-12 and Genesis 2:5-6 refer to distinct events, the latter being more local in scope, is the simplest and most natural explanation of the relevant data. This, then, for the reasons articulated above, tends to suggest a creation week that is not identical in length to our regular seven-day week.

There are still yet further clues that the duration of creation week is not like our typical weeks. For example, many have noted the sheer number of events that are said to have taken place on the sixth day, which presumably would have taken more time than a single solar day. Collins lists the various things that are said to have happened on the sixth day: “God makes the land animals, forms Adam, plants the Garden and moves the man there, lays instructions upon him, puts him through a search for ‘a helper fit for him’ (and during this search Adam names all the animals), casts a deep sleep over him and makes a woman out of his rib.”[58] Furthermore, when Adam is united with the woman, Eve, whom God had formed, Adam responds, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.”[59] This is suggestive of Adam having waited a long time for a suitable helper.

Besides the discussion of whether the ‘days’ of creation week are to be understood literally or not, there is also the issue of whether there is any reason to preclude the possibility of there being gaps between the days, even if those days are taken as regular days. Indeed, John Lennox suggests “that the writer did not intend us to think of the first six days as days of a single earth week, but rather as a sequence of six creation days; that is, days of normal length (with evenings and mornings as the text says) in which God acted to create something new, but days that might well have been separated by long periods of time. We have already seen that Genesis separates the initial creation, ‘the beginning,’ from the sequence of days. What we are now suggesting in addition is that the individual days might well have been separated from one another by unspecified periods of time.”[60] I am not aware of any linguistic reason to exclude this possibility.

To recap, while the young earth creationists are correct that the best translation of the Hebrew word יוֹם in the context of Genesis 1 is “day”, the text of Genesis 1 is consistent with the creation week being quite unlike our ordinary weeks with respect to duration. What, though, is the best way to understand the nature of the days of creation? It is to this question that I now turn.

An Analogical Days Approach

My own view is closest to that espoused by C. John Collins, which he calls the analogical days view.[61] Collins notes that “the best explanation is the one that takes these days as not the ordinary kind; they are instead ‘God’s workdays.’ Our workdays are not identical to them, but analogous. The purpose of the analogy is to set a pattern for the human rhythm of work and rest. The length of these days is not relevant to this purpose.”[62] An advantage of this approach is that one can understand the word “day” in its ordinary sense but apply its meaning analogically, just as we do with other analogical expressions such as the “eyes of the Lord” (in that case, we do not need to propose an alternative translation of the Hebrew word for “eye”, but rather understand its ordinary meaning in an analogical sense).

The analogical days interpretation also allows us to make sense of the Sabbath commandment in Exodus 20:8-11, in which we read,

8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Young-earth creationists argue that this text indicates that the creation week was comprised of six ordinary days since it is said to set a pattern for a human workweek. However, as Collins notes, “this misses two key points: the first is what we have already noticed about the creation rest being unique. The second is that our working and resting cannot be identical to God’s—they are like God’s in some way, but certainly not the same.”[63] Collins points out that there are obvious points of disanalogy between God’s workweek and ours — “For example, when was the last time you spoke and caused a plant to grow up? Rather, our planting and watering, and fertilizing are like God’s work because they operate on what’s there and make it produce something it wouldn’t have produced otherwise. Our rest is like God’s because we cease from our work for the sake of contemplating his works with pleasure.”[64] Furthermore, God is said to have rested on the Sabbath day. Collins points out that “That last word in Hebrew, ‘was refreshed,’ carries the sense of getting your breath back after being worn out (see Ex. 23:12; 2 Sam. 16:14); and I can assure you that you don’t want to say that God needs that kind of refreshment (see Isa. 40:28–31—God doesn’t get weary). Instead, we have to see it as an analogy: there are points of similarity between the two things, but also points of difference.”[65] Of course, there is also an analogy between God’s work week and the six years of sowing the land followed by a seventh year of rest (Exod 23:10-11).

One consideration that I would add to Collins’ case is that the ancients often used numbers symbolically rather than literally. For example, the evangelist Matthew refers to three sets of “fourteen generations” — from Abraham to David, from David to the exile, and from the exile to Christ (Mt 1:17) — even though he has to duplicate and skip generations to make the math work. He probably does this because fourteen is the numerical value of David’s name in Hebrew, and Matthew intends to express that Jesus is the promised Davidic heir. It seems to me, therefore, to be not much of a stretch to speculate that perhaps a similar thing is going on in Genesis 1, where the number seven is being used in a symbolic rather than literal sense.

There may also be other reasons, besides the analogy to the human workweek, why the author of Genesis chose to use the number seven. Earlier in this article, I criticized the cosmic temple view of Genesis 1 advocated by John Walton. However, one useful insight of Walton’s analysis is the parallels that he draws between the Biblical creation account and that concerning the construction of the tabernacle and temple. For example, he observes that “Isaiah 66:1 expresses clearly the temple/cosmos function in biblical theology as it identifies heaven as God’s throne and earth as his footstool, providing a resting place for him. God likewise achieves rest on the seventh day of creation, just as he takes up rest in his temple.”[66] That God takes up rest in His temple is evident from Psalm 132:13-14, in which we read, “For the LORD has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his dwelling place: ‘This is my resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it.’”

Walton further observes that “the celestial bodies are referred to using the unusual term ‘lights,’ which throughout the rest of the Pentateuch refers to the lights of the lampstand in the tabernacle.”[67] Furthermore, “the idea of rivers flowing from the holy place is found both in Genesis 2 (which we will suggest portrays Eden as the Most Holy Place) and in Ezekiel’s temple (Ezek. 47:1).”[68] Along similar lines, Michael Fishbane further argues that[69],

Indeed, as Martin Buber long ago noted, a series of key verbal parallels exists between the account of the creation of the world and the description of the building of the tabernacle in the desert (compare Genesis 1:31; 2:1; 2:2; 2:3 with Exodus 39:43; 39:32: 40:33; and 39:43, respectively). Thus, “Moses saw all the work” which the people “did” in constructing the tabernacle; “and Moses completed the work” and “blessed” the people for all their labors.

… Manifestly, then, the building of the tabernacle has been presented in the image of the creation of the world, and signified as an extension of a process begun at the creation.

Walton also points to Exodus 40:34 and 1 Kings 8:11, which indicate that the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle and temple respectively.[70] Walton compares these texts to Isaiah 6:3, which describes the vision of Isaiah in the temple, where the seraphim call out to one another, saying “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” A yet further connection between creation and the temple is Psalm 78:69, which says, “He built his sanctuary like the high heavens, like the earth, which he has founded forever.”

Now, this is where it gets interesting in relation to the seven ‘days’ described in the creation account. G.K. Beale observes that[71],

More specifically, both accounts of the creation and building of the tabernacle are structured around a series of seven acts: cf. ‘And God said’ (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24, 26; cf. vv. 11, 28, 29) and ‘the LORD said’ (Exod. 25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1, 12) (Sailhamer 1992: 298–299). In the light of observing similar and additional parallels between the ‘creation of the world’ and ‘the construction of the sanctuary’, J. Blenkinsopp concludes that ‘the place of worship is a scaled-down cosmos’ (1992: 217–218).
Levenson also suggests that the same cosmic significance is to be seen from the fact that Solomon took seven years to build the temple (1 Kgs. 6:38), that he dedicated it on the seventh month, during the Feast of Booths (a festival of seven days [1 Kgs. 8]), and that his dedicatory speech was structured around seven petitions (1 Kgs. 8:31–55). Hence, the building of the temple appears to have been modelled on the seven-day creation of the world, which also is in line with the building of temples in seven days elsewhere in the Ancient Near East (Levenson 1988: 78–79). Just as God rested on the seventh day from his work of creation, so when the creation of the tabernacle and, especially, the temple are finished, God takes up a ‘resting place’ therein.

Perhaps, therefore, the organization of the creation account around seven days is an aspect of the intended parallels between creation and the temple or tabernacle, which would provide another reason why the number seven may be used in a symbolic sense in Genesis 1.

Are the Days of Creation Chronologically Arranged?

