Having posted my initial reaction to Gordon J. Glover’s “Beyond the Firmament”, I find there is a lot I wish to reflect on. 

In my last book review, “Evidence for Creation“, I quoted an awful lot of the book.  I do not want to do Mr. Glover that disservice, because it may lead one to think that they only need to read my review, and not his book, and that would be a shame.

One of my own core beliefs is that Moses meant what he wrote, God meant him to write it, the Hebrews were meant to believe it… and so are we.  Mr. Glover believes the same thing.  The question is where to go from there.  He states….

The answer to this question is simple, but not obvious.  Rather than read Genesis with modern eyes, effectively transporting Moses to our time and forcing him to answer questions that we think are important — we should go back in time, and put ourselves at the foot of Mt. Sinai leaving our modern empirical sensibilities in the 21st century where they belong. — p. 11

He then spends time meticulously outlining exactly what the Hebrews most likely believed.  The historical evidence is well thought out and convincing.

Before I go on, I want to share one of my experiences, unsuccessfully debating Christianity with atheists. It was on the forum Debating Christianity.  Many learned atheists there (frequently ex-Christians) would site ancient legends and cosmogonies that both pre-date and foreshadow Genesis, hence “proving” (in their minds) that Genesis 1 was nothing more than a repackaging of what pagans and idolaters already believed.  Therefore, so the reasoning goes, Genesis 1 was not divinely inspired, and so God does not exist (or at least the foundation of Christianity is false).  I always found this troubling, but was not quite sure what they were missing; Paul exhorts us to be ready with a response, and I was not.  Don’t get me wrong, I argued back alright.  However, my argument was that somehow the pagan idolatrous cultures got some details right, probably because they were descended from Adam and Noah, who communed with God and likely passed on what they knew.  The argument was reasonable enough to get an atta-boy from a Christian brother, but weak enough to paint God as a helpless onlooker (which He is not).  The atheists would gloat; I walked away, having done my Lord no service.  In BTH however, Mr. Glover takes quite a different tack.

After describing the ancient beliefs of the world, called the Enuma Elish, Mr. Glover silently lets the reader make connections between the several phases of the ancient beliefs and the Genesis 1 narrative.  As for me, I was actively notating the pages, mapping the account to Genesis 1.  It was exactly what I had read from those educated atheists, but without the hostile bent toward shaking my faith.  The perspective I was gaining was God’s, as I see it, as He looked down on His chosen people, preparing to give Moses the Torah.  What was He going to do with them?

What happens next can almost seem like a letdown if we have any misguided expectations of a modern scientific treatise on the construction of the observable universe.  Rather than seize the opportunity to overturn the commonly held view of the universe which was riddled with technological and cosmological error, God seems to hi-jack the popular cosmogony and use it as a vehicle to set the theological record straight, leaving the cosmological record intact. — p. 63 (emphasis author’s)

What is refreshing about this perspective is that it provides a foundation for giving both natural and special revelation their rightful place, without endangering either, and without providing new doctrine (in my opinion — some might disagree).  Here is what I can now state as my own belief.  These points aren’t new to this blog, hiding in between the lines in some places, while imperfectly stated in others:

• I believe Genesis 1 is meant literally - I always believed that.  However, I must say that the literal intended meaning is not a scientifically accurate description of what God did.  It is a detailed description of what the Hebrews already believed, but with God put in His rightful place.  In other words, while not scientifically accurate, it wasn’t figurative either.  It was the theological truth of creation, simply written at their level.
• I believe Genesis 1 is not a scientific treatise - Moses had no foundation for writing one, and the Hebrews had no foundation for understanding one.  Had their understanding been more accurate, God would have used that.  If they had believed the universe the was a giant hat box, God would have used that.  The scientific details were not important.  The place of God in their lives was important.
• I believe Genesis 1 reflects physical reality, albeit unwittingly - While I do not believe the purpose of Genesis 1 is to teach Geocreationism, I still believe it is in there.  For example, there was a time when there was deep darkness, there was no land, and the waters above seemed indiscernible from the waters below.  I have documented on this blog the mainstream scientific evidence supporting it.  And that is just one example.  However, it is by God’s divine providence that such truth could be reflected in the scriptures, when it wasn’t His immediate intention to communicate it.  In some respect, it’s like Moses had one meaning in mind, and God had another.  But then, double-fulfillment in the scriptures is a common thing.  (Study Daniel and Isaiah if you want to see prophecies with both immediate and future purpose to them.)

The word “unwittingly” that I added to my last bullet above is the detail that I want to stress more within my writing.  I find it absolutely fascinating that every scientific tradition can appear rooted in Genesis 1, but I never thought modern discoveries mapped to it very well until I did my own research.  For example, Progressive Creationism requires overlapping Days, when a literal reading of Genesis prohibits it.  Theistic Evolution usually casts God as helpless onlooker when theologically speaking He was intimately involved.  Well, it turns out the science of Progressive Creationism was pointing to the original evolution of the species, when it should have been pointing to their recovery from the KT impact.  Then, the sequence of Days is preserved.  What a great testimony to our God, that He could use Moses’ own misconception of the universe to write something that so closely mirroring what scientists believe actually happened.

