The people here are so evolved, so cultured. The generation before us wasn’t like this. Our ways are foreign. We are the new renaissance, or late Rome; either our flourishing or our destruction will reveal which. We are people of intellect and education, of philosophy and science and great passion. We work hard and we have even made drinking an art. We are so evolved. Surely, not even those living in Jesus’ time were as intelligent or cultured or capable as we are.
One of the greatest hangups for people considering the Christian faith is that popular science promotes a certain theory of origins and a certain theory concerning the earth's age and these theories do not seem to be corroborated by the text of Scripture. We know more now. We are too smart for empty religion. In fact, according to some, there doesn't seem to be a need for a divine, intellectual Creator at all. The creation story we have come to believe is different from the creation story given in that book sitting on the table with its color tabs and marginal notes. Is there really any claim against it that actually holds any validity whatsoever? The Creation story was the basis for the whole Law, and the Law was fulfilled in the person of Christ. The Creation story, then, is very important when considering the whole text of Scripture. If the Bible is wrong in its account of creation, there is no basis for the Law or Christ’s fulfillment of the Law. In all reality, the creation is my favorite part of the story that Scripture tells. Take a moment to pause and take another sip. Open up your Bible and read the first four chapters. Then we can continue our conversation. It’s important.
If age of the earth or theories concerning evolution are going to keep anyone from believing in the God of the Bible, then the Bible is going to have to be proven to give either an age for the earth or a process other than evolution by which God chose to bring about the existence of all creatures. What are you drinking, again? Twelve year, single malt? I’ll keep that in mind.
Age of the earth in the Bible is
presented by Creationists2 to be around 6,000 years. This figure is found by tracing the genealogies in the Bible back to Adam and Eve, but this is the only way that this figure can be derived according to the text of Scripture. There are some problems with arriving at this as an accurate figure, though. First of all, Scripture seems to be vague on the amount of time that passed between the beginning and the first day of creation on the earth (Gen. 1:1-3). Secondly, we simply do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. It seems to me that the only reason people have to count their age is because they are anticipating the end of life. There would have been no reason for Adam and Eve to anticipate the end of life if the world was perfect and death had not yet been earned. This, however, is only speculation on my part. It is a contemplation that can serve to create a question as to Adam and Eve’s true age. There does seem to be evidence that Adam and Eve were in the Garden for an extended period rather than only a short period. When we read Genesis 4, particularly verses 1 and 14-17, we see that by the time Cain murdered his brother there were not just other people on the earth, but other nations. Furthermore, we see that Cain was not classified specifically as Adam's first-born son. We might even consider the command that God gave people while in the Garden, namely to multiply and fill the earth. In a perfect state of existence, it seems unlikely that people would have been unable to fulfill God's command. It is more likely that, even while in the Garden, Adam and Eve would have done what married people do and that nations would have had time to develop even while Adam and Eve were in the Garden. These inductions are not provable claims. Most claims are not. This requires much time before the Fall and, consequently, means that we cannot simply follow the genealogies back to find the specific age of the earth if we expect to be accurate. In fact, that is a simple-minded way of dealing with the question of the earth’s age.
When the Hebrew text (the original text of the Old Testament) is observed, the six days of creation are missing a definite article. This is also true in Exodus 20:11, when Moses recorded the Sabbath Day as a requirement for the Jews. The 6 days of creation can be translated two different ways, then. First, they could be translated as, “The first day, the second day, etc...” Or, they could be translated as, “One day, on a second day, etc...” In fact, the only article is given for the seventh day and it was probably given to highlight the importance of the Sabbath Day or the Day of Rest. These translations, though they are both valid, have very different implications. One creates a necessity for a consecutive, literal 24 hour interpretation of the text. The other grants the opportunity to interpret the story in a non-consecutive manner, meaning Scripture is not precise on the exact timing of creation. We read wrongly when we read it as though its aim is to provide these details. Though it has been accepted historically as 6 literal and consecutive 24 hour periods, it just isn't that exact in the text of Scripture. We also might learn that just because something is accepted by a group of people does not make it correct. It also does not make it incorrect.
The simple answer is this: We have no idea how old the earth is, how long creation took, how long people were in the Garden, and how many people were on the earth at certain times according to Scripture. This answer simply is not given. It is not the Bible’s goal.
Most scientific models today
posit that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. That is much different than the 6,000 year claim! In fact, if I was convinced that science was beneficial I would be compelled to completely deny this book on the table if it actually genuinely led to a necessary belief in a 6,000 year old earth. The scientific number is gathered by radiocarbon dating space rocks that have fallen to the earth from beyond earth’s atmosphere, somewhere in the solar system. There are some reasons that we might question this figure as well. First of all, radiocarbon dating is inconsistent enough to question. I am not claiming here that radiocarbon dating is always a terrible method, simply that there have been enough inconsistencies to question its reliability. The 4.5 billion year figure also does not take Einstein's Theory of General Relativity or Quantum Theory into account. It has actually been discovered that objects with a greater mass have a greater gravitational pull on time. This means that there are some parts of the universe where time actually moves slower than it does in proximity to the earth. Weird! This makes it impossible to measure time across the distance of the universe and also makes it impossible to determine the rate of time at any moment in the past, especially the distant past.
