Evangelization and the Age of the Earth

One of the innate problems in the study of the age of man, the earth, and the universe is that people who specialize in the exegesis of Scripture are forced to make informed statements about the universe, while experts in astronomy are expected to make informed statements about the interpretation of Scripture. In both cases it is an uphill climb to convince the experts in the field that your “amateur” interpretation of the evidence is correct against the obvious testimony of the data.

Young earth creationists claim the data for astronomy is not in the same class as the data from Scripture. The Bible is inspired by God and infallible. But old earth creationists will argue that God also inspired the creation of the cosmos and few would argue that the universe, at least at the time God created it, was anything less than perfect. The difference lies in the purpose of each. The purpose of Scripture is to faithfully bring the revelation of God in order that men may be saved. The revelation that comes from the universe is not able to save, and therefore, if sin corrupts the universe in some way, that does not affect our ability to know the truth and be saved. But no amount of sin will ever corrupt the Scriptures.

It would be inaccurate to equate creation with the Bible, not because God’s creation is flawed, but because Scripture assigns itself a place as God’s holy revelation that is unequaled by anything else. Creation tells us a lot about God and it is a reliable source, but it is not equal to Scripture, which alone is called “inspired.” Ross may go a little too far when he assigns creation a place right next to the Bible as God’s revelation of truth (this is one of the arguments Duncan and Hall make against Ross in The Genesis Debate), but evidence from creation should not be altogether ruled out in one’s interpretation of Scripture. Since God is the author of both, Scripture and the universe will never contradict each other. Thus Christians are left trying to reconcile science and the Bible.

A complete reconciliation is not necessary, however. If the Bible is incomplete in its revelation about any subject, so should our theology be. Scripture reveals more about the origins and makeup of the universe than most people realize, but it still reveals very little. It is not necessary for interpreters to explain everything about the universe from a Scriptural point of view. It is precisely for this reason that dogmatism about the age of the earth and of man is not appropriate. Young earth creationists should not feel compelled, at this time, to abandon their interpretation of Genesis 1-11, but neither should they ignore the discoveries being made in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, and the like. Each discipline should speak to the other until a consensus is reached. And this is taking place in some circles, as is the case with this article.

There are times when science can inform, and even change, our understanding of Scripture. In the 16th century, Copernicus postulated the theory that the sun was the center of the solar system, and that the planets revolve around it. Both the Catholic church and the Reformers initially rejected Copernicus’ new idea. Four years before Copernicus published his heliocentric theory, Martin Luther was asked what he thought about it. Referring to Joshua 10:12, he said, “This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.”

Luther should not be criticized for this remark. We should expect this type of response from one hears about a theory that contradicts his established beliefs. No one wants to be a wave turned and tossed by every new teaching that comes around the corner. We should not alter our interpretation of Scripture every time science suggests something we believe is wrong. But at some point scientific evidence becomes so overwhelming that the church has to go back and reinterpret Scripture. Today virtually no one interprets Josh 10:12 the way the Catholic church and the Reformers did in the 16th century, and the sole reason for the change is scientific discovery.

If the earth really is billions of years old, how convincing will the scientific proof have to be before the church accepts it and changes its interpretation of Genesis? We do not want to be as stubborn as the Catholic church, who did not apologize for its persecution of Galileo, who furthered Copernicus’ ideas, until the middle of the 20th century. But we also do not want to change our interpretation and then find out we were right in the first place. The evidence for an old earth will have to be so one-sided that it is in the same category as the heliocentric theory. Interestingly, if you ask astrophysicists today, they will likely tell you the evidence is in the same category of the heliocentric theory. Are they right? are we blind to the evidence because the church has always believed in a young earth? Perhaps they are overstating their confidence. There was nothing comparable to the theory of a mature universe to offer a competing interpretation to the heliocentric theory. But the confidence of the scientific community on this matter should not be ignored.

I am not suggesting we check the latest scientific theories before we interpret the Bible. But we should be prepared for what is coming in the future. If it is proven that the earth is billions of years old, young earth creationists should be ready for it. They can start by being more accepting of old earth creationists, especially since their interpretation can be useful to us. Why? Because there are a great many unbelievers who regard belief in a young earth to be as plausible as belief in a flat earth, and these people will regard young earth creationism as a stumblingblock to their acceptance of the gospel.