To summarize, as a reflection of the ancient of cosmogony, Genesis means exactly what it says, that the creation story of old must have God at its center.  As a scientific treatise, it falls short, because it describes a canopy that isn’t there, and gives the impression of 6 24-hour days.  In other words, the scientific record is clearly seen.  To see the scientific record, I have had to see God’s wisdom in providing the word Yom for describing a day (it’s definition is not “24-hours” but sundown to sundown).  To see the scientific record, I have to let God’s Creative pronouncements stand separately from Moses’ commentary (God’s pronouncements would allow the creation of many from the existence of a few; it’s Moses who suggests it was many out of nothing).  To see the scientific record, I have to ask what physical phenomenon would have an appearance that can be described in the ancient cosmogony (For example, why would the sun appear on Day 4 after not being visible on Day 3? Answer: more oxygen clearing up the atmosphere).  And the list goes on.

I pray about my understanding of Creation quite frequently.  I ask God the question “why” a lot.  After all, my own faith is not hinged on my understanding of Genesis, but I know that for many it’s a stumbling block, and this a topic about which God chooses to give me curiosity and answers.  But who am I, that He is mindful of me?  I only hope that my journey of understanding is one that will help at least one person out their to realize that when the enemy uses science to blot out their faith, Satan is using a truth to perpetuate a lie.  The truth is that the earth is Old and that God is glorious, and that He loved us enough to spend 14 billion years preparing the universe for us.  Our relatively insignificant time here is not proof that we do not matter… it is proof that we do.

I have documented on this blog a scriptural basis for seeing Jesus at Creation, and His involvement in it.  I stand by it, but I realize that I must soften some of my language.  I have historically sounded like the insights I write of was God’s own message.  I want to clarify that I do not believe that is true.  On the contrary, I agree with Mr. Glover, that God’s message on Creation is entirely theological, that the message was specially packaged to the ancient Hebrews in terms of the familiar views of origins and the cosmos, and so was neither historical nor scientific in any literal sense.

So, where does that leave me?  Not too far off from where I started, but clearer.  I believe that Genesis 1 contains a chronology and description that coincides with many discoveries of science.  You can read this blog in more detail to understand how that is, but please do not confuse this with Mr. Glover’s message.  In his book, he expresses reservations in trying to read between the lines anything more than a theological message expressed in the cosmogony of the time.  For that reason, I want to stress that the parallels I see between Genesis 1 and science were not the substance of God’s message to the Hebrews, and are only marginally important in comparison.  Still, the parallels I see in the scriptures remain (in my opinion), but that is something which I am now more equipped to address.

Another point I really appreciated is the necessity of not offering up Genesis 1 on the altar of scientific falsification.  Mr. Glover (perhaps he would let me call him Gordon?) is right on the money here, and it is something I am undoubtedly guilty of.  Now, I still believe that Days 1 to 6 map nicely to what we have discovered scientifically (though I map them in a possibly original fashion), but I also realize that I cannot “elevate” scripture to the point of scientific documentation.  After all, Genesis 1 can be interpreted to match essentially every scientific view of the earth that mankind has had.  On the other hand, the mappings I found were so conspicuous to me that I also cannot dismiss it.  I hope to write on this more in the future.

Despite the excellent focus and impressive research, there are a few aspects of the book that might detract from its effectiveness as a witnessing tool to Young Earth Creationists.  Perhaps that was not his focus, but I know a few YECs who would benefit from Mr. Glover’s research.  One possible detraction is the several grammatical omissions from the book.  As an engineer who writes frequent technical papers and training guides for my colleagues, I know how leaving out a word can seem careless and unprofessional.  Another observation is the many humorous remarks that could be taken as snide jabs against Young Earth Creationists.  Of course, I have unwittingly done the same in my own writing, so perhaps that is why it stood out.  Finally, I do not think Mr. Glover speaks to the layperson in the manner that he intends.  Don’t get me wrong, I think they can follow it, and I applaud his efforts at writing at the level he did.  However, it occasionally comes off like he is speaking down at them, and at other times his explanations are too wordy, where a picture would really help.  (Yet another tendency I have had to work on in myself)

Personally, I would like to see a more polished version of Mr. Glover’s book at some point in the future.  This could be a very useful witnessing tool to help give Young Earth Creationists a more healthy perspective on scripture… I am sure it already is for some, but for others I think the book’s tone will appear dismissive of their faith, when there is clearly (to me) no such intention of doing so. 

I hope no one will take my criticality the wrong way… I believe that being dispassionately critical of our brothers in Christ is how iron sharpens iron (which is not to say that I enjoy being sharpened myself!).  It was a pleasure to have read this book; I don’t want to see any barriers get in the way of its message. 

Bottom line: I recommend this book for anyone who has trouble drawing a sharp line between science and theology.  None of us know too much to learn more.

According to this report on North Korea’s destruction of its cooling tower:

McCain’s Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, used the breakthrough to stress “the importance of direct talks.'’ Obama, 46, has been criticized by McCain for proposing talks with Iran about its nuclear program.

“When we weren’t talking to North Korea, they were advancing their nuclear program,'’ Obama said in a Bloomberg Television interview.