Consequently, this means that any Big Bang model, beginning with one singularity at a near infinite density virtually stops any sort of discrete time. If time has no movement, then it is near impossible for any movement within time to develop. If our solar system is 4.5 billion years old and our universe much older, it’s existence is so miraculous that only the movement of time, let alone every other needed variable, would demand the existence of a Creator in the continuous realm of time to spread the mass of this singularity out enough that time could even be experienceable or that anything requiring discrete time can actually take place without time itself being virtually stopped by the gravitational pull of the early universe. Time as we experience it is a miracle. Age, then, is scientifically relative and nearly impossible to count in any regular or systematic way on a cosmic scale. It is one of science’s great limitations, but we don’t want to admit that. We are drunk on the knowledge that we perceive ourselves to have. Curse those who question what we have accepted!
In addition, there is a great darwinian bias that plagues popular science. Darwinian bias requires that people assign large spans of time because darwinian evolution requires time if it is in fact the process by which the many species were brought about. Because of this presupposition, popular science today looks for older ages rather than younger ages intentionally, which seems to be just a little closed-minded. Most people from most viewpoints are closed-minded in this way. Yes, even my evolved and cultured generation. Tell me again, why is it we’ve rejected the church? Bias.
Considering both viewpoints,
then, we might ask how old the earth actually is. The simple answer: We do not and cannot know for sure. Anyone who claims differently on either side proves not to pursue genuine knowledge. Since Scripture is so vague on the subject, there is no claim that can cause us, or anyone else, to doubt the validity of the Christian worldview. Christians are free to explore any claim while many materialistic scientists are forced to be closed-minded because of their own presuppositions (aren’t we all?). What was that science once said but has been forgotten? Oh, yes. Question everything.
God created all things
according to Scripture explicitly. Remember, though, the language in the text is not as exact or precise as we might like it to be concerning God’s cosmic timeframe. Because the language is inexact or imprecise, there have been a few different interpretations of the Creation account. The first being a literal, consecutive (also known as a Young Earth, but that is here a misnomer) interpretation where God literally produced creatures out of nothing by speaking them into existence. Now, the Bible seems to be clear that in the beginning God created, which means at some point God brought a discrete world into existence when there was no discrete world that previously existed, but Scripture seems to indicate that God used materials that where already present as He made the earthly creatures. Secondly, there is a literary framework interpretation where the first three days parallel the second three days and the days are used simply as a structure by which the creation story is told. In this view, the days are not seen as literal but intentionally structural in order that the story might be told in an understandable way. Third, there is the Day-Age Theory, where each day of creation is said to represent a vast amount of time in which these things were taking place. There is the Gap Theory, which posits gaps of time between the days. Not surprising, there are still more theories concerning the interpretation of the creation account. The primary observation I wish to make is that the Creation Account has not bound itself to a consecutive interpretation. Neither are any specific processes described within the Creation Account; only that God spoke and the result was creation. That scotch you are drinking. It was crafted at a small distillery in Scotland. You wouldn’t argue against the person who is telling you how it was made. So, Scripture tells us who created. That is its goal. We have the freedom to discover precisely how. I believe God wants us to. Why else would He create a discrete universe in which by looking at the stars we are looking into the past.
The only thing that we can deduce from the Creation Account is that it was God who did the creating and He created human kind in His image in order to rule over the rest of creation as His representative. Perhaps this is the entire point of the creation story anyway. Again, a specific mode is never described or even referenced. If we are to read the account for what it is, we still have to speculate or make an educated guess as to the “how” of creation. If we hold a genuine biblical worldview, then we are free to discover without fear.
The most popular scientific theories
are founded within the realm of darwinian evolution. Here, we should not make the mistake of thinking that any legitimate scientist has claimed any darwinian process to be fact, for there are several theories even within this realm and molecular processes present specific problems to every theory. The two most popular theories are the traditional (slow progress) and the punctuated theories. The traditional theory is still the theory being taught in most public schools and in the university even though many, if not most modern naturalistic scientists have moved from the traditional view to the punctuated view. Institutionalized education will usually be behind the latest discoveries in this way. The punctuated view claims that a great number of years pass and then there is a relatively short period of time where species are going through evolutionary changes. This is followed by a long period where species are, again, not going through evolutionary change. This does not require the fossil evidence that the traditional view demands, and is much more difficult to observe (in fact it is impossible). If it cannot be observed, then it must always remain unproved and in the realm of speculation.