If informed unbelievers think Christians ignore the scientific data to cling to belief in a young earth, then why should they believe us when we say Jesus rose from the dead? But if they understand that young earth and old earth are both acceptable positions within the church, the stumblingblock is removed. Without adopting the old earth view, Christians who believe in a young earth can become more effective in evangelizing just by accepting the viability of the old earth view as a valid interpretation of Scripture.

This concludes my series on the age of the earth. Next, I plan to address issues related to John MacArthur’s book, Strange Fire, and Michael Brown’s response to it, Authentic Fire.

How Old Is Adam? Telescoping in the Genesis Genealogies

In my last article I presented the old earth creationist (OEC) interpretation of the days of Genesis 1. In this article I will present their interpretation of the Genesis genealogies.

The genealogies of Genesis, if read with strict, literal precision, suggest that Adam lived about 6,000 years ago. But scientific data suggest mankind began much longer ago than that, perhaps 60,000 years ago or more. To believe the inerrancy of the Bible, is it necessary to reject the scientific claim that man is more than 6,000-10,000 years old? Old earth creationists say, no. They point to a technique used in ancient genealogical reckoning called telescoping. Telescoping is when names are omitted from a genealogy.

That telescoping occurs in the Bible is not disputed. There are numerous examples of it in Scripture, but here is one from 2 Chronicles 22-26. Jehoram was the father of Ahaziah (22:1), Ahaziah is the father of Joash (22:11), Joash is the father of Amaziah (24:27), and Amaziah is the father of Uzziah (26:1). But Matthew 1:8 simply reads, “Jehoram the father of Uzziah.” The omission of three generations of kings in Matthew 1:8 is an example of telescoping. When you read Matthew’s genealogy, it is worthy of notice that there is no hint in the text to indicate such an omission is taking place. In fact, when Matthew emphasizes that there are exactly 14 generations from Abraham to David, from David to the exile, and from the exile to the Messiah, it suggests to modern readers that there can be no omissions or Matthew’s use of the number 14 is disingenuous. Evangelical scholars struggle mightily to vindicate Matthew and preserve biblical inerrancy.

No such scrambling is necessary. Matthew simply did not operate by the same rules we use today. Our requirement of technical precision was not shared by the biblical authors. Matthew is not alerting the reader to the precision of inclusion of every generation and using that as proof that Jesus is Messiah. He is simply structuring his genealogy in a way that permits the use of the number 14 throughout. That telescoping was used to produce this number is something an ancient reader would have assumed.

When we approach the Genesis text, we find that the number of names in the lists is also important. As John Millam notes, “the genealogy of Genesis 4:17-18 contains 7 names. The genealogies in Genesis 5:3-32; 11:10-26; and Ruth 4:18-22 all have 10 names each. The genealogy of the nations (Genesis 10:2-29; 1 Chronicles 1:5-23) contains 70 names” (Genesis Genealogies). The symmetry of these numbers strongly suggests telescoping.

But there is a significant difference between the Genesis genealogies and others where telescoping is obvious. The Genesis genealogies include the age of the patriarch when he became a father. This seems to exclude the possibility of telescoping. If Genesis 5:6 says “when Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh,” it seems there is no option but to believe Enosh was born when Seth was 105 years old.

This is where it is important to remember that the purpose of genealogies is not to give precise and complete lineages, but to establish ancestry. The goal of the genealogy here would be to establish that Enosh is a direct descendant of Seth. The Hebrew word for “father” can also mean grandfather or ancestor. Similarly, the word for “son” can mean grandson or descendant.

So how can Enosh be born later than Seth’s 105th year of life without the Bible being incorrect? The concept of telescoping focuses on the most important parts of a genealogy. If the complete record said, for example, John was 30 years old when he became the father of Bill, who was the father of James who was the father of Henry, telescoping would permit a recorder to shorten the record by eliminating some of the generations without altering the rest of the text. If the only names the recorder wants to focus on are John and Henry, then all the other names would simply be deleted, leaving us with, “John was 30 years old when he became the father of Henry.” The recorder would not feel free to alter the age of John; in fact, he might have no idea how old John was when Henry was born, if he was even alive at that time.