This is doubtless a reference (in part) to Bush’s severance of diplomatic solutions to Iraq, before going in to remove Saddam from power.  It’s like saying, “See?  Talks worked in Korea.  Talks would have worked in Iraq, and I plan to show they will work in Iran.”  Unfortunately, this perspective demonstrates a lack of wisdom on Obama’s part.  You cannot have a one-size-fits-all diplomatic policy and expect success.  Anyone who thinks so should not be in charge of our national security.

Bush has shown wisdom (at least wisdom in surrounding himself with advisers wiser than himself) in keeping us safe from potential foreign threats (not in every area of course… his border policies continue to compromise our safety and sovereignty).  However, he has shown wisdom in using a variety of tactics in dealing with potential nuclear threats.  He attacked Iraq when it was clear to me that finding nothing was proof of nothing where Saddam was concerned… Hussein’s own top military men thought they had a nuclear program!  (Does anyone remember that?)  In fact, Suddam even said that he wanted us to think he was hiding a nuclear program (Does anyone remember that?) And even though there were no nuclear weapons to find, the amount of conventional weapons we did find was surprisingly enormous (again, does anyone remember that?).  Alas, people’s memories are short, and their opinions retrospectively critical.  And now, we have a democracy of Iraqis, grateful for our presence, with free elections, and killings at their lowest levels in recent history.  It seems to me that diplomacy would not have accomplished this (as proof, I submit the fact that during Clinton’s years of diplomacy, nothing close to this was accomplished).  Yet, we know Bush is not a a simple war monger, because he exercised diplomacy in Korea, and we see its fruit.  Different approaches for different situations.  Even if you disagree with his judgement, that’s leadership.

I will say it again: anyone who approaches every international problem the same way — whether it be talking to everyone without conditions, or bombing the heck out of all of our enemies – should not be in charge of our national security.  Don’t misunderstand me: I want a president with Obama’s energy, his compassion, his resolve… but not his naivete.  Leadership like his will get us killed, more surely than global warming.

One of the challenges of Genesis has been persuading people on what a Yom could mean.  Christians generally interpret it to be one of two possibilities: either its a 24-hour day, or its an arbitrarily long historical era.  Unfortunately, neither meaning is the definition of a Yom.  A Yom is delimited by 2 consecutive sunsets.  Of course, the time of sunset is from the perspective of the observer, and the only observers mentioned in a physical means are Jesus (Proverbs and the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1).  Therefore, I proposed that Jesus and the Holy Spirit stayed in the sunlight as long as it suited them, essentially defining for themselves the start and end of each creation day.  It is the only interpretation I am aware of that interprets Yom based on its dictionary definition, it just happens to allow for an earth of any age.  However, even this is not the riddle my title refers to.

Another challenge of Genesis is the time sequence of Days 5 and 6. If you look at the fossil record, you find animals from Day 6 appearing before the animals of Day 5… a distinct overlap.  In fact, if you look at the life forms that had to exist on Day 3 and 4 for plants to exist, it suggests Day 5 even overlapped Day 4 a bit.  Yet, Yoms do not overlap.  On the other hand, after the KT impact 65 million years ago, life recovered on earth and evolved into our modern forms in precisely the order recorded… first sealife and birds, then land mammals and man.  No overlap.  Yet, even this is not the riddle I refer to.

The riddle I refer to is actually a riddle that many people assume is there, but actually is not.  Consider these verses from Numbers 12:

6 And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. 7 Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. 8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”

I have stated elsewhere on this blog my belief that Moses was writing an eye witness account of the creation.  This verse does not prove it, but I think that my findings in secular scientific literature of physical phenomenon matching Moses description makes a pretty good case for it.  But these verses make one thing clear to me.  If I am correct, that Moses was recording an eye witness account of creation, and that account was God’s, then we know from these verses that God did not hold back his account.  He did not provide it in riddles or figures of speech.  God told Moses exactly what He said, and exactly what occurred, and then Moses recorded it the best that he could.  The fact that we see riddles in the account is not by God’s design, but because of our remoteness from Him, remoteness resulting from time, remoteness resulting from Moses’ humanity, remoteness resulting from our preconceived notions.  We are the ones remote from God, too remote to always or completely understand what it is God said, point blank, to Moses.

In the end, I realize this is not an argument for my particular view on creation, though it is to me a confirmation, because I found a scripture that confirms something I had concluded already… that Jesus did not present creation to Moses as a riddle.  However, it is an argument for something… that we not dismiss others’ interpretations of creation out of hand. Every person’s theory who believes in Jesus is trying to be faithful to Him, and I think we should treat each other that way.

8 And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying, 9 “Drink no wine or strong drink, you or your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations. 10 You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean, 11 and you are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes that the Lord has spoken to them by Moses.”

- - -

16 Now Moses diligently inquired about the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it was burned up! And he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the surviving sons of Aaron, saying, 17 “Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing most holy and has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? 18 Behold, its blood was not brought into the inner part of the sanctuary. You certainly ought to have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.” 19 And Aaron said to Moses, “Behold, today they have offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord, and yet such things as these have happened to me! If I had eaten the sin offering today, would the Lord have approved?” 20 And when Moses heard that, he approved.

First, I know I’ve read this scripture before, but it just never dawned on me that God ever talked to Aaron.  I always thought He talked to Moses.  But, choosing a priest that He would never talk to seems rather absurd to me suddenly.  Aaron must have really cleaned up his act from Exodus, where he helped forge the golden calf!  And verses 16 to 20 tell us the extent to which he cleaned it up!

