Jesus and the use of metaphor

Now we have dispensed with the flat earth claim I would like to address Jesus' ability to understand symbolism. The relevant part of Tilling's post was,

Had you asked [Jesus] if there was a literal Adam or Eve and serpent, I think he would have been puzzled by the 'literal' tag, but I suspect that if you had pressed him he would have said that he believes in a literal Adam and Eve (though I cannot prove these statements. I am making historical judgments, and I see no reason why he would not have believe these things – modern science did not develop for centuries. Though as noted, the whole metaphorical / scientific categorisation would have probably puzzled him).

This is not an issue of scientific knowledge, it is one of literal versus allegorical.

Jesus was familiar with the Old Testament besides Genesis. He frequently quoted Deuteronomy and mentions the prophets. The Old Testament had plenty of material that was understood to be figurative. In the book of Judges we read of Gideon's son Jotham telling his half brother Abimelech a story of the trees having a council:

The trees once went out to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, 'Reign over us.' But the olive tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my abundance, by which gods and men are honored, and go hold sway over the trees?' And the trees said to the fig tree, 'You come and reign over us.' But the fig tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit and go hold sway over the trees?' And the trees said to the vine, 'You come and reign over us.' But the vine said to them, 'Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?' Then all the trees said to the bramble, 'You come and reign over us.' And the bramble said to the trees, 'If in good faith you are anointing me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade, but if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.' (Judges 9)

This is more than a thousand years before Jesus yet these people understood fable. In fact trees seem to be a recurrent theme in the Old Testament with Joash sending a message to Amaziah concerning a cedar and a thistle (2 Kings 14, 2 Chronicles 25), and God informing Ezekiel about an eagle removing the upper twigs of a cedar to a different land (Ezekiel 17). Jesus certainly would have been familiar with these passages.

Moreover, Jesus frequently spoke in parables himself. He didn't just inform people of theological truths but made use of stories to illustrate these truths. Matthew adds,

All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable. (Matthew 13)

The parable of the sower is a good example. This parable uses symbols thru-out: sower, soil, birds, rocks, thorns, birds—all symbols of some other thing.

The clincher that Jesus both understood and affirmed the literalness of Adam and Eve is seen in his description of John the Baptist. The Old Testament closes with a prediction of God's visitation and his forerunner Elijah:

"Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me." (Malachi 3)

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes." (Malachi 4)

Now this could be interpreted as either Elijah returning (as he ascended to heaven in a whirlwind) or as a person coming in the ministry of Elijah. We are told it is the latter in the gospel of Luke; the fulfilment in the person of John the Baptist:

And [John] will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, (Luke 1)

Jesus affirms this,

As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written,

" 'Behold, I send my messenger before your face,/
who will prepare your way before you.'

Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. (Matthew 11)

Jesus applies Malachi 3 to John and Jesus specifies that John is Elijah. From this we can note that Jesus is perfectly able to understand that a passage can have figurative aspects to it. Jesus does not think that John is literally Elijah or that Malachi meant that Elijah would literally return. And Jesus thought this is even though several of his contemporaries thought that Elijah would literally return.

So when Jesus claims that Adam was a real person he is fully able to comprehend the difference between this and the concept that Adam fictitious person representative of humankind. He is able to understand whether the creation story is historical or mythological. This is not surprising as Genesis clearly historical narrative and Joash's story is clearly allegorical. Malachi may be more subtle but that is often the case with prophecy; that Jesus is aware of this subtlety demonstrates our thesis more strongly.

Did Jesus believe in a flat earth?

When responding to Tilling earlier, I indicated that as well as discussing the characterisation of knowledge I wanted to correct other false statements in his post. The 2 errors were the flat earth claim and the idea that metaphors would puzzle Jesus. Here I address the flat earth.

The flat earth claim probably is unfounded. That Christianity promoted a flat earth was in large a lie propagated by the likes of Andrew Dickson White in his anti-Christian polemics. Jeffery Burton Russell has discussed this in detail (summary here) and even an atheist site has acknowledged the false claims against the church. The latter's view of Christianity remains somewhat hostile.

The knowledge of the sphericity of the earth can be currently dated at least as early as ~500–600 BC in Greece. Pythagoras (~500 BC) and Aristotle (~350 BC) believed the earth was a sphere; though spherical claims may have easily predated this, especially in other regions. I am not aware of extant documents that inform us what other empires before Greece which include Persia, Babylon, and Egypt, thought of the earth's shape. I do dispute the claim that much of Hebrew theology and cosmology derives from Babylon; these ideas are partially based on (what I would consider) false synchronisms. Reviewing knowledge earlier than Egypt, we have Josephus claiming that Abraham introduced astronomy to the Egyptians. I doubt we have enough information to adequately judge Josephus' claim but the assumption of ignorance of the ancients is tired and likely reflects modernist arrogance. Even the events at Babel suggests that astronomy was a significant feature there.