A further question we must address is that of whether the text of Genesis 1 requires us to take the days as being in chronological sequence, and if so, whether that raises any problems. The biggest problem with the chronological interpretation of the creation days is that photosynthetic plants are created before the sun. Indeed, the sun is not created until day four. Hugh Ross points out that technically the text does not indicate that the sun and moon came into being on the fourth day. Rather, the text only reports God saying “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth.”[72] Furthermore, “Genesis 1 employs one set of verbs for the creation of birds, mammals, humans, and the universe. These verbs — bara, asa, and yasar — mean ‘create,’ ‘make,’ and ‘fashion’ or ‘form,’ respectively. Another verb, haya, means ‘exist, be, happen, or come to pass’ and is used in conjunction with the appearance of ‘light’ on day one and of the ‘lights in the expanse of the sky’ on day four.”[73] Ross suggests that this is “consistent with the creation week’s start point at the advent of light on Earth’s surface — that divinely orchestrated moment when light first penetrated the opaque medium enshrouding the primordial planet.”[74] Ross further contends that on the fourth day “God transformed Earth’s atmosphere from translucent to transparent. At that time, the Sun, Moon, and stars became visible from Earth’s surface as distinct light sources.”[75] I am not convinced by this proposal, since it seems to run into the problem of photosynthetic plants being starved of light for a significant portion of earth’s history.

An alternative scenario, proposed by C. John Collins, I find to be more attractive. Collins notes that the Hebrew verb used in Genesis 1:16, יַּ֣עַשׂ (“asa”), meaning “to make”, “does not specifically mean ‘create’; it can refer to that, but it can also refer to ‘working on something that is already there’ (hence ESV margin), or even ‘appointed.’”[76] He thus argues that “Verse 14 focuses on the function of the lights rather than on their origin: the verb let there be is completed with the purpose clause, ‘to separate.’ Hence, the account of this day’s work focuses on these lights serving a function that God appointed for the well-being of man — and that they serve that function by God’s command, which implies that it is foolish to worship them.”[77]

Besides the issue of the sun, moon and stars not being brought in until day four (which I think is satisfactorily resolved by Collins), I do not see any further chronological incompatibilities between the account in Genesis 1 and the scientific evidence.

However, if one were not persuaded by either Ross’ or Collins’ proposal, would a valid alternative approach be to postulate that the ‘days’ of creation are arranged without regard to chronology? I will now consider this question.

Many have noted that days one to three form a triad that corresponds to the triad formed by days four to six. On day one, God creates the light and distinguishes it from darkness; whereas on day four, God creates the sun, moon and stars. On day two, God separates the sky and sea; whereas, on day five, God creates birds and sea creatures. On day three, God causes dry land to appear; whereas on day six, God creates the land animals and humans. This pattern has been argued by some to indicate that the exact chronological sequence of events is not in mind here. This observation forms the basis of the literary framework view, first put forward by Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803).[78] Mark Throntveit likewise argues that this structural organization of the text suggests that the sequence of days are not intended to express chronological sequence at all.[79] However, as many have rightly pointed out in response to this argument, literary framework and chronological sequence are not necessarily mutually exclusive.[80]

Another argument for taking the days to be arranged a-chronologically are the supposed contradictions between the sequence of events described in Genesis 1 and 2. I have already addressed one of those by showing that Genesis 2 focuses in on a particular geographical region. The other contradiction that is sometimes alleged is that Genesis 2:19 indicates that the creation of animals took place after mankind was on the scene, as suggested by some translations. However, Collins argues that the Hebrew verb ought to be rendered by the pluperfect “had formed”, which resolves this problem.[81]

Nonetheless, it must be recognized that the ancients did not always narrate chronologically. Sometimes they narrated events a-chronologically (though, it must be noted, without using chronological markers such as “the following day”). For example, in the temptation of Christ, which is narrated in Matthew 4 and Luke 4, the two accounts do not recount the three temptations in the same order. Matthew connects the events using the word Τότε (meaning “then”), whereas Luke connects events using the word Καὶ (meaning “and”). For this reason, I am inclined to believe that Matthew represents the events in chronological order, while Luke represents them a-chronologically. Thus, key to determining whether Genesis 1 commits its readers to interpreting it to be a chronological account of events is elucidating whether there are any concrete chronological markers in the text that would lead its original audience to believe that a sequential succession of events is being described.

In 1996, David A. Sterchi published a paper in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. In this paper, he argued that while the structure and syntax of Genesis 1 does not exclude chronological sequencing, it also does not require it.[82] He points out that the first five creation days lack a definite article, though days six and seven both have a definite article. Thus, these phrases are most appropriately translated “one day . . . a second day . . . a third day . . . a fourth day . . . a ˜fifth day.” Sterchi suggests that “the text is not implying a chronological sequence of seven days. Instead it is simply presenting a list of seven days.”[83] Furthermore, he argues that “On the one hand was a commitment to the truth in reporting the account in the text. On the other was the desire to use a literary structure to further reinforce his message. One way to achieve literary freedom and still maintain truth in the process was to remove the confines of chronological syntax. So the author chose to leave the days indefinite and used the article in days six and seven for emphasis, not determination.”[84]

If the events are being narrated a-chronologically, is there any plausible hypothesis for why the creation of the sun and moon is not mentioned until day four? I believe there is. Johnny Miller and John Soden point out that the order of events between the Genesis creation account and that of the Egyptians is strikingly similar, though there are key differences, one being that the appearance of the sun is the initial and main event in the Egyptian creation myth, whereas the sun is held back until day four in the Biblical account.[85] They note that, “The issue is not so much the change in order (it is still the same, except for the appearance of plant life). Rather the use of the ‘week’ in creation instead of a single day delays the event of the sunrise from the first morning to the fourth day. The sun is no longer the dominant force or king over the gods (even though it was to “rule the day”; Gen. 1:16). The sun is just another of God’s submissive creations, doing his bidding and serving his will. The resulting picture dramatically downplays the sun, Egypt’s main actor. Instead, God clearly shines as the sovereign and transcendent ruler of creation. The climax becomes the creation of mankind as God’s representative.”[86] Relating to this motif also is the omission of names for the sun and moon, which were revered as deities by the Egyptians — these celestial bodies instead are referred to as “the greater light” and “the lesser light”.

Summary

To conclude, one cannot, in my judgment, hold to the creation ‘days’ being a series of six consecutive solar days while rejecting a young earth interpretation. While Sailhamer and Walton, among others, have attempted to do this, my assessment of their respective approaches is that they fail to harmonize this interpretation with an old earth. Furthermore, the Genesis account says nothing about the age of the Universe or the earth, since those are created before the commence of the first day of creation week. Thus, the only question that should be under evaluation is the age of the biosphere. Moreover, there are some clues in the text of Genesis 1 that are consistent with the creation week being longer than our regular weeks. One can harmonize the text of Genesis 1 with an old earth interpretation by positing the presence of gaps between each of the ‘days’ or by positing that the ‘days’ are not literal. The analogical days interpretation suggested by Collins and others is the most plausible non-literal interpretation of the days. While the structure and syntax of the passage is consistent with the days being chronologically arranged, it does not require it.

Footnotes

[1] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 570–571.

[2] John Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound: A Provoscative New Look at the Creation Account (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 1996), kindle.

[3] John Piper, “What Should We Teach About Creation?” Desiring God, June 1, 2010 (http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-should-we-teach-about-creation)

[4] Mark Driscoll, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe (Wheaton, IL, Crossway, 2011), 96

[5] Matt Chandler, The Explicit Gospel (Wheaton, IL, Crossway, 2012), 96-97

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009).

[14] Ibid., 91

[15] Ibid., 64

[16] Ibid., 92

[17] Ibid., 170.

[18] Ibid., 42.

[19] John C. Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning according to Genesis and Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 132.

[20] Lydia McGrew, “Review of John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One,” What’s Wrong with the World, March 12, 2015. http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/03/review_of_john_h_waltons_the_l.html

[21] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 98.

[22] Ibid., 96.

[23] Ibid., 24.

[24] Ibid., 41.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] C. John Collins, “Review of John Walton, The Lost World Of Genesis One,” Reformed Academic, May 22, 2013.

[28] Michael Jones, “Genesis 1a: And God Said!” Inspiring Philosophy, June 7, 2019, YouTube video, 22:42, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R24WZ4Hvytc

[29] Ibid.

[30] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 30.

[31] Ibid., 32.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Bruce Waltke, “The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1–3, Part III: The Initial Chaos Theory and the Precreation Chaos Theory,” Bibliotheca Sacra 132 (July–September 1975), 216–228.