I see a direct parallel between Aaron’s eating of the sin offering and the institution of communion.  I wonder if the apostles saw it, too.  I think they must have.

I have long asserted that whenever you see what appears to be a uniquely Christian institution or principle in the New Testament, it is likely to have been an Old Testament concept first… and eating the body of your sin offering is clearly an Old Testament concept!

“But wait a minute! Doesn’t that only apply to priests?  Communion is for everyone who is saved, not just for priests.”  True enough, but several times in Revelation, John describes the saved as priests:

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. — Rev. 1:6

You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth. — Rev. 5:10

Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. — Rev. 20:6

In other words, the role of priest, and their eating of the sin offering was foretelling the relationship with God that all people would one day have open to them.

Now, look back at Lev. 10:16-20.  Aaron refused to eat the sin offering because he did not believe it would please God, despite God’s command to do it… and he was right!

In Lev. 10:1-3, Aaron lost his sons, who died from their disobedience.  In verses 4-7, Aaron had to watch his sons’ dead bodies be carried away by his cousins Mishael and Elzaphan, who were now instructed to watch out for their own lives.  Next, in 8-11, God talked directly to Aaron, instructing him to refrain from wine and strong drink before entering the tent of meeting, lest he die.  Clearly, this was not a good day for Aaron.  He may have held his peace, as described in verse 3, but I think he was pretty nervous.  Whether he was not right with God in his heart, or was simply distracted, the fact is that he could not at that moment partake of the sin sacrifice with sincerity… and that is how seriously God wants us to take the partaking of communion.

As God was telling Aaron, wine is not there for us to be drunk in God’s presence. Why do you suppose, Aaron might want to be drunk?  I think the stress of his day explains that!  But later, Jesus would give that wine new meaning… it was (symbolically) His blood.  We are to drink it in remembrance of Him.  The unleavened bread, like the sin offering, is (symbolically) His body.  We are to eat it in remembrance of Him… but I believe that requires a right heart.  Without a right heart, it is mere obedience.  Aaron could have obeyed, but he understood the purpose of God’s instruction, and when he explained to Moses why he could not partake, Moses backed him up.  More importantly, so did God.  How do I know?

Beyond the fact that Jesus teaches us that it is the heart that God sees,  notice that Aaron’s “disobedience” (if you want to call it that) did not get him killed.  It certainly kept him out of a state of communion with the Lord, but then partaking of it would not have changed that.  Aaron needed his heart to be in the right place, and God honored that by letting him keep his life.  I have no doubt that Aaron eventually got to the place where he could eat of the sin offering with an attitude that would honor God. 

The next time you partake of communion, I invite you to examine yourself.  Examine your heart, and ask whether you are doing this because the people around are doing so.  Ask yourself if you are going through such a hard time that you simply cannot partake out of thankfulness; be honest, because God already knows.  This is not some law for you to follow, or an argument that improper partaking negates Christ’s sacrifice.  It is not to argue that God will burn you up or withhold His blessings from you.  I have taken communion because those around me were doing it, and I am still here, but I didn’t leave church that day aligned with Him.  I have also taken the bread and the wine (usually matzah and grape juice), and at the last second was given the right heart with which partake, a heart I didn’t have when the plate went by. 

Because only you know how your relationship with God works, these aren’t guidelines for whether to watch the plate pass; please take the wine and bread as it goes by.  Then pray.  This is an exhortation to, with the wine and bread in your had, examine your heart.  Give the concerns of that day, even that moment, over to God, and ask Him for the ability to partake communion with a heart of love, a heart of gratefulness, an inner attitude that would ultimately glorify Him, in memory of the loving sin offering He gave for you.  If after that prayer, you are not right, then refrain.  Make amends with those you need to.  Pray and fast if you must.  Read your scripture.  David probably wrote a Psalm about where you are at!

God has given you an action to do… communion.  But it isn’t that action that makes you right with God.  It is being right with God gives that action meaning.  God has given you grace.  Notice that God still spoke to Aaron; He will still speak to you.  Just listen.

Isn’t that exactly what many Christians think I am saying with that title?  That I do not believe the Bible?  You can bet it is.  As an Old Earth Creationist who believes that life has been on earth for billions of years, that dinosaurs were killed 65 million years ago, and that mankind was fearfully and wonderfully made, in part through their descent from animals, I have to accept that many of my Christian brothers and sisters believe that I have rejected the Bible and its clear teachings on sin and death.

AiG’s main thrust is NOT ‘young Earth’ as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively ‘young Earth’ (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator. — Ken Ham

Mr. Ham then goes on to describe how most people would read the Genesis account as a description of a 6-day creation, if not for their knowledge (brainwashing?) of science.  I count myself among those apparently unfortunate souls.

One of the examples of the Bible’s authority is its teachings on death.  If I may paraphrase, the idea is that through one man (Adam), death entered the world; through one Man (Jesus), death was conquered.  That’s it, and you know what? I believe it!  But, here’s the thing… I believe the Bible is referring to spiritual death, not physical.