Given that the Greeks knew the earth was a ball centuries before the Roman empire existed it is highly likely that the Roman world at the time of Christ believed in a spherical earth. The occasional theologian in the centuries after Jesus suggested a flat earth but this was the exception. Perhaps more commonly, opposition arose at times against the idea of the antipodes. One must be careful not to view this as evidence that the person was arguing for a flat earth. There were (false) reasons for arguing against men living on the other side of the earth unrelated to the shape of the earth. Men could hold to a spherical earth and disbelieve in either antipodean lands and/ or inhabitants.

The Bible makes very little comment of the shape and structure of the earth. Most of the passages referenced are poetical. Poetry frequently talks about real events and uses literal wording at times. However features of poetry include the frequent use of symbolism and metaphor. When reading poetry it is important to understand the point being illustrated, not insist on the literal meaning of the underlying wording. If a poem uses a phrase that is intended to be literal or does indeed coincide with reality then it is not unreasonable to use the passage as support that the author understood this particular concept. It is not valid, however, to force literalism on a poetical passage. This is also true with the use of metaphor in prose, though this is generally more obvious.

In summary we have documentary evidence for the knowledge of a spherical earth for more the last 2500 years and it was common knowledge at the time of Christ. The idea of a flat earth has never been seriously held by the majority of people since before the time of Christ and the medieval flat earth myth was invented by infidels in their attempt to discredit the church.

Giving up claim to your life

Churches frequently ask that people offer up their whole selves for Jesus. Jesus should get all of us and we should not hold back any part of our lives; Jesus is Lord over all.

I agree with this. My view of Christianity is one of an exchange of lives: my life for Jesus' life. He died for my sins, I live his life at his direction; it is no longer mine to own, including all my decisions. I do have mixed feelings about this approach however. In reality this is a very difficult thing to do. And to make a promise to God you think you are likely to fail on does not seem wise. So while this is what God wants of us, I am probably more likely to ask that God changes me that this may be my desire, or that as I grow I may give more and more to him. It is not that I necessarily want to hold back aspects (though at times perhaps), rather that I do.

I also am aware that others who have offered their whole selves to God, and meant it, and acted on it, have seen God work powerfully in their lives. I believe Charles Finney went through a process of giving all to God before his ministry. And I suspect Rhys Howells was in a similar position though I have not read his biography. Others have given God something important that represents all, or at least a lot, of themselves. Keith Green offered God his music knowing he may not get it back. So a quick comment about giving Jesus all in a music break does not do justice to the magnitude of this decision.

While I would not have married my wife without God giving me the go ahead and his approval, I do think I put her on the altar prior to that point: yet God still asks more of me than I give.

Perhaps it is an event for some people, perhaps it is process where we hand over more and more, perhaps it is both.

My pastor once said that he did not think the Christian walk got easier in terms of our faith in God, that we always can grow and God will give us ever more opportunities to trust him in ways that we have not done so before.

Which introduces the lyrics to a song that focuses on this aspect of faith:

Take my life and let it be

Fran­ces R. Ha­ver­gal (1836–1879)

Take my life, and let it be consecrated, Lord, to Thee.
Take my moments and my days; let them flow in ceaseless praise.
Take my hands, and let them move at the impulse of Thy love.
Take my feet, and let them be swift and beautiful for Thee.

Take my voice, and let me sing always, only, for my King.
Take my lips, and let them be filled with messages from Thee.
Take my silver and my gold; not a mite would I withhold.
Take my intellect, and use every power as Thou shalt choose.

Take my will, and make it Thine; it shall be no longer mine.
Take my heart, it is Thine own; it shall be Thy royal throne.
Take my love, my Lord, I pour at Thy feet its treasure store.
Take myself, and I will be ever, only, all for Thee.

Random quote

No sciences are better attested than the religion of the Bible.

Isaac Newton (1643–1727)

(Note that by the word "sciences" Newton may have meant what we mean by "knowledge")

Did it rain before the flood?

I don't know that a definitive answer to this question is given in the Bible but it remains an interesting question.

Some have postulated men mocked Noah about a coming flood because they had never seen rain. Others have pointed to the rainbow covenant in Genesis 9 as a suggestion that rain was a new phenomenon, else rainbows would have been seen previously. The existence of rain suggests the existence of rainbows.

God spoke to the Flood survivors saying,

This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.

But the promise of the rainbow does not mean that rainbows had not been seen previously. The rainbow is the sign of the covenant. As other commentators have noted, bread represents Christ in the Eucharist, yet bread pre-dated this. Jesus gave new meaning to the bread in this context. It is possible that God gave meaning to the rainbow.

Nevertheless there is at least some suggestion that the rainbow was new.

In Genesis 2 it informs us that the ground was watered by a mist or spring.

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist [or spring] was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—

Prior to the Fall there was no rain, the hydrologic cycle was much gentler than the system we encounter today. The rain may have started after the creation of man, though I can think of no reason for this begin. A better case could be made for after the Fall given the cosmological consequences of Adam's sin. Much changed at that time when we see the introduction of death into the world. Are there were mountains pre-Flood though likely of lesser size than the post-Flood ranges that we observe.