[34] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2011), kindle.

[35] John Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound: A Provoscative New Look at the Creation Account (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 1996), kindle.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Bruce Waltke, “The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1–3, Part III: The Initial Chaos Theory and the Precreation Chaos Theory,” Bibliotheca Sacra 132 (July–September 1975), 216–228.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid.

[41] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2011).

[42] Ibid.

[43] The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) opts for this translation.

[44] C. John Collins, Reading Genesis Well: Navigating History, Poetry, Science, and Truth in Genesis 1–11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), 160–161.

[45] Ibid., 161.

[46] Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy (San Francisco, CA: RTB Press, 2015), 74.

[47] Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of “Progressive Creationism” (Billions of Years) As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross (Creation Book Publishers; 2nd edition, 2011), kindle.

[48] C. John Collins, Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 62.

[49] Ibid., 84-85.

[50] Ibid., 85.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Saint Augustine Bishop of Hippo, The Confessions of St. Augustine, trans. E. B. Pusey (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996)

[53] C. John Collins, Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 85.

[54] Ibid., 87.

[55] Ibid.

[56] Ibid., 88.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid., 89.

[59] Ibid.

[60] John C. Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 54.

[61] C. John Collins, Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 90.

[62] Ibid., 89.

[63] Ibid., 86.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Ibid.

[66] John H. Walton, Genesis, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 148.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Ibid.

[69] Michael Fishbane, Text and Texture (New York: Schocken, 1979).

[70] John H. Walton, Genesis, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 149.

[71] G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 17, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL; England: InterVarsity Press; Apollos, 2004), 61.

[72] Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy (San Francisco, CA: RTB Press, 2015), 80-82.

[73] Ibid., 82.

[74] Ibid.

[75] Ibid.

[76] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2011), kindle.

[77] Ibid.

[78] Johann Gottfried von Herder, The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, trans. James Marsh (Burlington, Ontario: Edward Smith, 1833), 1:58. See also Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 6–7.

[79] Mark Throntveit, “Are the Events in the Genesis Account Set Forth in Chronological Order? No,” The Genesis Debate (ed. R. Youngblood; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986) 36–55.

[80] John C. Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning according to Genesis and Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011),

[81] C. John Collins, “The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why?” Tyndale Bulletin 46, no. 1 (1995): 117–40.

[82] David A. Sterchi, “Does Genesis 1 Provide a Chronological Sequence?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (December 1996), 529-536.

[83] Ibid.

[84] Ibid.

[85] Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden, In the Beginning … We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2012), 106.

[86] Ibid.

Finding Common Ground In A Time of Stark Division

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

“While We All Want to Believe That We Are Committed to Truth Rather Than A Narrative, Our Actions In Conversation—How We Mistreat Evidence, Mischaracterize Opposing Views And Arguments, And Attack The Challenger Rather Than The Challenge—Often Tell A Different Story.” Luke Nix

The Importance of Recognizing Common Ground

In these times of stark division, it is important that we not allow our disagreements to ultimately result in the destruction of our unity as a society, culture, and Church. There is nothing wrong with a society having a diversity of ideas, as long as those ideas are discussed and debated respectfully. When the wrong ideas are identified, such a respectful dialog can result in the dismissal of false ideas and the acceptance of true ideas. This is progress. Progress towards the objective goal of a society that has and lives according to the view of reality as it actually is and not some delusion.

However, many times discussion is stifled because we do not recognize common ground with those in which we disagree. When we possess and recognize common ground, we have a connection to maintain a healthy relationship when we have stark disagreements and rigorously debate which view (if either) accurately reflect reality. Today I want to point out six different things that we all hold in common that, if recognized by even one side, can help keep relationships healthy despite disagreements.

The Image of God

We are all created in the Image of God, thus we are all intrinsically, equally valuable. No matter how strongly we disagree with the other person, they ultimately have just as much value as we do and are worthy of our love and respect. No matter how disrespectful or unloving they are in their discussion or behavior towards us or others, this value remains in tact and stands as a reminder to us that a disrespectful or unloving posture towards them is never justified. We must remember that behind every challenge is a challenger. The challenge must be dealt with logically and evidentially, but the challenger must be addressed lovingly and respectfully.

Our Sinfulness

We are all sinners that have fallen short of God’s objective, moral standard, thus there will be evil committed by people against people. While we are all created in God’s Image and possess intrinsic and equal value, this does not mean that any of us is perfect. People will offend us. We will offend others. People will deeply hurt us, and we will deeply hurt others. People will sin against us, and, yes, we will sin against others. It is important to recognize that we will all fail and must treat each other, even those with whom we disagree, with the grace and forgiveness that we would like to be treated when we sin. And if we expect others to humbly accept correction, then we must also humbly accept correction when we make mistakes.

Christ’s Forgiveness

We are all sinful, but we are all loved by our morally perfect Creator. Jesus died and rose from the dead so that all people could receive the forgiveness necessary so that we can spend eternity with our Creator and each other. We are all in this same boat. No person needs Christ’s forgiveness any more or less than another; no person deserves Christ’s forgiveness any more or less than another, but every person must accept Christ’s forgiveness. We are all equally in need of forgiveness, and as long as we are still alive, Christ’s forgiveness is available. Thus we should never condemn another to hell because of their current worldview or moral position. Rather we should prayerfully pursue persuasion with evidence, logic, love, gentleness, and respect.

Our Fear

Our fear of being wrong and how changing a view may impact our other views and relationships. Many times when we are presenting evidence for a conclusion that someone opposes, it is not necessarily the evidence that the other person finds lacking but rather the possible implications of changing their mind. Some undesirable implications are perceived to be logical, and we must show either how the perceived implications do not logically follow (thus are not logically required to be consistent) or are not what they seem. Other undesired implications can be relational, and we must compassionately encourage those who may suffer severed or damaged relationships for accepting what is demonstrated to be true. We must remember our own experiences with these fears and patiently guide others while, of course, keeping the above common ground in mind because they may actually be doing the same for us while we may be the ones with these fears.

Our Questions and Doubts

We do not know everything, nor can we know everything. The same goes for everyone else. We will all have doubts and questions that we think must be answered before we can change our view. But not every little question and challenge can be answered about every view that we discuss. That is okay because not every question or challenge, if not answered the way we want or expect, presents a defeater for the view we’re questioning. Just as we expect others to consider the evidence that we present for our view and honestly consider if their questions or challenges truly undermine our evidence, we must be willing to engage in those considerations of their evidence and our questions as well. If we expect others to consider if they are just offering excuses to avoid changing their mind, we must be willing to demand the same of ourselves.

Our Choice

Finally, we all have the choice to either defend our narrative, or we can defend what is true about this world. We must choose to be committed to what is true, no matter the cost to ourselves; or we must be committed to what we want, no matter the cost to others. No doubt, it is objectively true that a commitment to truth, sacrificing self, is noble; and a commitment to self, sacrificing others, is despicable. Making this choice takes honesty, humility, and self-reflection, and frankly it can be a struggle. While we all want to believe that we are committed to truth rather than a narrative, our actions in conversation—how we mistreat evidence, mischaracterize opposing views and arguments, and attack the challenger rather than the challenge—often tell a different story. It is definitely true that “actions speak louder than words,” and it is time that we recognize that we must not merely apply that to others but to ourselves as well. As we struggle through this decision and recall the struggle, we can be more patient with and offer encouragement to those who are currently in the middle of the struggle.

Remembering that we hold much common ground with those we disagree with, often struggling in the past or in the present, and knowing that we desire gentleness and respect in those struggles, it is a most reasonable and loving expectation that we treat them as we wish for them to treat us. We should never be cold in our conversations; emotional warmth is necessary. Wisely conducting our conversations in the context of our common ground allows us to turn up the heat on the issues without burning the person behind the questions.

Is the Bible Our Highest Authority?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By David Pallmann

Many Christians believe that it is wrong to offer unbelievers evidence for the truth of Christianity.[1] They argue that the traditional method of apologetics dishonors Scripture by not giving it the respect it is due. The concern is that offering evidence for the truth of Scripture gives evidence more weight than Scripture. The argument might be framed this way:

If some activity requires us to treat something as a higher authority than Scripture, as Christians, we should not do it.
Giving evidence for the truth of Scripture requires us to treat evidence as a higher authority than Scripture.
Therefore, as Christians, we should not give evidence for the truth of Scripture.