Think about this.  If someone dies unsaved, where do they go?  They go to Heaven.  “Heaven?” you ask. Yes, but not to dwell… to be judged, and God will find them imperfect, and without an advocate.  They will then be sentenced to an eternity in Hell.  One might call this an eternal death, to contrast the eternal life that the repentent receive in Christ Jesus.  Did you notice something though?  The physical death of the unrepentent will be conquered… they will transcend it.  However, they will suffer for their sin with eternal separation from God… that is the death that we will not have to suffer, for when we die, we will not be separated from God ever again.

When Adam sinned, he suffered from a separation from God.  He was banished from the garden.  He had to farm the land.  He could no longer walk with God in the sense that he did before his fall.  God told Adam that on the day he ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam would surely die… yet he did not physically die.  On the other hand, his body did begin to decay but that merely leads to death; it is not death per se.  His real death was separation from God, and that happened on the day he ate the fruit, just as God foretold.

The thing that gets me about Christians like Ken Ham is that they do not seem to think that someone like me can believe what the Bible says and still have the views that we do… yet clearly I believe what the bible says or else my argument for what death Adam suffered would not have been based on the Bible.

“But you only believe that because you needed some way to justify your belief in an old earth.”  It would seem that way, but who can know the thoughts of a man but the spirit of the man within him? (1 Cor. 2:11) And I will tell you that I saw this picture of death in scripture long before I believed the earth was old… I just never made the argument because I trusted the Church to tell me what things in scripture mean, and figured that I must be wrong.  However, now that I have studied enough science to accept an old earth and enough Creation Science to reject a young earth, the science has confirmed for me what I beleived scripture was saying all along… the death that entered the world was a spiritual death, manifesting itself as separation from God.

“But what about physical death?  Didn’t God visit death upon people for their sin?”  He sure did, and continues to through this day.  However, not all death is punishment, and not all death is wrong.  In Why is there death and suffering?, Ken Ham points out that the first recorded physical death was God killing an animal to make clothes for Adam and Eve.  Why wasn’t that death wrong?  Isn’t that funny?  Of course, one could argue, and correctly so, that such a death would not have been necessary had Adam and Eve not sinned.  So, can’t you say this physical death is a consequence of sin?  I suppose so, but it was not a necessary consequence.  God could have snapped up an animal skin without ever killing one… but He didn’t.  In fact, He killed the animal to cover up Adam’s nakedness.  The first recorded death was therefore to cover up sin; it was an expression of holiness and not sin, for only holiness can cover sin.  Therefore, physical death, while often a response to sin, is not sin itself, lest Christ’s own death be in vein.

As a Christian, I occasionally find myself answering questions about the Mosaic law as it relates to our faith in Christ Jesus.  ”Why do Christians pick and choose which laws to follow?”  That’s a common one, which I addressed in detail many years before there were blogs, on my Israel Tour Bible Studies website (toward the bottom).  These days, many discussions involve practical application of the Law for Christians as it relates to our redeemed status, and this is what Exodus 22 to 24 addressed for me yesterday.

One reason the Law is even an even issue for me is that I am meeting more and more Christians who look to Jesus for their conduct.  What would Jesus do?  What did Jesus say to do?  On one hand that is awesome, for there is no better example to follow.  On the other hand, I believe Jesus’ life, as an example of proper conduct, is incomplete for a mere mortal.

The problem is that even while Jesus had a sinless life before His ministry, a life with a job, a home, a temple to attend, etc., that life is generally not recorded in scripture.  With the possible acception of when Mary and Joseph found Him in the Temple at 12 years old, it is only His ministry life that is detailed in the Gospels and elsewhere.  Of course, we all live out our own ministries whether we mean to or not, but that is not what I am referring to. It is the everyday life of provider, congregation member, voter, volunteer, and parent that Jesus provides no example for in the Gospels, though He surely lived many of them out before His ministry as Savior began.  How can we follow that example, when it is probably closer to our everyday life, yet wasn’t recorded?

Don’t get me wrong.  Jesus’ sermons and prayers provide a lot of theological and practical direction for our lives, and it is everything that God intended for Jesus to tell us in scripture.  Everything God wanted recorded in the Gospels was recorded… from four different perspectives even.  I am certainly not criticizing God for leaving out the practical example of Jesus’ pre-ministry life.  No, I have no real complaint to Him.  Rather, I am exhorting the Christian who fails to consider why this example was not recorded.  Let me again stress that God’s Word is complete.  Jesus’ example is complete.  The Gospels are complete.  However, the Christian who uses the Gospels as their sole source for their conduct will lead a life that is incomplete. 

Jesus addressed this in Matthew 5:17 when He said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” My studies on “picking and choosing” that I linked to above ultimately hinged on this verse, but I find it appropriate here as well.  What does it mean for Jesus to “fulfill” the law?  Well, in my Israel Tour studies I argued that fulfillment of a law comes when you obey it, or when punishment is meted out for disobeying it.  By taking our punishment for disobeying the law (or failing to live up to it), that law gets fulfilled for us for all time.  However, it does not remove God’s command to the Israelites and their descendents to obey them.

Christians see Christ’s fulfillment of the Law, and say “well you can’t unring that bell.  It’s done. I’m free from the law.”  True enough, but faith in Christ doesn’t unring the bell that God when He gave the law to Moses.  We basically live in within the lingering tones of two holy bells, bells which ring in harmony to each other, not two bells that cancel each other out.