And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. (Gen 7)

If the highest mountains were covered by nearly 7 m of water they would not have been as high as they are now. There is plenty of water to cover a uniform earth to a significant depth, just not 8,000 m.

Mountains have an effect on the weather and their presence is one of the causes of rain.

If the world was essentially 1 continent before a peri-Flood break up then the movement of the ocean currents and the consequences of such would have been different in the antediluvian world.

And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. (Gen 1)

If the waters are predominantly in one place—the seas, then the land would likely be in one place. Of course some of the water was over the land in forms of streams, rivers, mists and springs.

There is also the suggestion that even seasons are a post flood phenomenon, they are first mentioned following the Flood. While creating God said,

Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth. (Gen 1)

While this is a reasonable translation and is one followed by most versions, the word translated season is mow`ed, and it could be argued that the translators are reading their post-Flood assumptions into the translation. Mow`ed occurs 223 times in the Bible and is seldom translated season: 13 times in the KJV, once in the NET. The meaning appears to be related to appointment, whether that be time or place. So in Genesis the sense would be appointed times; seasons if they existed, but possibly months or years, or the general sense of maintaining a calendar for whatever reason (eg. festivals). The word usually used for season is the word for time (`eth). That it is not used here suggests an emphasis on appointed times. It seems a reasonable translation is:

Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs for (appointed) times, and for days and for years,...

The first mention of seasons explicitly is immediately following the Flood. After Noah offers a sacrifice God says,

While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease. (Gen 8)

It is very possible that it rained before the Flood. That rain occurred at the time of the Flood and the mention of the rainbow as a sign certainly does not preclude it. However other passages suggest that the pre-Fall and very possibly the pre-Flood climate did not experience the current hydrologic cycle of rain (and snow). Pre-Flood we have:

• Ground watered by mist or spring
• A single continent of land
• A landscape with hills or small mountains
• No mention of specific seasons

What did Jesus know? Part 2

In my previous post I posited 4 categories which we can reasonably split the concept of knowledge into (there are others such as mathematical/ logical but this is unnecessary for our purposes here):

• History
• Future events
  
• General facts
  
• Personal thoughts
  

Of these, men usually only have access to 2 categories: history, if it has been documented; and general facts, if they have been discovered.

Men in general do not know the other 2 categories. Future events can only be known by God and those whom he chooses to reveal them to. Personal thoughts are only known to the man who has them and those to whom he reveals his thoughts; as well as God and those whom God chooses to reveal them.

Therefore discussion about whether Jesus knows facts concerning Joe Future is irrelevant to whether he knows historical events and whether he believes them. Now I happen to think that Jesus did not know every future event during his sojourn on earth. He knew a lot because the Father revealed it to him. Further, he could easily have known about Michael, Chris and James in the same way he knew about the way Peter was to die—revelation. But being human limited his ability to know everything in the universe at that time. And even if he did not give thought to every person he redeemed as he died on the cross, he certainly did in heaven before the incarnation and does so now.

Jesus' opinion about Genesis is not so much a question of knowledge in general but the knowledge of historical events and general facts (though predominantly history). Did Jesus concede to the worldview of the day and the documents of the past? If he was taught false belief the Father was able to correct him, whether the Father did so a further question. We need to deal with history versus myth and fact versus pseudofacts.

Dealing with factual knowledge first: I am not certain that many of the beliefs of the ancients were incorrect. What needs to be remembered is incomplete knowledge is not false knowledge. Further, an alternative classification scheme is neither incomplete nor false, it is just different. Examples of these:

• Thinking we need to breathe air to survive is incomplete knowledge, thinking that oxygen is the component of air required for respiration is more complete knowledge.
• Categorising animals based on locomotion or habitat is correct knowledge even though moderns prefer to use a more complete body plan for classification. (This is type of knowledge is always true because it involves making definitions).
  
• Thinking maggots spontaneously generate from the essence of rotten food is incorrect knowledge.

Not knowing something and deferring an opinion till more information is available is not incorrect knowledge.

It is my suspicion that much of the ancients' factual knowledge was correct, even if, at times, it was incomplete. One could find several ancient ideas that were incorrect, however I suspect they would predominantly be amongst the speculations of the philosophers of the age. The reason for this is that most factual knowledge is merely observation, and the ancients were perfectly able to do as such. Errors are more likely to creep in where the gaps in knowledge were unobservable and speculation was made. Of course men are free to refrain from speculation and acknowledge ignorance. I do not see evidence in Scripture that Jesus held to false views of the world.

When considering history it matters if the history recorded is indeed accurate; and if not, is it inappropriately accepted, or dismissed for suspicion of error. That Jesus held to the truth of Scripture is easily provable. Whenever Jesus references Scriptures that record historical events he clearly believes they accurately describe reality.

Evidence that Jesus thought the biblical narrative reflected reality is seen in 2 ways in which Jesus interacted with it.

Firstly, Jesus' claims are based on the truth of the historical record. That Jesus' contemporaries will be judged harshly is based on the fact that Jonah was a real prophet and the Ninevites really repented. Examples could be extended to other historical personages such as Abel, Abraham and Zechariah. The form of Jesus' argument is based on the activities of these people really happening.