It also would not be necessary to omit the age of John because one’s age when he becomes a father was significant to ancient peoples. Old age was a sign of blessedness, and it is possible that becoming a father at an old age also signified blessedness, especially since it suggests long life. Millam notes that, “both the age at fatherhood and the age at death are certainly exceptional for all the individuals included in the Genesis genealogies” (Genesis Genealogies).

If telescoping is taking place between Seth and Enosh, then the text is saying that Seth is the ancestor of Enosh and Seth was 105 when he became a father. Moses is not trying to deceive anyone. He just is not trying to say what we assume he is saying. That is how OEC can read the Genesis genealogies and still argue for Adam being much older than 6,000 years.

Are they right? How old is Adam? We do not really know. But the point is, if scientific discoveries suggest man is 30,000-60,000 years old, there is no reason for that to cause stress in the biblical community. The Bible does not rule this out as a possibility. The lack of precision in the biblical accounts means science can get more specific without denying Scripture’s inerrancy, and conservative Christians have no reason to oppose science as if it were the enemy of the truth.

Sources
David G. Hagopian, ed. The Genesis Debate. Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001.

John Millam, The Genesis Genealogies, online article, Reasons to Believe, Jan 1, 2003. http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-genesis-genealogies, last accessed November 4, 2013.

The Appearance of Days Theory: Old-Earth Creationism’s Interpretation of Genesis 1

Young-earth creationists (YEC) reject the arguments of old-earth creationists (OEC) on the basis of biblical statements about the creation of the earth. Though there are numerous texts throughout Scripture that bear upon the subject, the greatest point of disagreement comes from Genesis 1. The first chapter in the Bible, claim YEC, contains all the evidence necessary to refute the OEC position. Is there a legitimate way to interpret Genesis 1 that would allow for earth to be billions of years old? Before we examine the OEC interpretation of Genesis 1 in order to answer that question, let us first lay out the basic YEC position in a nutshell. Of course, there are varieties of interpretation within the YEC and OEC communities, but the description below should fairly summarize the way the text is handled by some of the leaders of each group.

The Young-earth position
The text says that the universe and the earth were created in six literal days. Since man was created on the sixth day, and he has only been on the earth for thousands of years, the universe and the earth must be only thousands of years old. The plain meaning of the word for “day” (yom) is a 24- hour period. Thus the plain meaning of the text is that God created the heavens and the earth within a period of 144 consecutive hours. For those who contend that yom means anything other than a 24-hour period, the use of ordinal numbers (first, second, third, etc.) makes it clear that consecutive literal days are in view. If that is not clear enough for some, each day is marked by “evening and morning.” How can an evening and a morning take millions of years to transpire? And if that is not enough, Moses even interprets the days of Genesis 1 in Exodus 20:10-11, where he plainly identifies the six days of creation with the six day work week. Clearly, the use of “day” in Exodus 20:10-11 is to refer to 24-hour days. Creation, therefore, must have taken place in six literal days, which were “in the beginning,” only thousands of years ago.

The old-earth position
The OEC position acknowledges these features of the Genesis text, but interprets the days of Genesis 1 to refer not to 24-hour periods, but to long periods of time. According to OEC, each day of Genesis 1 represents a fixed period of time that has a beginning and an ending. Though each day is consecutive, there may be a period of time between each day, but if so, no creating took place in the interim periods. Creation only happened during the time spans of each creative day. The phrase, “there was evening and morning” is a figure of speech that means something to the effect of, “there was a beginning and an ending.” The numbering of the days indicates consecutive order and in no way invalidates the day-age interpretation.

Explanation of the OEC interpretation
On what basis do OEC’s interpret yom to mean “age” instead of “day”? Their argument is lexically sound. The word does not only mean “day,” but has a broader range of meaning that, according to some of the most trusted Hebrew lexicons in print, also includes “time” (Theological Wordbook, 1:370; BDB, 399), as in “time of harvest” (Prov 25:13). The word can even be translated “day” and still have the connotation of a fixed period of time much longer than 24 hours. For example, the “day of the Lord” (Amos 5:16, 18, 20; Isa 2:12; 13:6, 9; Joel 1:15; 2:1Zeph 1:7, 14; Mal 3:23) may refer to a period of years. In fact, in Genesis 2:4, just one verse after God blessed the seventh “day,” Moses refers to the entire creation period as a “day.” Here, right in the context of the creation account, is a use of yom that is more than a 24-hour period.