Acknowledging that Jesus’ sacrifice did not cancel out the Mosaic Law is helpful for Jewish Christians who are looking for guidance in their lives.  God gave them the Mosaic law by which to live, and gave them a sacrifice in Jesus by which to make amends for those laws that society, circumstances, faith, and flesh prevent them from living up to.  Laws such as stoning, dietary restrictions, and working on the sabbath are laws that a Jewish Christian are likely not to live up to as they live out their faith, and Jesus has died for their shortcomings; no guilt there, just grace.  However, it is pretty hard to discard the 10 Commandments as well, and be living a life for God.  Worshipping other gods, murdering, and disrepecting your parents are pretty good indicators of someone who doesn’t live for God, and so there remains much of the law that a Jew should live out, even as a Christian.

What then of the gentile Christian, the Christian who was never given the law? the Christian who was redeemed by Christ’s blood, but was never given the Mosaic Law?  What about them?  Well, if they want to live like Christ, which they should, then they should look at the Mosaic Law as a guide book for how He lived.  After all, that’s what Jesus did.

Does this suddently oblige the Christian to live like an orthodox Jew?  Far from it!  Nearly every letter Paul wrote was to the early church that was trying to get gentiles to live as Jews.  Don’t be a Judaizer.  Don’t live like a Judaizer.  Avoid the Judaizers.  These themes pop up over and over agin in Paul’s writings.  Furthermore, Jesus gave us examples for practically applying the law when it appeared to conflict with our common sense regarding what is right.  For example, the Sabbath is holy, but life is more so.  Retaliation is just, but restraint is Godly.  The mistake is to conclude that therefore Christ did not live by the Law.  On the contrary, He not only lived under the Law, but He lived by the Law more perfectly than any Jew before Him or since, teaching us how to live out God’s ideals, without living by them in a legalistic sense that replaces God’s ideals with our own.  That is what Jesus did.

As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I will not hear you. Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger. Is it I whom they provoke? declares the LORD. Is it not themselves, to their own shame? Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: behold, my anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place, upon man and beast, upon the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground; it will burn and not be quenched. — Jer. 7:16-20

What shocked me the most is that God Jeremiah not to pray for them.  I thought I was supposed to pray for everyone, but He not to pray for them.  Interesting, huh?  and shocking.  Shouldn’t I always pray for a lost sheep?  Well, yes.  But, I think God was referring people who were no longer sheep.  God goes on in verses 27 to 29:

So you shall speak all these words to them, but they will not listen to you. You shall call to them, but they will not answer you. And you shall say to them, ‘This is the nation that did not obey the voice of the LORD their God, and did not accept discipline; truth has perished; it is cut off from their lips.

‘Cut off your hair and cast it away;
  raise a lamentation on the bare heights,
for the LORD has rejected and forsaken
  the generation of his wrath.’

Now, I am a firm believer in prayer.  I have been so amazed by God’s answers that I have even tried using that to witness to atheists, that they should try it.  When they do however, they are generally sarcastic in tone, but not always.  Sometimes they are sincere, but put requirements on God to act in an manner contrary to how He generally works.  I do not want to get diverted by going into details.  My point is that I have observed the biblical truth that people who are closed to God seek Him in a way that keeps them closed; they are not really seeking Him, because what they really seek is to put Him in a jar.

We all have a jar we want God to fit in.  I have mine, and God is too big for it.  So, my jar is empty, but my life is full of God.  The difference between me and a sincere atheist is that they refuse to look for God outside their jar… when it often turns out that He is standing right behind them.  And so it was with the pharaoh in Egypt.  God visited the pharaoah in his own house, and even when he finally acknowledged God, he still rejected Him, and this is where I see a connection with the Children of Israel in Jeremiah 7… the ones God told Jeremiah not to pray for.  Why do you suppose that is?  Well, this morning, I saw a detail that I had never noticed before.

In Exodus 4 it reads:

21 And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.” If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.’”

Notice the sequence: 1) God hardens pharaoh’s heart, 2) Moses speaks to him, 3) God plans to kill pharaoh’s first born son.

Now, there is no doubt that pharaoh was already going to reject God no matter what God did, but that is not the point.  The point is what pharaoh said later, in response to Moses’ visit to him:

6 The same day Pharaoh commanded the taskmasters of the people and their foremen, 7 “You shall no longer give the people straw to make bricks, as in the past; let them go and gather straw for themselves. 8 But the number of bricks that they made in the past you shall impose on them, you shall by no means reduce it, for they are idle. Therefore they cry, ‘Let us go and offer sacrifice to our God.’ 9 Let heavier work be laid on the men that they may labor at it and pay no regard to lying words.”

Notice the end of verse 9: “lying words”.  As a consequence of his hard heart, pharaoh called Moses’ words lies.

Is it possible that the more zealous atheists, such as Dawkins, have had their hearts hardened by God?  Is it possible that the their accusations against Christians and religion are a recoil effect against having God harden their hearts?  I am seriously considering that.  It makes me believe that the more militant atheists, the ones campaigning against God (the God in whom they don’t believe), are atheists by choice, but militant because of God.  In that case, we have two reasons not to pray for them.  One is that they are not simply “lost”, but they provoke God, like the Children of Israel described in Jeremiah 7. they The other is because are serving some purpose of God in these end times (a purpose they would surely resent, as did pharaoh when he finally realized it).  This does not make it sinful to pray for them of course, and God sees our hearts when we pray.  Also, God is not necessarily telling us not to pray for them.  It is quite possible the examples in scripture are isolated events, rather than general guidelines for us to apply, though personally I take them as clues to God’s general attitude about such things.