Secondly, Jesus affirms the truth of Scripture. Claims like,

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,... (Joh 5)

presuppose that Scripture is a reliable witness. More striking is how Jesus states that Scripture itself can prove men are in error:

Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? (Mar 12)

When we suggest that Jesus falsely believed the historical nature of the Bible because of cultural considerations we both invalidate the premises on which Jesus corrects error, and deny his claim that Scripture is the arbiter of truth. If we destroy the premises our options become:

• Jesus' comments were based on the incorrect views of the day therefore we can disregard them, or
• we believe Jesus conclusions even though they were based on faulty logic

That the Father revealed the heart of Nathanael to Jesus yet did not inform him that parts of the Bible were untrue, or that passages that Jesus assumed were literal for his argument were in fact metaphorical, seems to stretch credibility.

What did Jesus know? Part 1

Chris Tilling blogged on his journey from creationist to evolutionist. He was challenged about the fact that Jesus believed claimed the creation narratives were historical. So the question arises how does one reconcile this with an evolutionary perspective if one also is a Christian. A solution proposed is that Jesus could be wrong. Tilling's entry is worth reading in its entirety to garner his perspective though I will only quote part of it.

Jesus' worldview was in so many ways that of other 1^st century Palestinian Jews. Had you asked him if the earth was flat, he would have almost certainly said 'yes' (cf. here on James' blog). Had you asked him if there was a literal Adam or Eve and serpent, I think he would have been puzzled by the 'literal' tag, but I suspect that if you had pressed him he would have said that he believes in a literal Adam and Eve (though I cannot prove these statements. I am making historical judgments, and I see no reason why he would not have believe these things – modern science did not develop for centuries. Though as noted, the whole metaphorical / scientific categorisation would have probably puzzled him). This is why, had you time travelled and asked 1^st century Jesus to tell us about Michael or Chris or James, he would not have turned around and said 'Oh yes, Michael/Chris/James will be born in almost 2,000 years from now', and then proceeded to tell the details of your life to Peter and the disciples. He wouldn't have had a clue about you or me as he was fully human.

My concern with these types of responses is that they fail to grasp the various aspects of what they are discussing. Here we have several types of knowledge presented and a discussion of 1 type used as an example of another without consideration of the validity. Further there is lack of processing of the solution to all the corollaries. There are also false statements that need to be corrected.

There are 3 types of knowledge discussed in this example.

There is historical knowledge. This is information about the past that was recorded so it was accessible to people. The people who were aware of it knew these claims existed. They could believe them or disbelieve them but they are aware of the claims. That Jesus points to Adam and Eve to illustrate marriage means that he was aware of the Edenic narrative and it is clear that he agreed with it.

There is generalised knowledge about facts. The structure of the universe. The sphericity of the earth. The anatomy of a platypus. The flight path of the albatross. These facts exist but our knowledge of them increases as we investigate the world. If these facts have been discovered an individual can potentially know them, if they have not been discovered then men do not know them. One could ask Jesus how avian lungs work and short of revelation from the Father he likely would say he did not know. It is possible that being asked whether the world was flat or spherical he would respond that he did not know, if it was the case that Jesus did not know. I am not so certain however people at the time did not know.

Then there is knowledge about the future. One could consider this similar to the first category: history that is yet to be revealed. Other than educated guesses, there is no way for any mortal to have this knowledge. Jesus as man did not know these facts other than revelation from the Father. As part of becoming man there were aspects of the divinity that were not available to him in the same way. That Jesus did not know some things is evident by his statement that he did not know the exact date of his return:

But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mar 13)

Interestingly Jesus was actually aware of many things in this category. Being close to the Father he was informed of much in the future such as the Olivet discourse and contemporary events that he would not have yet heard about such as Lazarus' death.

This divine knowledge extended to knowledge of the hearts of men. This was current rather than future knowledge, but only accessible to those thinking the thoughts. Jesus did not need the testimony of man because he knew what was in a man:

Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man. (Joh 2)

Bible glasses

Young Earth Creationism claims that the world is about 6000 years old and God created it in 6 24-hour days. Geology is interpreted as being in a large part due to Noah's flood. These views are held because it is claimed that the meaning of the Bible, especially Genesis, demands this chronological interpretation and that the Noachian deluge was global in its extent. There is good grammatical reason to assert this belief. And I see few difficulties with scientific data finding it more compatible with this belief than biological or stellar evolution.

While my initial creationist beliefs were strengthened thru scientific evidences, my conviction is probably stronger now because of biblical considerations. Not because the science is less convincing than the biblical evidence but because philosophically I think that truth is more firmly grounded in Scripture.

This change to a more biblical approach has been quite helpful. When I was younger I wondered how the Bible could be reconciled with secular evidences, especially archaeological "facts" that pre-date creation, ie. are "older" than 6000 years. This "problem" is actually more acute as these "facts" only need to pre-date the Flood to cause a dilemma given the Flood's removal of antediluvian artefacts. This led to ideas like favouring the Septuagint chronology because it "gives more time." My approach now is, "How can secular claims be reconciled with Scripture?" The Bible is assumed to be true and contrary claims are treated with scepticism.