Michael Krueger expresses the basic sentiment when he says,

“If the method of argumentation communicates to the unbeliever that he should believe the Bible only because it has received the stamp of approval from science, archaeology, and historical criticism, those disciplines, not the Bible, will be his ultimate authority.”[2]

In this article, I hope to show that the traditional apologist can answer this type of argument in a two-fold fashion. Once we clearly understand what it means to say that Scripture is one’s highest authority, it will become clear that this belief is not in conflict with presenting evidence for the truth of Scripture. In short, traditional, evidence-based, apologetics is harmonious with the affirmation that Scripture is the Christian’s highest authority.

Two Types of Authority

It will be helpful to begin by distinguishing between two types of authority. The Polish philosopher Józef Maria Bocheński made an important distinction between deontic authority and epistemic authority.[3] A deontic authority is roughly an authority which is able to tell you how you should act. Examples would include your boss or a police officer. These are individuals who can, to some extent, tell you what to do.

An epistemic authority is quite different. Epistemic authorities can tell you what you should believe. Examples would include a scholar, a doctor, or some other sort of expert. These are knowledgeable individuals who can be appropriately called “authorities” in their respective fields.

The key distinction between a deontic authority and an epistemic authority lies in the domains over which they exert their authority. Deontic authorities tell you how to behave. Epistemic authorities tell you what to believe.

Applying the Distinction

Armed with an understanding of these two types of authority, let’s explicate what it means to say that Scripture is our highest authority. It seems quite evident that this typically refers to Scripture as a deontic authority. To say that Scripture is one’s highest authority is, in essence, to say that one ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Scripture will dictate a Christian’s behavior even when Scripture conflicts with another authority (e.g the government).

Thus construed, it becomes evident that the original argument is guilty of equivocation. Premise 1 refers to deontic authority while premise 2 refers to epistemic authority. As such, under a deontic understanding of Scripture as one’s highest authority, the conclusion of the argument simply doesn’t follow.

Scripture as an Epistemic Authority

Although on a deontic conception of Scriptural authority, the argument is flawed, there is one complication. Scripture does not merely tell us how to act, but it also tells us what to believe. Thus, while it is true that Scripture is a deontic authority, it also appears to function as an epistemic authority. Should we regard Scripture as our highest epistemic authority as well?

To answer this question, we need a clearer understanding of the role that epistemic authorities play in the formation of justified beliefs. In the first place, we need to observe that beliefs which are held on the basis of epistemic authorities inherently have weaker justification than beliefs held on the basis of evidence. This is because, when information is gained via authority, there is a further link in the chain between the believer and the truth of the belief. When one believes a proposition on the basis of evidence, then his connection to the truth of the belief is much stronger. When one relies on an epistemic authority, they are trusting the authority to accurately relay his own beliefs which (hopefully!) are based on a body of evidence to which the believer does not have direct access. The indirectness of the belief allows more opportunities for mistakes to be made. So whenever a belief is held on the basis of an authority, it necessarily has a lower probability of being true than a belief based directly on evidence. The upshot here is that epistemic authorities are not valuable because of anything intrinsic to that authority. They are valuable because they are a means of connecting us with truth. Epistemic authorities are only useful insofar as they achieve that goal. As Richard Feldmen observes,

“Inferential rules aren’t good ones simply because experts use them. Rather, experts are good guides to good rules simply because they have the best insight into the matter.”[4]

Now, none of that is meant to disparage the importance and value of epistemic authorities. Clearly, we cannot become acquainted with all the relevant evidence for every possible belief. Epistemic authorities, therefore, provide us with a convenient way of gaining knowledge about something without examining it in detail. The cost of that convenience, however, is that one incurs a greater risk that their acquired belief is not true.

To minimize this risk, it is crucial that we have good reasons for regarding an authority as reliable. If there were no way for recognizing an authority as reliable then we would either have to blindly follow anything that claimed to be an authority, make an arbitrary selection about which authorities to believe, or else reject epistemic authorities altogether. As John DePoe notes,

“Authorities play a valuable epistemic role because they are avenues for justified beliefs and knowledge that are inaccessible to us without them, or they make the procurement of such epistemic good more convenient. … Importantly, however, for me to embrace [an] authority justifiably, I must have good reasons to trust the source as an authority in the domains where I regard it as an authority.”[5]

So it is not possible, in principle, to have a highest epistemic authority if this is meant to be understood as an authority being one’s primary source of knowledge. A subject must always choose to believe what an authority says. And to make an informed decision about which authorities to believe, one needs access to independent evidence.

Highest Epistemic Authority

As the above discussion makes clear, evidence has primacy when it comes to justification. There is no highest epistemic authority comparable to a highest deontic authority. It is by means of evidence that we adjudicate between various epistemic authorities and determine which one’s are to be trusted. This is not to deny that there can be a highest epistemic authority from among a range of authorities. For example, suppose I have a medical condition which two doctors wish to diagnose. One doctor has only examined my condition superficially while the other has examined me thoroughly. Both doctors are authorities, but the one who has examined me thoroughly is the higher authority, and, as such his diagnosis will be taken more seriously. In this situation, I could be said to have a highest epistemic authority. However, notice that the word “highest” is being used in a comparative and contextual sense. I regard one authority as highest from among other authorities with respect to a specific topic. In the same way, the Christian can make Scripture his highest authority from among other authorities (pastors, theologians, etc.) with respect to the nature, will, character, and revelation of God. Thus, there is a sense in which Scripture can be considered a highest epistemic authority when this is meant to be understood as an authority among others which is given the most epistemic weight.

But since evidence is required to adjudicate between competing authority claims, it retains an epistemic priority over any authority. Notice, however, that this entails that evidence is not itself an authority. Thus, under this conception of evidence and authority, the second premise of the original argument is false. It confuses justification with authority. While authorities can play a justificatory role, not all justification comes in the form of authorities. If it did, we would be without justification for trusting any purported authority as such.

A Final Consideration

It seems to me that Christians who use this sort of argument mean something rather different by “highest authority” than I specified above. They don’t mean that Scripture is merely their highest epistemic authority from among a range of authorities about some particular subject. They appear to mean that Scripture should actually be our primary source of knowledge. To make belief in Scripture conditional upon sufficient evidence does indeed admit that Scripture is not one’s primary source of knowledge.

But I don’t see why this should be a concern for the traditional apologist. Having faith in an authority on the basis of evidence does not compromise that authority’s status nor does it somehow make evidence a “higher authority” in any meaningful sense. It is simply to acknowledge that one needs justification for believing that an authority is authoritative. Perhaps some will find this objectionable. But what is the alternative? To believe on the basis of nothing? This is epistemic irresponsibility. Moreover, it seems impossible. For surely before one can believe the teachings of Scripture, one must become acquainted with them through either hearing or reading Scripture. This shows that Scripture cannot be one’s primary source of knowledge.

If the critic still wishes to maintain that the traditional apologist is making evidence a higher authority than Scripture, then we may simply respond that he has equated “highest authority” with “primary source of knowledge.” This is a definition of “authority” that the traditional apologist is entitled to reject. If the critic still wishes to retain this definition of the word, then it is evident, I think, that he is deliberately defining words in such a way that he can accuse those who dispute his conclusions of lowering the status of Scripture. In this case, he is deliberately muddying the waters. Under the critic’s definition, the traditional apologist need feel no discomfort for not making Scripture his “highest authority.” The critic is now using this term to get the traditional apologist to say something which the traditional apologist never believed.

Summary and Conclusion

In this article, I have briefly outlined an objection to traditional apologetics which states that the traditional method turns evidence into a higher authority than Scripture. We have seen that the traditional apologist may give a two-fold response. First, he may respond by stating that he takes Scripture to be his highest deontic authority, but not necessarily his highest epistemic authority. If the critic replies by pointing out that Scripture is also an epistemic authority, the traditional apologist may reply by saying that epistemic authorities are limited in scope to specific topics. Thus, while he may well regard Scripture as his highest epistemic authority with respect to truths about God, he need not regard it as his highest epistemic authority with respect to the belief that Scripture yields accurate information about God. Moreover, he may argue that evidence does not function as an epistemic authority but rather functions as a means of recognizing an authority as such. Obviously, if evidence is not a type of authority, then it cannot be a higher authority than Scripture.