Creationism is another popular view held primarily by the Christian scholars at the Institute of Creation Research. In this view, kinds were directly created by God distinct from one another. This view allows for speciation and changes within the genus. This, though, proves to have the same problems that the theories of evolution have, namely that the processes cannot be observed. Thus, this theory must also remain in the realm of speculation.
There is so much evidence (and I find this interesting) suggesting the presence of an intelligent creator, that prominent voices in the scientific world like Richard Dawkins even say that we may have been seeded by some type of intelligent, extraterrestrial lifeforms. His presuppositions lead him to say that these lifeforms would have themselves had to come about by some sort of darwinian means.
I have a small pepper garden…
When I planted the seeds, I desired to have them grow. I discovered that the soil needed to be fertile. That meant animal waste or decomposed organic material. Plants require animals to grow. Animals require plants to live. That is why no one can truly be vegan. Both animals and plants have to exist simultaneously for either to survive.
If many theories of evolution still exist, then it has not been observed and, therefore, cannot be proven. Similarly the Bible does not speak of the mode of human origin. William Lane Craig, a prominent apologist (that word seems familiar, what was I doing here again?), states approximately that if evolution were the mechanism by which the vast number of species were brought about, it would be so miraculous that it would require the existence of a creator. At the same time, if darwinian evolution is not the mechanism by which the vast number of species were brought about, the creation is so miraculous that it requires the existence of a creator. I experience this truth every time I enjoy one of my peppers. This means that neither God, nor His inspired word, can be disproved by any theory concerning human origin. In fact, every current origin argument demands the existence of a creator. As you drink your 12 year scotch, you experience this truth, too. That barley required fertilized soil. The very generation that has forsaken the body of Christ enjoys daily the fruit of Christ’s labor at the foundation of the world.
People are free
to discover without fear. In fact, we are encouraged to discover more about God through what He has made. God's existence has not and cannot be disproven by any theory concerning human origins or the age of the earth. If God cannot be proven or disproven by use of the scientific method, then the only way that we can know God is by His own revelation of Himself. If it is more reasonable to believe the Bible than to not believe the Bible, and the Bible claims to reveal God, then we are more reasonable to trust the Bible than to trust science or philosophy in order to know anything about God. Yet, we have thought too highly of ourselves because we believe that we are evolved and cultured, moreso than the previous generations. This is the new renaissance, but it’s just like the old.
Sip.
The Man in the Book
The man that this book is about was called a glutton and a drunkard because of the company He kept. Yeah, the whole book is about one man; you didn’t know? I think He would be here sitting with you, too. His name is Jesus. Did He actually physically exist on the earth? Is He merely a legendary figure? This question is a question that is not really considered by modern historians because evidence in favor of Jesus' existence is so definitive. So, we will briefly look at the evidence, know that we are reasonable in our belief that Jesus did physically exist, and then will move on to a more pressing question: Why does it matter?
That’s what you want to know, isn’t it? Why does this matter? What benefit is there if Christ was really present in the flesh? What gain is there under the ivory steeple?
Jesus’ earthly life
is presented to us in the Gospels. There we see both eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) and those who heard about Christ from eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke). These accounts are in this book, the one sitting on this table in front of us. The Gospel accounts (and the Bible as a whole) are most likely both authentic and reliable. In fact, the Bible is so engrained in and confirmed by history that if the Bible were to be removed as a valid historical resource, no work of antiquity could be considered a valid historical resource if we are to be consistent in our treatment of historical documents. Yes, I needed to repeat that. Jesus’ existence is also confirmed in the Roman historical record.
Josephus, who lived from A.D. 37- c. 100 (within a century of Jesus), was a Jew who recorded history for the Roman empire. He was not, by any indication, a follower of Jesus. In his Antiquities, Jesus is mentioned twice. One instance is questioned by most scholars (and myself) and so I will not quote it here. The other instance is most certainly written by Josephus' own hand for the purpose of Roman history. In Antiquities 20.9.1 Josephus described the death of James the Just, who was a half brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ. Not only do we have secular evidence of Jesus' earthly existence, but also that James was his half brother as it is described in the Biblical text.
There was another Roman historian who was not a Jew. His name was Tacitus. In his Annals (44:3), he described the crucifixion for the purpose of Roman history less than a century after the event. Again, Jesus is recorded in the secular history of the Roman Empire. Not only is it clear that Jesus existed, but also that Jesus was crucified. Once again we read the same story in the secular history of Rome that we read within the Gospels.