This is actually quite reasonable. Why should every secular interpretation be held up as the standard that the Bible is judged by? Especially given that these interpretations change, are inconsistent with each other, and often derive from an anti-biblical bias. Further, the Bible has been vindicated multiple times, and its documentation of the failings of its heroes points even more so to its authenticity.

The Flood was approximately 4500 years ago. Any claim for artefacts that pre-date this I assume is incorrect. I assume some bias by the claimants, even if it is not revealed. And I think that the true solution will be compatible with the biblical record.

This is my default position. I think that God intended for Scripture to be a true description of reality: historical, moral and prophetic. It is not exhaustive for sure, but correct in what it does assert.

Is this a biased approach? Definitely. But all approaches are biased. Do I base my bias on the pride of men or on the revelation of the true God? The secular bias is very real. It assumes that its foundations are firm, that Middle East dating should be based a reconstructed Egyptian dating, that any ancient historical text should have precedence over the Bible. All of these assumptions are based in the ideas of men and there are even good non-biblical reasons to reject them.

It is astonishing how much of what we read and hear has this bias. Claims about history are especially affected by secular assumptions. These secular biases are frequently present in study Bibles which give a multitude of unlikely synchronisms, conservative reasoning based on underlying liberal theology, wrong assumptions about the the origins of monotheism. I think it is prudent to hold secular historical claims and several other factual claims very tentatively.

And there is a need for developing a completely biblically based history and chronology thru which all claims, historical, archaeological, and others, can be filtered.

Biblical versus scientific creationism

Henry Morris makes an interesting distinction between scientific creationism, biblical creationism, and scientific biblical creationism.

His definitions state that scientific creationism is based on scientific data within a broad creation claim, biblical creationism defends a creation based solely on Scripture, and scientific biblical creationism is the development of the creation model based on Scripture and science.

I was a little suspicious of this when I started the article but on completion I think there may be some merit to this way of thinking. The systems are not contradictory but rather complementary as can be seen by the amalgamation of the first 2 systems in the 3rd.

Here is a summary of Morris' principles of the systems.

Scientific Creationism

What can be known about the universe thru scientific endeavour—general revelation.

1. The physical universe was created.
2. The biological universal was created.
3. The biosphere was created in bounded kinds and adaptions are neutral or information losing.
4. Humans were created and have an added spiritual component.
5. Catastrophism rather than uniformitarianism explains geology.
6. Natural laws dictate the scientific method.
7. Physical and biological structures are deteriorating.
8. An originally perfect and now deteriorating universe implies divine purpose.
9. Humans can investigate manifestations of the divine in the material world.

Biblical Creationism

What can be known about the universe thru biblical study—special revelation.

1. The creator of the universe is the triune God.
2. The Bible is divinely inspired and true in all domains it touches on.
3. The world was created in 6 days.
4. Adam had dominion over the earth; the Fall cursed that dominion.
5. The Flood and confusion of languages are historical.
6. Alienation of man from God can only be rectified by God, and that in Christ.
7. God will restore creation in the future and give life to those who accept him and death to those who reject him.
8. Jesus will return and remove the Curse.
9. Men should subdue the earth and proclaim Christ.

I am not certain I would choose these specific items or group them this way, but it shows some of what can be known by general revelation and what is added with special revelation. Further, additional ground can be made by marrying the specific to the general: we have much greater insight when it is clear that not only is geology catastrophic (general revelation), most of it was due to a single event over about 1 year (special revelation).

It is also apparent that general revelation is subservient to special revelation. For example if the world was made in 6 days this is not obtainable from scientific endeavour. Even if science can teach us much, such as fixity of kinds and that creation must have been over a short period (symbiosis and ecology), it cannot teach us a 6 day creation. But this information is obtainable thru revelation from the creator who made the world.

Biblical priority is real. Believing this can alter our perspective, which it the topic of my next post.

Random quote

Breezy, self-confident Christians tell us how wonderful it is to accept Christ and then have a good time all the rest of your life; the Lord won't demand anything of you. Yes, He will, my friend! The Lord will demand everything of you. And when you give it all up to Him, He may bless it and hand it back, but on the other hand He may not. . . .

A. W. Tozer

To whom God reveals himself

There is an interesting comment by God at the time that he slays Aaron's sons for unauthorised offering (strange/foreign fire).

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the LORD has said, 'Among those who are near me I will show myself holy, and before all the people I will be glorified.'" And Aaron held his peace. (Lev 10)

There are 2 other situations that somewhat parallel this one. The slaying of Uzzah for touching the Ark of the Covenant (2 Samuel 6) and the slaying of Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5). In the Nadab episode God makes interesting statement,

Among those who are near me I will show myself holy, and before all the people I will be glorified.

It is uncertain whether the first clause should be translated

Among those who are near me I will be treated as holy

as per LXX, NASB, ESV and NEB; or

Among those who are near me I will show myself holy

as per NIV, NRSV, NLT, and NET.