I conclude, therefore, that once we have clarified what is meant by “the authority of Scripture,” arguments such as that offered in the introduction either equivocate, are insensitive to the nature of epistemic authorities, or else mistake all justification for being a type of authority. In each case, the argument fails to establish its conclusion. Hence, the traditional apologist may confidently present evidence for the truth of Scripture without thereby sacrificing the authority of Scripture.

Notes:

[1] In particular I have presuppositionalists in mind. However, similar arguments can be found among critics of apologetics more generally. Such arguments are, by no means, limited to presuppositionalists.

[2] Michael J. Krueger, “The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics,” TMSJ 12/1 (Spring 2001) Pg. 69-87

[3] J. M. Bocheński, The Logic of Religion, New York: New York University Press, 1965, Pg. 164-167

[4] Richard Feldman, “Authoritarian Epistemology,” in Earl Conee and Richard Feldman, Evidentialism, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004, Pg. 127

[5] John M. DePoe, “A Classical Evidentialist Response to Covenantal Epistemology,” in Debating Christian Religious Epistemology, New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2020, Pg. 167-168

Are There Prophets In The Church Today?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jason Jimenez

Turn on your T.V., and you are bound to come across a religious show with someone declaring they speak for God. Go to your local bookstore, and there I’m sure you will find several books written by people who say they have received divine revelations from God. Jump on YouTube, and you will definitely see videos of preachers proclaiming, “Thus saith the Lord.”

This barrage of “prophetic words” from thousands of voices has undoubtedly caused many Christians to become confused. In one camp, you have Christians who get caught up in the sensationalism of prophetic words espoused by the Word of Faith movement. In another camp, you have Christians who doubt prophecy altogether because they lack the faith to understand its intended purpose in the body of Christ. While still, some don’t know what to believe.

Therefore, let’s turn to the Bible to see what it has to say about prophets.

The first thing we notice from Paul is that there are prophets in the church today. Recorded in Ephesians 4:11-13, Paul mentions the prophet’s office in the church. And not only that, but Paul also describes the gift of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 12:10. As a matter of fact, the gift of prophecy is mentioned more than any of the other spiritual gifts. You can find it in these passages: Romans 12:6, 1 Corinthians 12:27-29; 13:1-3, 8; 14:6, and in Ephesians 4:11.

That said, it’s vital to understand that the prophet’s office in modern times is not the same as Old Testament prophets. Before Jesus came to earth, God raised up prophets (Hebrew, nabi, “to utter”) or seers (spokesmen) as national leaders who spoke with specificity and with 100% accuracy in their prophecies (Deut. 18:20-22; Jer. 23:28, 31-33). But after the ascension of Christ to heaven and the completion of the written Word, God utilizes his modern prophets in different ways than he did with Samuel, Daniel, and Isaiah. The writer of Hebrews clears this up when he opened his letter with these words: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world” (1:1-2).

Furthermore, according to 1 Corinthians 14:3-4, a prophet’s primary role now is to edify, comfort, and uplift the church. However, that does not mean predictive prophecy is not exercised among some prophets of God. Like Agabus (in Acts 11:27-28), there are times when a prophet will give a prophetic word from God about the future. That is why we are not to neglect prophecy in the church (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21). But again, the primary purpose of the gift of prophecy in the church age is to encourage and exhort one another (1 Cor. 14:31). Prophets are not called by God to generate visions that others in the church cannot judge (1 Corinthians 14:29).

Therefore, we are not to look to prophets for new revelation but for exhortation according to Scripture’s illumination.

In closing, here are six indicators to help you distinguish between a true prophet and a false prophet.

A true prophet’s word will come to pass. A false prophet’s predictive word will not come to pass (Deut. 18; Jer. 23).
A true prophet never gives a word that contradicts the Bible. A false prophet will twist Scripture to validate a dream or vision they had. For example, false prophets will take prophecies explicitly intended for Israel and apply them to the United States—directly contradicting God’s promises in the Bible.
A true prophet does not brag or is greedy for gain. A false prophet brags about receiving a “prophetic word” or vision from God as if they are divinely anointed and exploits the church for financial gain.
A true prophet’s ministry aligns with what the Bible teaches. A false prophet talks more about their heavenly visions and “prophetic words” than they teach contextually from the Holy Bible. Lamentations 2:14, “Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading.”
A true prophet edifies the church and points people to Jesus Christ. A false prophet doesn’t call people to repentance but shares messages that appeal to their wants and desires. 2 Timothy 4:3-4, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.”
A true prophet’s defense comes from the Holy Spirit. A false prophet continually tells people they are not a false prophet.

Giving Atheists a Hand

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

My seventh-grade nephew needed some help the other night on social studies. He was working on the Paleolithic Age – the Old Stone Age – a time when man first started working with stone and bone tools. That got me thinking about the greatest “tool” of all – the human hand. It’s something that most people take for granted, but I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that modern civilization would never have arisen without it.

How can the atheist explain something as complex as the hand? Like the human reproductive system that I discussed in my last post, in his worldview, the hand is the product of a slow, random set of mutations occurring over a long period of time. We just happened to be lucky enough for everything to fall into place so that we – modern humans – are the beneficiaries of this entirely happenstance outcome. But think for a moment about the staggering complexity of the hand. Consider first the intricacy of the nerves that allow not just for feeling but for the fine sensitivity of feeling that exists in the fingertips. Consider the placement of the hand at the end of a flexible wrist on an arm that is also flexible. Five fingers provide the ability to grip and to manipulate objects, and the five can be used in unison or individually. Two matching hands are vastly superior to one, and the hands just happen to match in size, shape, and function. The opposable thumb may be its greatest feature, as it allows for tools to be gripped. There is a versatile muscular system that allows for objects to be firmly, or lightly, gripped, and a feedback mechanism in the nervous system that allows us to know whether we are gripping something so hard as to crush it or softly enough to caress it. All the while, it provides information on warmth and cold. On and on the list goes. It is truly a marvelous tool, and despite the best efforts of modern-day scientists, there is no way at present to even begin to replicate its complexities.

Yet we are to believe, according to the atheist, that this amazing feature of human beings is not the product of an intelligent designer, who foresaw and anticipated our use of tools to build and shape the world around us, but was instead the result of random processes occurring over time. By why should this be so? Well, the atheist will say, the hand is simply the descendent of more primitive appendages. Small, random changes conferred an advantage on some descendents, which allowed them to succeed and pass on this modification. Really? If this is so, then why haven’t monkeys, and these other more primitive forms, gone extinct, if their appendages were so unhelpful to their survival? Clearly, the development of a hand that could use tools, as opposed to one suited for climbing trees, was not needed by them in order to thrive and reproduce. Or conversely, why haven’t modern monkeys, which apparently predate humans, not yet evolved human hands, hands finely suited for using and manipulating tools?

More importantly, what happened before monkeys with primitive hands evolved? What was that earlier mammalian life form from which the arm and hand emerged? A squirrel? A rodent? What were these life forms doing, earlier still, when they had mere stumps on the ends of their limbs? Or no limbs at all? How did they survive? And why aren’t there other examples in nature of animals who randomly produced hands? Or animals that have partial hands that are somewhere on the road to evolving a complete hand?

To be fair, atheists probably think they are doing the believer a favor by arguing that science is the source of all knowledge, and that with enough time and study, answers to the questions I pose will someday be found. I suspect that most have not considered deeply the difficulty with this position. After all, the human hand is just one of dozens of fine-tuned systems in the body, each of which was constructed according to instructions embedded in the millions of lines of coded DNA information that directs the body to grow from a single cell to an adult person.

To conclude that the evolution of life forms happened randomly might have made sense in Darwin’s day, when those considering the question had no idea that information-rich DNA was directing the process of building and sustaining life. But today? Science can tell us many things about DNA and how it works. But the original source of the code, and the identity of the coder who wrote the language of DNA to provide for the life that is teeming on Planet Earth, is not something that science will find, certainly not if scientists insist on assuming that DNA assembled itself.

Christians Must Care Less about Our Cultural Reputation

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

Never have I written an article title that sounds less intuitive. Don’t we need to be concerned about our witness to the world? Isn’t that implied in the Great Commission? Shouldn’t people see us and want to follow Jesus because of our reputation?