Personally, I see no need to pray for people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.  As much as I want them to be Christians, and to have a loving relationship with God, they truly appear to have hearts hardened by God.  They’re examples are so out there, and so extreme, that I believe they are serving a purpose of God in these end times.  I suspect that I will in fact still pray for them on occasion, out of compassion or sadness for them (no offense meant, on the off chance they ever read this)… but I see no obligation to pray for them if they fit the descriptions of pharaoh and Jeremiah 7.

I realize there are arguments to be made that Christ die for the sins of all men, and so we are to pray for all men, but every extreme position taken in scripture has another scripture showing us how to temper it.  The challenge is to live a life of absolutes, but not extremes, a subtle difference I think is lost on most people.  Understanding God is a balancing act, to be sure.

4:1 Then Moses answered, “But behold, they will not believe me or listen to my voice, for they will say, ‘The Lord did not appear to you.’” 2 The Lord said to him, “What is that in your hand?” He said, “A staff.” 3 And he said, “Throw it on the ground.” So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent, and Moses ran from it. 4 But the Lord said to Moses, “Put out your hand and catch it by the tail”—so he put out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand— 5 “that they may believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.” 6 Again, the Lord said to him, “Put your hand inside your cloak.” And he put his hand inside his cloak, and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous like snow. 7 Then God said, “Put your hand back inside your cloak.” So he put his hand back inside his cloak, and when he took it out, behold, it was restored like the rest of his flesh. 8 “If they will not believe you,” God said, “or listen to the first sign, they may believe the latter sign. 9 If they will not believe even these two signs or listen to your voice, you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground, and the water that you shall take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground.”

There were three signs that Moses was to show the Hebrews, to prove that he was truly God’s emissary.  Now, God has given me signs to show people when I have been sent to represent Him, but honestly, I think those signs were meant for Moses to see as much as for the Hebrews.  In the respect, those signs are for us as well.

The first thing I notice is that there were three signs.  Whenever I see God do something in 3’s, it is often a sign of the Trinity.  I am not sure that is the case here, but there is an interesting pattern to the three signs that I will discuss further down.  Hidden within the signs, could be hints of the Trinity, though it does not appear to be Trinity per se.

The first sign is the snake.  Moses was to throw down his staff, and it would become a snake.  Afterwards, he was to pick it up by the tail and it would become a staff again.  This strikes me as symbolic of Satan, who would later manifest himself as a serpent in the Garden of Eden within scripture (Genesis had not been written yet).  The sign was meant to demonstrate that God was with Moses, and if the symbolism was understood to mean the devil back then, then this could have demonstrated that Moses had been given some limited power to act over Him, as God’s emissary.  Whether it meant that to the Hebrews or not, it means that to me.  God’s power, flowing through me, will thwart the devil.

The next sign is the leprosy.  Leprosy is sign of being unclean, which is a frequent symbol of sin.  After Satan manifested himself as a snake in the Garden, sin entered the world.  But, notice that God acts through his emissaries to overcome sin.  That is a good reminder to me, when I feel helpless over my flesh; through Christ, all things are possible, even the conquering of my uncleanness before Him.

Finally, the last sign is blood… and here is something awesome.  Where the snake was defeated by picking it up by the tail, and the leprosy was removed, the blood was left covering the ground.  As such, Christ’s blood forever covers my sins.  The reason I believe this points to Jesus, and not to the sacrificial law is because God didn’t have Moses turn the blood back into water again, which would have represented a need for more blood later.  Animal sacrifices were repeated, where Christ’s sacrifice is once, and for all.  Hence, the blood was left.

I love the historical significance here: First man was tempted (the snake), then became sinful and unclean (the leprosy), then was covered by Christ’s blood (water to blood).  But is this also a sign of the Trinity?  Well, on this point, it could be stretch.  But, consider this: The snake in the garden showed man’s need for the Father’s protection.  The leprosy showed our need for the Son’s sacrifice.  The blood covering shows our need for the Holy Spirit, as we proceed as Christ’s emissary in all we do.

In other words, the signs given to Moses are not a representative of the Trinity per se, but our need for all three aspects of God’s Trinitarian nature: God the Father for protection, God the Son for redemption, God the Holy Spirit to guide our witness.  We cannot worship only one aspect of Him, but all three aspects, because God is One.  He is given His all to us; we owe no less to Him.  But no worries, and no pressure, for through Him, we can serve Him.

In The Humanity of Fossil Man, Glenn Morton reviews a series of uniquely human qualities for which evidence predating Homo Sapiens has been found.  This list includes: religion, building activities, music (100 kya), mining (110 kya), jewelry (110 kya), scalping (400 kya), tents (400 kya), weapons (400 kya), murder (400 kya), woodworking (750 kya), boat building (700 kya), fossil/mineral collecting (900 kya), tanning (1.0 mya), hunting (1.0 mya), fire (1.5 mya), art (1.6 mya), right-handedness (1.9 mya), language (2.0 mya), and stone tools (2.6 mya).  Now, none of these dates proves when the given quality actually arose, but merely the earliest time such evidence was recorded in a known fossil.  For example, if Noah goes back 5.5 mya, then so do Cain and Abel, and so does murder, even if the first murder recorded in a known fossil record occurred 400,000 years ago.  That said, of all of the human qualities listed above, the one that really grabs my attention is language.  The reason is because of what scripture tells us about some of the first usages of language.