If the former then Nadab and Abihu were in a position of closeness by the nature of their position as priests, in which case God killed them for not treating him as holy. If the latter then God revealed his holiness in his judgment of their disobedience.

Now consider the implication of the latter interpretation. Those who are close to God will see God's holiness and that by God's revelation. But to all men God will still make his glory known. Everyone will see the glory of the Lord. Those close to him will experience his holiness.

Among those who are near me I will show myself holy,
and before all the people I will be glorified.

The phrase is a parallelism. In which case the former interpretation may be the preferable translation and the second clause is expanding on the first.

Among those who are near me I will be treated as holy,
and before all the people I will be glorified.

Textual problems with a Wednesday crucifixion

Thanks for the responses Mark Call and Starwind. I wish to respond to some of the issues raised. To be clear, I don't think there are any real issues with a Friday crucifixion. Sans the 3 days and 3 nights passage, there is nothing in the other passages that would contradict this interpretation. Given that I think that "3 days and 3 nights" is an idiom, this fits a Friday crucifixion also.

If we propose a Wednesday crucifixion we strike some difficulties. I think these difficulties are great enough to refute it. The issues are:

• Other Sabbaths
• Friday activities
• Duration of death
• Discontinuity
• The phrase "on the 3rd day"

The reconstructed view is to allow 72 hours in the tomb. It is proposed that Jesus died late Wednesday, that he is buried about the time of dusk (new day starting) and rose at dusk at the end of the Sabbath on Saturday. This proposal is consistent with some verses, for example several of the passages referenced by Art Kohl in his article Is it "Palm Sunday, Good Friday and Easter Sunday?" Or, "Palm Friday, Good Wednesday and Easter Saturday?". However it does seem to contradict several passages that are not referenced. It is not so much whether one can defend his position with several verses but rather does the interpretation do justice to the entirety of relevant Scripture.

Other Sabbaths

Are there other days referred to as Sabbath other than the 7th day? I am open to this possibility. Leviticus 25 refers to a Sabbath of years. The concept of 6 days work and 1 day rest is paralleled in 6 years and 1 year implying the land "works" in growing food and gets "rest" every 7th year. I have yet to be convinced this is the case for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. In Leviticus 23 we read

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the LORD that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts.

"6 days shall work be done, but on the 7th day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the LORD in all your dwelling places.

"These are the appointed feasts of the LORD, the holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at the time appointed for them. In the 1st month, on the 14th day of the month at twilight, is the LORD’s Passover. And on the 15th day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; for 7 days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the 1st day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall not do any ordinary work. But you shall present a food offering to the LORD for 7 days. On the 7th day is a holy convocation; you shall not do any ordinary work."

Here God is introducing his holy convocations. These are the weekly Sabbath (7th day) and 1st day of Unleavened Bread and the 7th day of Unleavened Bread. Later in the chapter it identifies several other holy convocations: the 50th day of the Feast of Weeks (always the 1st day of the week), the Day of Trumpets (1st day of the 7th month), the 1st day of the Feast of Booths (15th day of the 7th month) and the day after the Feast of Booths (22nd day of the 7th month). So we have several days during the major feasts and every Sabbath (7th) day all labelled holy convocations. This however does not imply that holy convocations are all called "Sabbaths." Dogs are animals, birds are animals, but birds are not dogs. I have not identified the word "Sabbath" used other than for the 7th day, the analogy to years excepted, though I would be interested to be pointed to any.

Friday activities

Assuming that Jesus was crucified on the Wednesday and Wednesday dusk thru Thursday was a special Sabbath what happened on the Friday? The women went to the tomb to wrap Jesus' body in spices on the 1st day of the week. They would have done this on the Friday. That they did not is a strong argument against a Wednesday crucifixion.

Duration of death

While minor, if Jesus' specification of 3 days and 3 nights means 72 hours, why is this counted from his burial and not his death? If the starting point is his death, which it should be, he would have risen prior to the Sabbath, not as the Sabbath was beginning.

Discontinuity

Part of the problem I have with the reconstructed view is that there is no explanation of multiple Sabbaths in the gospel narratives. Luke likely wrote to a Gentile who may not be familiar with the intricacies of special Sabbaths. Why not explain this? even in minor detail. And should not all the days be mentioned? It reads like a continuous narrative and yet there is no mention of the Friday and what happened on that day.

The phrase "on the 3rd day"

The meaning of "after 3 days" can reasonably be interpreted to mean during day 3. The phrase "on the 3rd day" can not reasonably be interpreted to mean on the 4th day after 3 whole days have been completed. Further, the guards were to be placed until the 3rd day which, at the most, could mean until the Saturday and they would not be expected to still be there on Sunday morning.

As mentioned the reconstructed view is an attempt to allow 72 hours in the tomb based on an unnecessary, excessive literalism of an idiom—I don't deny that the phrase is somewhat literal: it means days and not months, years, or an unspecified time period. In doing so the reconstructed view solves one "problem" at the expense of creating many. A Wednesday crucifixion is untenable based on other passages that discuss the crucifixion.

It is not the passages that are consistent with a reconstructed view I am interested in, these are non discriminatory as the traditional view is consistent with them also. It is the problematic passages I am interested in. How does one understand these passages within the reconstructed view?

April fool's gags

The Museum of Hoaxes lists the 100 best April fool's hoaxes of all time. It also has the 10 worse which are somewhat distressing. My favourite (though I have yet to read them all) was the discovery of a new fundamental particle: the bigon.

#37: Discovery of the Bigon In 1996 Discover Magazine reported on the discovery by physicists of a new fundamental particle of matter. This particle, dubbed the Bigon, could only be coaxed into existence for mere millionths of a second, but amazingly, when it did materialize it was the size of a bowling ball. Physicist Albert Manque and his colleagues accidentally found the particle when a computer connected to one of their vacuum-tube experiments exploded. Video analysis of the explosion revealed the Bigon hovering over the computer for a fraction of a second. Manque theorized that the Bigon might be responsible for a host of other unexplained phenomena such as ball lightning, sinking souffles, and spontaneous human combustion. Discover received huge amounts of mail in response to the story.

Very amusing!

3 days and 3 nights

How do we resolve this phrase with the other verses we have examined?

It is an idiom.

This may sound like an unusual position for a young earth creationist. However my hermeneutic seeks to understand Scripture in a straightforward manner which means that I am not a literalist or a symbolist but rather try to interpret what the passage is actually saying in context. The relevant passages are:

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you." But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. (Mat 12:38-41)

An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah." So he left them and departed. (Mat 16:4)

And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish 3 days and 3 nights. (Jon 1:17)

Looking at the 2 passages in Matthew it is clear that the sign of Jesus' Messiahhood parallels the sign of Jonah. And Jesus condemns them for failing to recognise him noting that the Ninevites repented at the message of a lesser person. This suggests that the sign of Jonah was that he had been swallowed by a great sea creature yet lived to speak of it. It is as if Jonah had come back from the dead and indeed Jonah uses the metaphor of Sheol (Hades) for his predicament.

"I called out to the LORD, out of my distress,/
and he answered me;/
out of the belly of Sheol I cried,/
and you heard my voice. (Jon 2:2)

So the focus of the argument is that Jesus will parallel Jonah's experience which is the sign. And they should repent as Jesus is greater than Jonah. The passage in Jonah says 3 days and 3 nights so Jesus quotes this and then applies it to himself.

The days and nights are literal, the association with day and night means the day is literal and the association with a number means the days are literal, but the phrase can encompass less than a whole day. We have:

• 1 day(time) and 1 night meaning 1 (revolution) day (or part thereof)
• 2 day(time)s and 2 nights meaning 2 (revolution) days (or part thereof)
• 3 day(time)s and 3 nights meaning 3 (revolution) days (or part thereof)

The phrase is "day and night" with the number mentioned twice for emphasis.

Consider the phrase:

For in 7 days I will send rain on the earth 40 days and 40 nights,... (Gen 7:4)

The emphasis is not on the fact it will rain for precisely 960 hours. It is on the continuous nature. The 7 refers to revolutional days, the 40 refers to daytime days. God could say, "...I will send rain on the earth 40 (revolutional) days,..." it means the same thing. But by saying day and night it is saying that the rain will come continually—even during the nighttime!

The other data we have previously examined states that Jesus was raised on the 3rd day with specific details that

• Jesus died on Preparation day (1st day)
• which was followed by the Sabbath day—7th weekday (2nd day)
• then he rose on the following day—1st weekday (3rd day)

Combining this with an understanding that "x days and x nights" is an idiom meaning x revolutional days (or part thereof) with emphasis on daytime and nighttime, we see that all the texts are compatible and justice is done to every biblical, chronological record of the crucifixion.

How many days in the tomb?

The traditional understanding is that Jesus was crucified on the Friday and rose on the Sunday. Based on Jesus statement of 3 days and 3 nights some have argued that Jesus was dead for 72 hours, dying Wednesday at sundown and rising Saturday at sundown (which would be at the end of the Sabbath).

Clarity is needed on how days are recorded. Jews at the time of Jesus counted days from sundown to sundown, so at dusk on a Friday the next day would begin, being their Sabbath. The West follows a midnight to midnight reckoning of days with midnight being the mid point between 2 noons and noon being when the sun is at its zenith (though there are some modifications to this).

The points to resolve are:

• Day of crucifixion
• Sabbath day and any intervening days
• Day of resurrection
• Number of days in the tomb

I would like to tackle the days in reverse order. In general I will not be quoting Scriptures already mentioned in the previous few posts.

Day of resurrection

There is little room for movement here. Several passages clearly state the Jesus rose on the 1st day of the week. This occurred before dawn as the women arrived at the tomb before dawn and Jesus had already risen. Jesus could have risen any time from the end of the Sabbath at dusk the previous evening till near dawn. We are not told exactly when (I favour early in the morning) but there is no disagreement between the schools of thought on the specific day here.