Stick with me here, because this requires some nuance and it’s really important.

The idea that Christians need to fix a growing reputation problem in our society is becoming increasingly common in conversations on social media and even in articles by well-known Christian leaders. Comments like “The world is watching…” or “We’re damaging our witness by…” often warn believers to modify what we say or do so culture will think differently about us. The assumption is that we’ve collectively gone wrong in recent months (or years), and now we’ve got to quickly do something about it…before the world thinks even worse of us.

I would agree that Christians (and Christianity in general) are increasingly being seen in a negative light by nonbelievers. But I think we need to be extremely careful in how we assess and respond to that fact.

Our cultural reputation is not necessarily a measure of how faithfully we’re living out our calling as Christians.

If we treat it as such, we’re going to end up fixing the wrong problems.

What Makes a Reputation?

By definition, a reputation is “the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something.” This implies that a reputation involves the words and actions of two parties:

What party one says or does
What party two thinks party one says or does, and how they evaluate that

This is where things get tricky. If your reputation is negative in some way with another party, it could:

be deserved (based on what you’ve said or done);
be a mistranslation between what you’ve said or done and what the other party thinks you’ve said or done; or
be a negative evaluation of what you’ve said or done, even when accurately understood.

When we consider the layers involved here, we can better understand why our reputation—what people think of us—is less important than we might assume.

When a Negative Reputation is Deserved

I follow a number of atheist authors and organizations on Facebook to see what’s important to them and how they talk about various issues. One thing I’ve noticed over years of doing this is that they focus more on highlighting the worst examples of Christianity than on anything else. One example that quickly comes to mind is Westboro Baptist Church, known for protests featuring signs proclaiming that “God hates fags.”

This is horrendous.

God loves everyone, even if he hates sin. And to use such derogatory language reveals a misplaced motivation for why they do what they do. Such tactics are rooted in contempt, not in love for bringing people into a saving relationship with Jesus.

If someone pointed out this example as something that gives Christians a bad reputation, I would say, “Yes, it absolutely does.” This isn’t consistent with the Bible at all. It would be extremely unfortunate for anyone to judge the truth and/or goodness of Christianity as a whole based on individual examples like this, but the reality is that they do. While we may think this kind of extrapolation is unfair (“Westboro doesn’t represent Christianity!”), we have to recognize that our culture has a very poor understanding of biblical Christianity and will come to faulty conclusions because of it.

It’s not just extreme examples like Westboro that give Christians a bad reputation, of course. There are plenty of Christians engaging in conversations that could hardly be described as bringing glory to God. The tone we use, the approach we take, and the words we share can do even more damage to the Christian “reputation” than the Westboros of the world because firsthand interactions often leave a more lasting impact.

This aspect of reputation is what we should care deeply about because it’s what we have control over—the integrity of our witness. As Paul says in Philippians 1:27, “Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.”

In all we do, we should stay obsessively focused on that question: Is my conduct worthy of the name of the Lord?

When There’s a Mistranslation

In a lengthy Instagram post this week, singer Demi Lovato detailed why gender reveal parties are “transphobic.” Lovato says:

“It’s both insincere and incorrect to pretend that gender reveal parties are not transphobic… Transphobia is not just about prejudice against individual trans people, it’s also a way of thinking that understands non-trans people as more natural/organic and erases everyone else.”

Yes, having a party to announce your baby’s gender now means you’re afraid of people who struggle with gender dysphoria and want to “erase” them.

For Christians, it’s nothing new to be called homophobic or transphobic because of a belief that biblical marriage is between a man and woman or that God created two genders. But to characterize these beliefs as “phobic” (a fear) is a mistranslation; saying that God has a sexual and marital design for humans isn’t to be afraid of anything. It’s to believe that God has revealed his will and purposes for humanity in the Bible and that popular moral consensus on these issues conflicts with that revelation. It simply doesn’t follow that these beliefs imply hatred or fear, yet society continually labels them as such. The result? Christians often have a reputation for being homophobic or transphobic.

No one wants to be known as hateful or fearful, so what do we do with that?

Here’s where the problematic responses come into the picture.

Christians are increasingly on a crusade to save us from this reputation—not by working to correct the misunderstanding that moral disagreement equals hate, but by refusing to speak up or by changing their view to match that of society. I experience this all the time when I post articles about hot cultural topics on my Facebook author page. There are always Christians who comment that it gives others a negative impression of us when we speak out on certain subjects (even when we do so graciously), or who comment that the traditional view is wrong in the first place.

Silence or agreement may improve our cultural reputation with non-believers, but it’s fixing the wrong problem.

In our silence, we fail to be the salt and light we’re called to be.

In our agreement, we fail to be faithful to God’s Word.

In fixing our “reputation,” we break our integrity.

When There’s Accurate Understanding with Negative Evaluation

Russell Moore, President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, has written often in recent months about his concern for the church’s witness, particularly in the area of politics.

In his widely shared article, “The Gospel in a Democracy Under Assault,” Moore wrote that Christians need to be “people of truth.” What does that entail? He explains:

“It will take decades to rebuild from the wreckage in this country. But, as Christians, we can start now—just by not being afraid to say what is objectively the truth. Joe Biden has been elected president. Millions of babies are being aborted. The pandemic is real. So is racial injustice—both personal and systemic. So is the sexual abuse of women and children. If Christians are people of truth, we ought to be the first to acknowledge reality.”

In a backhanded way, Moore is suggesting that Christians are guilty of damaging our witness because we’ve collectively been denying the “realities” on his truth list. The implication is that we need to be known for agreeing with these statements if we have any hope of salvaging our credibility.

But some of these so-called truths we’re all supposed to acknowledge are grossly oversimplified.

For example, I’ve never seen a single person suggest that the pandemic doesn’t exist. Everyone knows it’s real, but Christians have varied views on its relative risk, issues surrounding freedom to worship, and the tradeoff between health risk and economics. If culture accurately understands that many Christians are concerned about the freedom to worship even in a pandemic but evaluates that negatively (an example of the third type of reputation issue), that’s not necessarily something we can or should fix. The world doesn’t like it, but sometimes we have to be just fine with that.

Similarly, Moore says that we all must acknowledge the reality of systemic racism. But systemic racism is a loaded term that has a very specific meaning today—it’s the idea that racism is baked into the very structure of our society, and any disparity in outcomes between people is due to oppressive social structures. There are many Christians who would not agree with Moore that this is a “truth” we should be lining up behind in order to salvage our cultural credibility. Again, if culture evaluates Christians negatively for not buying into the idea that disparate outcomes are necessarily the product of racist social structures, we can’t necessarily fix that reputation “problem.” The world will simply not always think well of us for what we believe or what we don’t.

Ironically, Moore himself is adding to the very reputation issue he is concerned about by suggesting to the watching world that Christians have thought or done wrong to get the reputation we have. Yet at least a couple of those things have more to do with the negative evaluation people have of legitimate Christian concerns than about actual failure to live faithfully.

It is right to be concerned with our witness to the world. We do want people to be attracted to Jesus through us. But that doesn’t mean we should try to manage our reputation, because there’s much involved we can’t control. Remember, Jesus said the world will hate us (John 15:18). We just want to be sure we’re disliked for the right reasons. If the world hates us because of the truth we share, that’s to be expected. If the world hates us because we’re acting like a bunch of ungodly jerks, may we feel the deepest conviction to repent of the ugliness we’ve brought to the name of the Lord.

The Christian Celebrity And The Psychopath

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

If you were looking for a completely trustworthy Christian apologist to follow, would you pick someone who had risen to the status of global celebrity because of his unparalleled ability to articulate the Gospel? Or would you gravitate toward someone who is a well-documented and self-confessed psychopath? The best choice is not as obvious as it might at first seem. In this case, I’d pick the psychopath. And I say that based on the advice of … the psychopath. But if that sounds strange to you, keep reading.

The Christian Celebrity

This past month we learned that the world-famous Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, led a double life. The ministry he founded, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM), has admitted as much. On one hand, Ravi was a gifted communicator of the Gospel. A deep thinker. He defended the faith with clarity and a wealth of experience he drew from an eclectic cultural background. He was the complete package. A man who could handle the most aggressive skeptic with humility, grace, and truth. He was a model apologist. The kind of person every defender of Christianity longs to emulate.

At least on the outside.