Borrowing a play from the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) handbook, Genesis 2 records the first time a man named the animals, and Genesis 11 is the first time more than one language was ever spoken.  The reason this is so easy to believe for a YEC is because the earth was young in their mind.  Adam was the first man, and so the animals had no names; Noah’s descendants did not disperse until they tried building a tower to Heaven, and God confounded them with multiple languages.  Usually, an Old Earth Creationist (OEC) would discard such an interpretation, assuming these events to be regional and recent, even if mankind’s appearance is not.  However, suppose the scriptures are seriously telling us that animals had no names before Adam was born, and the world had only one language before the tower of babel was started.  Given the unlikelihood of these events occurring too long after mankind developed the capacity for language, we are left with several choices.  One is that the fossil record does not mean what it appears to; another is that Adam and the tower of Babel happened shortly after mankind obtained the ability to speak… but as we will see, the known fossil record suggests mankind could speak at least 2 million years ago.

To summarize Morton’s article above, the human brain is different than other mammals.  On the one hand, humans and other mammals have structures  in common within their “midbrain, diencephalon and limbic cortices,” which contribute to innate sounds such as “laughter, sobbing, groans, sighs, and shrieks.” On the other hand, it is the neocortical areas of the brain that humans alone use to speak.

Luckily the part of the brain which controls speech leave marks on the inside of the skull bones and thus are fossilized. We can examine the fossils and see when the earliest skull was which had those markings. These brain areas are Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area. The first appearance of these structures in a skull occurs 2.0 million years ago in the skull KNM-ER 1470. (Dean Falk, Braindance,(New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1992), p. 50)

Most anthropologists believe that mankind has been talking at least that long.

Recalling from Does “Full Humanity” Predate Homo Sapiens? (Part 2 - Neanderthals) that Neanderthals branched off from our ancestral line 600,000 years ago, this implies that they would most likely have had the capability for speech as well.  It is therefore not surprising that the neanderthal vocal tract (according to reconstruction studies) would have supported speech, and their cultural patterns are consistent with speech-capable societies as well. This is not to say that their speech capabilities are the same as homo sapiens, but that is not the point, as homo erectus appears to have similarly accommodating vocal tracts as well, suggesting both Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens inherited their vocal tract structures from a common ancestor.

Related to the development of speech is the development of right-handedness, as both are “associated with brain lateralization.”  Right-handedness can be determined from how a tool is made.  According to Morton, other mammals are just as likely to favor their right side as their left.  Hominids however show signs of being mostly right-handed very shortly after the first stone tools.  In conjunction with the appearance of the speech-oriented brain fossils dating back 2 million years ago, right-handedness dates back at least 1.9 million years… pretty close if you think about it.

Now, let us take this to the next level, and compare the science to the scriptures.  If one is to believe the scientific evidence, then homo was capable of actual speech, both physically and cognitively, at least 2 million years ago.  At the same time, if one assumes that Adam in fact was the first person to name the animals, then it would seem unlikely for them to have gone unnamed from 2 mya until 10,000 years ago.  One reasonable explanation is that God wasn’t having Adam name the animals for the first time.  Another is that Genesis 2 happened at least 2 million years ago.

Genesis 2:19 says that, “out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.”  This does not have to mean that there was no other name for them already; it could mean that God just wanted to see what Adam would call them.  Another reasonable explanation is the YECs are correct that this was a first, but are incorrect about when it happened.  If Adam was in fact the first person to name the animals, then the fossil record suggests it happened at least 2 million years ago.

If that isn’t convincing enough, then consider Genesis 11:

1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

 3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

 5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

 8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

This makes it seem unlikely that mankind would have gone very long without developing multiple languages naturally, implying this course shift in humanity occurred very early after speech capabilities evolved.  On the other hand, this could have simply been a local event, happening to a local population.  On the other other hand, a young humanity might only be local.  Once again, we are left with two reasonably logical conclusions.  The first is that the tower of babel happened at least 2 million years ago; the other is that a local event was written and translated in global-sounding terms.  Without committing position for myself, the bottom line is that the tower of babel may really go back to 2 million years ago or before.  Therefore, so might the flood.  Therefore, so might Adam.

One other sticking point is the technology with which the tower was built.  According to Wikipedia, the oldest known bricks date back to 7,500 B.C, and I am implying that mankind was building bricks millions of years ago.  Well, for this I appeal to God’s own intentions, as stated in verses 6 and 7.  His goal was to prevent mankind from accomplishing such feats as building a tower, at least for some extended time.  The logical conclusion is that God succeeded, and that mankind was therefore incapable of building such towers until around 9,500 years ago.  I will admit that I would need more research to back this up, but it is a biblical explanation.

In my next installment, I will explore the evidence for dating humanity even further back than 2 million years.  So far however, as I trace through Morton’s evidence, while I see no slam dunk, his arguments appear to be reasonable.