For this reason, to refer to “day” in Genesis 1 as an age or a long period of time does not constitute a metaphorical or figurative use of the word. It represents a literal rendering of yom because the word literally carries as one of its potential meanings the idea of a fixed period of time, often much longer than 24 hours. Many YEC’s misrepresent the OEC interpretation of yom as figurative, charging that such an interpretation opens the door to a non-literal interpretation of the rest of the chapter and even all of Genesis 1-11. Such a charge is a straw man argument.

In fact, yom is the only word Moses could have used to refer to an age. No other Hebrew word directly corresponds to our words, “age,” “era,” or “epoch.” while English has numerous words to reflect this idea, the only reasonable word choice Moses could have made to describe creation as taking place in six “ages” was yom.

To understand how an OEC can interpret yom as an age despite the use of ordinals and the term, “evening and morning,” consider the purpose of Moses (and therefore, of God) in writing Genesis 1 the way he did. It reads as it does partly because of its purposes for Sabbath teaching. Moses is not merely giving an account of how God created; he is, among other things, using this account as a paradigm for the Hebrew work week. The same man who wrote Genesis 1 also wrote Exodus 20:10-11. Knowing that God’s creative acts in the beginning were to serve as the paradigm for the work week, Moses used yom in a way that would carry the meaning of “age” while at the same time communicating the idea of days. He did this very effectively, and this explains why a phrase such as “evening and morning” is used. Numbering the days to six makes the correspondence unmistakable.

In short, the OEC argument states that Genesis 1 may look like literal days, but that is because modern readers do not fully understand the meaning and use of the Hebrew terms, and because Moses intentionally wrote in a way that would communicate the idea of literal days so that later Israelites would understand the creation week to be a paradigm for their six-day work week.

Assessment of the OEC interpretation
The strength of the OEC interpretation of Genesis 1 is its exegetical technique. This interpretation emphasizes the author’s intended purpose, makes careful examination of the lexical data, and fairly explains its relationship to Exodus 20:10-11. The methodology is not necessarily better than that of YEC, but if one is going to refute the OEC interpretation of Genesis 1, it will not come by criticizing their methodology. Nevertheless, the YEC interpretation seems more sound and more likely on the basis of the exegesis of the text. Using the same methodology, an interpretation of a literal six day creation emerges with less effort and maintains a smoother harmony with Exodus 20:10-11.

Therefore, despite the skill with which OEC interpreters exegete Genesis, the YEC interpretation is to be preferred at face value. But two important caveats are in order. First, the OEC interpretation is valid and legitimate, and may actually be the correct interpretation of the passage. It is only asserted here that it is less likely than the YEC interpretation. Second, face value is not all there is to the issue. An essential feature of the OEC position is that it is not based only on what Scripture says about creation, but also on creation itself. Hugh Ross states, “We build our day-age interpretation upon the conviction that we can trust God’s revelation in both the words of the Bible and the works of creation” (Genesis Debate, 123).

Conclusion
Probably the best young-earth interpretation of the universe is the mature creation theory, which posits that God created everything mature, so that it all looks as though it is billions of years old, when in fact it is only thousands of years old. Though some advocates of mature creation might balk at the term “appearance of age,” it is still true that this theory argues that the universe appears to be much older than it really is. On the other hand, the old-earth interpretation of Genesis 1 argues that at first glance it seems that God created in six days only a few thousand years ago, but in fact he did it over a span of billions of years.

We have then an interesting contrast between creation and Scripture. According to young-earth creationists, the universe has the appearance of age, but is really very young; according to old-earth creationists, the Bible describes creation in a way that makes it appear to be very young when in fact it is billions of years old. Thus young-earth creationists believe in an appearance of age for the universe, while old-earth creationists believe in an appearance of days in Genesis 1.

My next article will study some other Scriptural arguments about the age of the earth. In the final article I will weigh in on the question of to what degree, if any, scientific evidence should affect our exegesis of Scripture.

Sources:

Francis Brown. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1979

David G. Hagopian, ed. The Genesis Debate. Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001.

R. Laird Harris, ed. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody, 1980.