Behind closed doors, it turns out that Ravi was a pervert. An abuser of women. His creepy sexual proclivities have been exposed for the world to see. Ravi’s post-mortem fall from grace is sad. But it is also proof that the prophet Jeremiah was right when he wrote (Jeremiah 17:9) that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”

The Psychopath

Though not as popular as Ravi Zacharias, David Wood is also a phenomenal communicator. He is best known as the go-to guy on the subject of Islam. But there is way more to David Wood than that. Wood has a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion with a concentration on “the problem of evil.” He’s an expert on that subject too — mostly because he has lived his entire life as a psychopath. That’s not my opinion. It’s a clinical diagnosis. You can listen to his testimony about it here. The thirty-four minutes you spend doing so will blow your mind.

David Wood feels no emotion when his pets die or, for that matter, when his friends die. He admits to his struggles at being a husband and a father. In his words, he is a “screwed up individual.” He gives details for why he says that here (starting at the 30:30 time mark).

Wood tried to bludgeon his father to death with a ball-peen hammer. He served time in prison as a result. That’s where he met Randy, a fellow prisoner, and Christian who challenged him to answer questions. To think about the implications of his self-proclaimed atheism. Wood idolized reason and rationality. But Randy forced him to reason his way to the existence of objective morality — and to its Source. His story is a powerful example of why pursuing the truth should be our primary objective. It’s a reminder that Truth is found in Jesus of Nazareth … and only in Him.

Reacting To Ravi

The case of Ravi Zacharias has received a lot of press. Some of it comes from Ravi sycophants who deny the charges against him. People in that camp have to believe that multiple women around the world, all interviewed privately, have miraculously come up with identical descriptions of his methods and tastes. Continuing to believe that is just delusional.

Then there are the critics of Christianity who are weaponizing Ravi’s story. It’s just the latest iteration of the false argument which claims that hypocritical Christians render Christianity unbelievable. That’s ridiculous. As David Wood put it: “If you tell me that 2 + 2 = 4 and then punch me in the mouth, that shouldn’t make me doubt that 2 + 2 = 4. And if you tell me that 2 + 2 = 5 and then buy me a new car, that shouldn’t make me start believing that 2 + 2 = 5.”

The truth Ravi articulated is still the truth, even if it came out of the mouth of a diabolical sexual predator.

Those are the extremes. The more reasonable and predictable commentary has come from those who have given wise advice about personal and professional accountability. No one who claims to be a minister of the Gospel should ever have demanded the unchecked liberty Ravi Zacharias did. And no ministry leadership team should ever have allowed him to receive it. Both Ravi and RZIM are responsible for the consequences. The heart to which Jeremiah 17:9 refers lives in all of us. Even those who are Christian “celebrities.”

Contrasting Characters

Pride is a powerful drug. It allowed Ravi Zacharias to rationalize his own perversions. And he used the reach of his global ministry as justification for covering them up. After all, millions of people would be “disappointed” if the women he abused told the world what he was doing. Thus, the Christian celebrity spiraled deeper and deeper into a sewer of his own creation and never admitted he was drowning. No apologies. No remorse.

Meanwhile, the unemotional rationality of a psychopath led him to recognize his own vulnerability to the pitfalls of pride. In this case, at least, he is the one to trust. But in his wisdom, he knows better than to encourage us to trust him. Instead, his message is a word of warning: Don’t place your trust in any man.

The Unchanging Truth

Celebrity status has never been a measure of moral virtue. Ravi Zacharias is certainly not the first Christian celebrity to prove that point. And he won’t be the last.

Neither does being a sinner negate anyone’s capacity to know and live the truth … even if they’re a psychopath.

The lesson for all of us here is that the truth, goodness, and beauty of Christianity don’t reside in any human being. They rest only on the objective reality that is their Source — the character of God himself. Men will disappoint you. But the Truth doesn’t change.

And it never will.

How Religion Is Being Twisted to Support Political Agendas—Interview with Dr Frank Turek

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

Joshua Philipp of the Epoch Times recently interviewed me on how religion, particularly Christianity, is being twisted to support political agendas. Josh asks excellent questions in this wide-ranging interview that touches on abortion, transgenderism, same-sex marriage, the separation of church and state, legislating morality, socialism, LGBTQ goals and the equality act, Woke Christianity, the cancel culture, and more.

You may notice I’m identified in the video as the “President of Summit Ministries”. I’ve not taken over for my friend Jeff Myers at Summit! I was just representing Summit on this interview while Jeff was recovering from an illness.

Resurrection Defense Series: Embarrassing Details

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

We began an investigation into the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. When investigating any claim of history, whether recent or of antiquity, historians use historiographical tools to decipher the probability of the event in question. The criterion of embarrassment is one of the tools used by historians to determine the legitimacy of the claims presented. The logic behind the criterion is that writers will attempt to make their cause look as attractive as possible. If the presented event contains details that are embarrassing to the writer, the earliest leaders, the founder, or the cause; then it could be said that the event is authentic. Craig Evans writes, “This criterion is easily misunderstood. All it means is that material that potentially would have created awkwardness or embarrassment for the early church is not likely something that a Christian invented sometime after Easter. ‘Embarrassing’ sayings and actions are those that are known to reach back to the ministry of Jesus, and therefore, like it or not, they cannot be deleted from the Jesus data bank” (Evans 2006, 49). When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, numerous embarrassing details are discovered. Ten such embarrassing details will be presented in this article.

1. Women were the first eyewitnesses (John 20:11-18).

Seeing that this topic was the focus of the last article, not much will be said. For those who have not read the article, see the first part of this series. As a recap, the testimony of women did not hold the bearing that the testimony of men in the first century. Thus, if one is inventing a story, women would certainly not be used as the first witnesses. Yet all four Gospels note that it was the women, particularly Mary Magdalene, who first witnessed the risen Jesus. For this reason, the testimony of women serves as an embarrassing detail that speaks to the authenticity of the resurrection event.

2. The cowardice of the first disciples (Mark 15:40-41).

The women watched the crucifixion of Jesus from afar. They attended to the needs of Jesus up until the very end. However, the male disciples were nowhere to be found with the sole exception of John of Zebedee who was instructed to care for Mary, the mother of Jesus (John 19:26-27). Peter and the men ran and hid while it was the women who were brave and remained steadfast to Jesus. In the first century where male bravery was held in high esteem, it is unthinkable that this aspect of the Easter story would have been told unless it were, in fact, true.

3. The inability of the disciples to give Jesus a proper burial (John 19:38-42).

Proper burials were important to ancient Jews. Milton Fisher notes that “a society’s burial customs are a reflection of its spiritual views about death and the afterlife” (Fisher, 386). Failing to give a beloved person a proper burial negatively portrayed the value that the person/people placed on the dearly departed. It was Joseph of Arimathea, one of the members of the Sanhedrin, who gave Jesus a proper burial. A member of the very same Sanhedrin gave Jesus the burial that the disciples could not afford. This is incredibly embarrassing especially in an honor/shame culture found in the Middle East and Asian nations.

4. Doubt of the first eyewitnesses (Matt. 28:16-17).

After Jesus’s resurrection, the Evangelists (the Gospel writers) are honest about the doubts that some disciples hold. In the Gospel of John, Thomas is singled out and identified as one of those who doubted (John 20:24-25). Thomas is often ascribed with the title “Doubting Thomas.” This is unfortunate as Thomas demonstrated his faith by most likely giving his life. Good traditions suggest that Thomas was martyred for his faith by being speared in Mylapore, India on July 2, 72 AD. Even still, the Evangelists would not have reported the first witnesses’ doubt if it had not occurred.

5. The crucifixion is considered a curse (Deut. 21:23).

If a Jewish group was going to invent a movement, the last thing they would do is have their hero die on a cross. The book of Deuteronomy holds that any person who is hung from a tree is cursed (Deut. 21:23). An invented hero of Judaism crucified on a tree would not have been viewed as an admirable man, much less for one claimed to be the Messiah. For this reason, even the skeptical John Dominic Crossan states, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Crossan, 145).

6. Ignorance of the first disciples of the Scriptures (Luke 24:45-49).

If the age of social media has shown anything, it is that people do not like to be wrong. Furthermore, if they are wrong, they will most likely not broadcast that fact. However, the Evangelists often describe their need for Jesus to explain the Scriptures to them to explain why the things occurred as they did. The disciples anticipated a military hero like Judas Maccabeus. What they received was far from what was expected—he was even better!