Sabbath

The day before the 1st day of the week must be the 7th. This is the Sabbath day. At least some of the verses discussing the Sabbath are referring to the normal weekly Sabbath as they specify that it came prior to the 1st day.

• Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the 1st day of the week,... (Mat 28:1)
• When the Sabbath was past,... very early on the 1st day of the week,... (Mar 16:1-2)
• On the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment. But on the 1st day of the week, at early dawn,... (Luk 23:56-24:1)

The only way further days can be included is if there are more "Sabbaths" prior to the 7th day. Chuck Missler argues for this in an article titled, The Day of Debt. He claims that the Jews had other "Sabbaths" including the 1st day of Unleavened Bread which was to start on Nisan 15. The references he gives for this argument are Exodus 12:16; Leviticus 23:5-7 and Numbers 28:17. These verses are discussing regulations for the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread but none of them actually say that the 1st day of Unleavened Bread is a "Sabbath." Further, the feast was to last 7 days so any "Sabbath" would likely be at the end of the 7 days not the beginning.

What further complicates matters is that there is disagreement over whether the last supper occurred on the Passover or the day before the Passover. The synoptic gospels state that the day of the last supper was the 1st day of Unleavened Bread. I am uncertain what exactly this implies but it suggests that the crucifixion was on the 2nd day of Unleavened Bread, and further that the customs of the Jews in the 1st century may have not occurred exactly as prescribed in the Law of Moses. Whatever the solution to this is, it means that even one argues that the 1st day of Unleavened Bread was a "Sabbath," this "Sabbath" was over before the crucifixion.

The other argument put forward for 2 "Sabbaths" that week is that Matthew 28:1 (see above) should be translated:

Now after the Sabbaths,...

That is, in the plural. I cannot adequately comment on this not being conversant in Greek. None of the English translations do this (though this does not disprove the argument). The word "Sabbath" in Matthew 28 is σαββατων and it appears in this form for both the word "Sabbath" and the word "week" later in the verse, to wit, "the 1st day of the week." The parallel passages in Mark and Luke use the forms σαββατου and σαββατον. Those versed in Greek can enlighten me but I suspect there is nothing in this.

John mentions that this Sabbath was a high day. By this I think it is likely that he means it occurs during a festival.

Day of crucifixion

All 4 gospels confirm that Jesus was crucified on the day of Preparation; mentioned once in each of the Synoptics and 3 times in John. They all state that the day of Preparation was immediately prior to the Sabbath; Luke informing us that Sabbath was in fact beginning near the time Jesus was laid in the tomb. John adds that the request for breaking the legs was to ensure the death of the men so their bodies could be got down before the Sabbath commenced.

Thus the day of Preparation, if we are correct about there being only 1 Sabbath, must be the 6th day of the week—Friday.

What are we to make of John's comment?

Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. (Joh 19:14)

John mentions the day of Preparation 3 times and connects this with the Passover specifically in this verse. This had led to disagreement over the date Jesus was crucified, some claiming this day was lead up to the Passover and others the day previous with the Passover corresponding to the Last Supper (John 18:28 is also relevant here). Without resolving this issue, I will put forward my provisional thoughts.

Does the day of Preparation mean the 6th day every week? Is it when they prepared for the Sabbath? as they were not allowed to work on the Sabbath.

While there could be be preparation for the Passover, the words do not necessarily imply this. If "day of Preparation" was the name of the day, albeit a very descriptive one, then genitive case could just mean the day that occurred during that festival. Consider if we translated it:

Now it was the Passover's Day-of-Preparation

In English we say Good Friday and Easter Sunday. The adjectives describing the days refer to the holiday. Friday and Sunday are not days that happen at Easter, they happen every week; the same may be true of the day of Preparation.

Number of days in the tomb

There are multiple mentions of the number 3 and the adjective 3rd as documented in previous posts. This could mean that there were 3 days from the crucifixion then on that 3rd day, or after the end of that 3rd day Jesus would rise. One cannot say which is intended for several of the passages and if we had them alone we would be less certain.

The additional information as detailed above would suggest that an inclusive rendering is what is meant.

But several of the passages specifying 3 days show that these were to be counted inclusively.

Several times Jesus says that he will rise on the 3rd day. After the resurrection Jesus reminds people that he was to rise on the 3rd day, the angel says the same to the women at the tomb. And Peter and Paul both say Jesus rose on the 3rd day. On the road to Emmaus the 2 disciples tell Jesus that this is the 3rd day since this happened. Jesus had already risen but they were still within the 3rd day.

Further evidence that "after 3 days" can be equated with on the "3rd day" in the minds of 1st century Judaism is seen in the Pharisees' request to Pilate:

"Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, 'After 3 days I will rise.' Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the 3rd day, lest his disciples go and steal him away and tell the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last fraud will be worse than the first." (Mat 27:63-64)

Though they mention after 3 days, in their minds they only needed to place the guard until the 3rd day, not thru that day until the 4th day.

Thus the information we have considered so far consistently points to a Friday crucifixion and a pre-dawn Sunday resurrection; and that the 3 days were to be counted inclusively. Now onto the Jonah analogy.