In A.D. 112, there was a Roman investigator by the name of Pliny the Younger. By this time, the Christian faith had become considered by Rome to be its own religion instead of a sect of Judaism. The Christian people refused to worship the Emperor as a god and so the Christian faith had been outlawed. Pliny the Younger wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan, who was having the group investigated. Here is what Pliny wrote as he described the meetings of the early church:
“They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”
Here we see in the secular history of Rome that, from early on, Jesus was worshipped as God and that those whose lives He impacted devoted themselves to a life of self-sacrifice. We also see that Jesus' life had a great impact not only on those who knew Him physically, but through the generations for years and years.
The evidence we see, then, suggests that Jesus did, in fact, exist. Not only did He exist, but He was worshipped as God from very early on. Christians from the start contented themselves to live lives of sacrifice, to love their enemies, to practice self denial, to tell the truth, to pay their debts, and to be good citizens (to be innocent in the eyes of the law of the state where it was possible). Again, not only did Jesus exist, but His life and ministry had an impact on many people through every generation.
The implications of the historical record are empowering. We are not reasonable to question Jesus' existence. Anyone who claims that Jesus did not exist simply has not taken the time to observe the historical record present in both the Gospels and in the secular Roman history.
This is life changing…
If the Bible is truly authentic and reliable, then Jesus, who most certainly existed physically, actually claimed to be God. Furthermore, the Biblical account is confirmed by the secular Roman history. Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. The Old Testament, which is also most likely authentic and reliable, repeatedly predicts the coming of a Messiah. Micah 5:2 declares that this king would be from antiquity and from eternity. Through the 1,400 year development of the Old Testament, the Messiah is constantly and consistently predicted. If any event that had been predicted for at least 1,400 years came to fruition and was accomplished by one person, that event and that person would be the most important event and person within and throughout all of history for us to consider.
It is my discovery, then, that Jesus not only existed, but seems to be the most important person in all of history because history is centered around Him and leads to Him. If anyone is to insist that Jesus' existence does not matter, he or she also insinuates that history does not matter. If we insist that history does not matter, then we also insinuate that the products of history do not matter. As I understand it, current cultures, worldviews, traditions, religions, scientific discoveries, and philosophies are all products of history. Therefore, to insist that Jesus' existence does not matter is to insist that nothing anyone believes or thinks in the contemporary age matters at all. It must be the case, then, that in order to reasonably hold any viewpoint, the life and ministry of Jesus must be considered. If it is not considered, we cannot arrive at our current conclusions with any degree of certainty. Why are we here, in this place talking to each other? This moment is a product of history. Our generation is a product of history. Just ask the two people who shacked up twenty-eight years ago, making it possible for me to be here drinking this bourbon today. All of history literally points to Jesus and figuratively screams the name of Jesus Christ. Our being here, your listening to what has become my seemingly endless monologue, is itself testimony to the reality of Christ.
We receive yet another empowering implication: Jesus' existence matters not only for the Christian, but for everyone. It is important for everyone, then, to examine the life of Jesus and decide for him or herself whether or not belief will be placed in Jesus as the Christ. Jesus claimed to be God. He claimed to be the Messiah and the Christ. John Duncan formulated a trilemma that was later used and popularized by C.S. Lewis:
“Christ either [1] deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or [2] He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or [3] He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable.”
It was impossible for Christ to have been just a good moral teacher. We cannot approach the historical existence of Jesus as if He was only a good example or merely gave good precepts by which we should live. In John 6:6-7, Peter states that Jesus is the only who has the keys of eternal life. If Jesus is who He claimed to be, then He is the most important historical figure of all time. Not only the Gospel, but also secular history, including the Jewish records and Roman records, seems to indicate that Jesus was who He claimed to be. Secular history confirms the story in the Gospels. Added to this, we see that Jesus still impacts billions of lives today. To say, then, that Jesus' life is unimportant is to blatantly ignore all of history. Christ Jesus is the only one who has the keys to eternal life. We cannot find eternal life through any worldly avenue no matter what other people promise us. Jesus is the only one.
In the context of church and of the Christian life, Jesus is not merely someone we talk about. He is the one person who means the difference between eternal life and eternal condemnation for us. This means that we must ask ourselves whether we have faith in Christ or not. Do we want Christ, or only the promises of the Christian faith? If we only want the promises of the Christian faith and do not place our faith in the person of Christ, we have placed our faith and our trust without purpose.
Charles Peace, a man who was on death row in England in the 1870's, was visited by a pastor and he had this to say:
“Sir, I do not share your faith. But if I did- if I believed what you say you believed- then although England were covered with broken glass from coast to coast, I would crawl the length and breadth of it on hand and knee and think the pain worthwhile, just to save a single soul.”
If the people in the church today truly believed what they claim to believe, there would be no sacrifice that was too great in order to reach just a single soul with the message of Christ. That, I fear, is what has made human religion worthless in the eyes of my generation. We claim Christ, but He is not really so important to us. I apologize.
“Excuse me, miss. Can I get a water to wash this down? Thanks.”