7. James did not believe in Jesus during his earthly ministry (John 7:5).

Serving as one of Gary Habermas’s six minimal facts, James was radically transformed by the resurrection event. James, Jesus’s half-brother, served as the first pastor of the Jerusalem Church and was a notable figure in Judea. However, this early Christian leader was not originally a disciple of Jesus. John records that none of Jesus’s brothers and sisters believed in him during his earthly ministry (John 7:5). Furthermore, his family thought that Jesus was “out of his mind” (Mark 3:21) at one juncture. This is not something that a person would record unless it is grounded in some historical truth.

8. The Jewish leaders invented the story of the disciples stealing the body (Matt. 28:11-15).

The Gospel of Matthew records the fabrication of a story by the Jewish leadership. When the guards reported the events to the Jewish leaders, they told the guards to tell everyone that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. This is tremendously problematic. The Roman guards would have been executed if they had fallen asleep or permitted the disciples to steal Jesus’s body. Furthermore, there is little chance that the disciples could have overtaken a fully armed Roman guard which may have consisted of as many as sixteen soldiers. The recording of the story itself illustrates an embarrassing detail that finds merit in history.

9. Jesus’s anxiety in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:42-44).

Jesus was not presented as a hero heading to the cross with no fear or anxiety. Rather, the picture portrayed by the Evangelists is quite different. Jesus was extremely brave going to the cross as he did. Evidence from the geographical layout suggests that Jesus could have easily escaped the Garden of Gethsemane through the shroud of the night. He would have seen the soldiers coming from Jerusalem at a distance. Even still, the Evangelists report that Jesus was so anxious that he sweated great drops of blood (Luke 22:42-44). Hematidrosis is a rare medical condition in which the capillary blood vessels that feed the sweat glands burst under extreme fear and stress. Luke notes that the angels of the Lord came to minister to him before heading to trial. This would not have been recorded unless true as this story counters the hero legends of the day.

10. Peter’s denial of Jesus (Luke 22:54-62).

All three Synoptic Gospels record the betrayal of Simon Peter. Simon Peter was considered to be the first major leader of the Christian church after Jesus ascended to heaven. Nevertheless, the one and same Peter is shown to have denied that he even knew Jesus three times in the courtyard outside of where Jesus was tried. This is extremely embarrassing and would not have been documented unless it was grounded in historical truth.

Conclusion

The ten embarrassing details presented here only scratches the surface of what could be mentioned. Nonetheless, the Evangelists’ willingness to document stories that cast the earliest disciples, and sometimes even Jesus himself, in a bad light illustrates the value they placed on recording the biographies of Jesus accurately. Additionally, the resurrection of Jesus is not based on legendary and mythical data. Rather, it is grounded in historical facts, at least what the early disciples and Evangelists believed to be true.

Sources

Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1991.

Evans, Craig A. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers Grove: IVP, 2006.

Fisher, Milton C. “Burial, Burial Customs.” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988.

No God, No Justice

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Karsten Friske

The idea of protesting in an attempt to garner support to make a moral change is not new. With each movement, there exists a side that champions a series of issues and a counter-protest that opposes the change. In recent days, some have advocated for racial justice by marching to affirm the value of Black lives. Others are concerned about election integrity and the rule of law in that area. Both of these primary causes are attempting to evoke social reform and call for justice in the midst of perceived injustice. Yet, undergirding both of these cries for justice is an assumption that justice matters, that we as humans matter.

This may seem like I am stating the obvious, but the implications are buried and broad.

The fight for justice assumes that objective moral values (i.e, it is a good thing to be a firefighter) and obligations (i.e., if you see a house burning, you should call the fire department) actually exist. In other words, these moral obligations and values exist independent of subjective human opinion. If moral values and obligations were all subjective (such as your favorite genre of film), one is merely advocating for a personal preference. Yet, it seems absurd to suggest that Black lives only have subjective worth or that election integrity is a matter of preference.

It’s All Relative…Except When It Isn’t

However, in a world that increasingly follows a cultural philosophy of post-modernism and post-Christian thought, the consequences for such thinking tend to go unopposed. You may ask yourself, “what does it all really matter? People can do good things without a belief in God and can collectively make moral progress by reasoning together!”

Yes, people can do good things without ever affirming God’s existence. People can also join together and make a more just society without ever consulting Scripture. However, they cannot ground why these pursuits matter without an objective starting point.

In a world where subjective (relative) life goals and one’s own “truth” reigns supreme, there exists no room for objective meaning, purpose, truth, value, or even justice. Although this is done in the name of tolerance to prevent a violation of one’s own sovereign will, the implications are far more catastrophic than what it is trying to prevent.

In short, since nobody can be right in a relativistic framework, nobody can be wrong. If nobody can be wrong, there exists no basis to decry injustice or celebrate justice.

If all life is devoid of objective meaning, there is no difference between someone who fights for justice or works to suppress it. In the end, they are simply two groups of humans exerting energy over causes they feel deserve more attention. The signs they carry display words that demand a moral change in a world without the possibility of moral progress or absolutes. The causes that motivated protest are also just as insignificant as the people doing the marching.

The “Noble Lie”

As I hope you can see, the above worldview is incompatible with any activist or anyone who has ever felt wronged. It is for this reason that the proposed solution of a “noble lie” was introduced. In a nutshell, the view proposes that we all know life is meaningless, so we tell ourselves lies that everything we are interested in has some sort of significance, even though it ultimately does not.

The problem with the “noble lie” is that it promotes self-delusion and is self-defeating.

Remember, the problem that the “noble lie” supposedly solves is the incapability of living in a world without absolutes. Yet, it is proposed that we absolutely (or objectively) all create “noble lies” to live in the world. Furthermore, it is viewed by proponents as being “noble” or a benefit to society. How can we know it is noble when we have no ground on which to base what is noble and what is not??

This is the self-defeating web that is woven when one marches without a foundation.

So What’s The Solution?

First and foremost is to notice the great consequences these various views hold. With God, we have an objective basis for meaning, morality, truth, and justice, as these are all rooted in His nature. This is only heightened by looking at this whole problem from a Christian worldview where humans are made in the image of God and are of infinite worth. Moreover, the cross of Christ for the forgiveness of sin is open to all (old, young, rich, poor, and any color or creed).

Lastly, Christianity offers a solution to unpunished evil that occurs on Earth (remember, we have grounding to say something is evil in this worldview). God is the ultimate Judge to whom all are called to give an account. Some may choose to live what appears to be an ethical mantra of trying to “be a good person,” but these attempts are in vain.

Although they appear attainable in relation to other humans (such as comparing your sins to that of a serial killer), these aspirations soon fall short when matched to a Holy and Perfect God who is the standard of good. This is why salvation, offered through Jesus Christ as a result of His death on the cross, is a gift. It comes after surrendering a false hope in a subjective standard of good and humbly asking to receive the pardon of which none of us is worthy.

So to conclude, when calls for justice are given with an impassioned plea of “No justice, no peace!” it is my hope that the points raised here will remind you of the foundations needed to even argue for such justice. Additionally, I hope that the consequences of holding a purely relativistic or subjective worldview are clearer to you now than before your reading of this article.

Tag Archive for: Christianity

Did God Create a Mature Universe?

Can One Interpret the Creation Days to Be Literal and Consecutive While Rejecting Young Earth Creationism?

In the Beginning

Are the ‘Days’ of Genesis 1 Literal?

An Analogical Days Approach

Are the Days of Creation Chronologically Arranged?

Summary

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Importance of Recognizing Common Ground

The Image of God

Our Sinfulness

Christ’s Forgiveness

Our Fear

Our Questions and Doubts

Our Choice

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Two Types of Authority

Applying the Distinction

Scripture as an Epistemic Authority

Highest Epistemic Authority

A Final Consideration

Summary and Conclusion

Notes:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What Makes a Reputation?

When a Negative Reputation is Deserved

When There’s a Mistranslation

When There’s Accurate Understanding with Negative Evaluation

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Christian Celebrity

The Psychopath

Reacting To Ravi

Contrasting Characters

The Unchanging Truth

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Conclusion

Sources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

It’s All Relative…Except When It Isn’t

The “Noble Lie”

So What’s The Solution?

Recommended resources related to the topic: