Change of platform?
I really don't like the new wordpress platform www.willnotdelay.wordpress.com, so I may not use it. I'm going to change this blog theme however, let me know what you think.
Part 3 of BCS Review
Final thought on local flood vs global flood
In my last post (Part 2 of this review) I discussed some of the pros and cons concerning a local flood and a global flood. It must be stated that one of the obvious reasons for leaning against a local flood comes from God Himself. In Genesis 9:11, God says, "never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth". Now remember BCS believes the word "earth" here means land, ground or country rather than the whole planet. So if God promises to never present a local flood again, and if BCS applies this consistently, then there has never been large, local floods on the earth since Noah. Is this true? No, there has been huge local floods over the centuries that has destroyed livestock, drowned people and devastated land and property. I suppose BCS would rationalize this away by saying God promised never to being a local flood again that would destroy all flesh in a particular region. However, this again leads to endless speculation as to what the size of a local flood should be which matches Noah's and how much devastation is needed in order to "destroy" a local region. Is it not simpler to accept that God is speaking about a world -wide flood that will never happen again?
Biological Death and Evolution
One of the strangest conclusions of the authors of BCS occurs in chapter 11 of their book where they challenge the belief of biological death being the result of the curse on Adam. In their view, the fall did not affect the earth nor the ecosystems but just Adam and his descendants. It others words, the fall is man-centered but not earth-centered. So biological death was in the world prior to the fall of Adam. Another strange fact is BCS never defines for us what they mean by biological death!! If eating a leafy vegetable or a fruit from a tree is an example of biological death, then I agree, there was death before the fall. But if we define biological death as the actual death of a living soul with flesh and blood, then the Bible suggests that this occurred after the fall. BCS states that if a global flood radically altered much of the topography and climate of the earth, then young earth creationists must believe in hyper-evolution in order to explain how animals could specially adapt to harsh climate conditions like the arctic and many of our deserts. They illustrate this by asking, "Did some bear-like ancestor from the ark just have a hankering for this new cold climate and migrate into the new arctic, adapting rapidly as it trudged north?" No true young earth creationist would ever claim to believe in hyper-evolution but would grant that microevolution(adaption and genetic variation) has taken place. Granted, BCS asks the same questions that have been troubling both evolutionists and creationists for centuries. Science (which the Bible agrees with here) does seem to suggest that the Earth did have a different climate at one time. So how did both these harsh climate regions and the animals that live in them come about? The evolutionist would respond -through the mechanism of evolution and millions of years. The young - earth creationist would say adaptation, genetic code variation, and micro-evolution (a word that BCS does not use). BCS does not explain to us how these animals came about but one can deduce from their writings that these animals existed prior to the flood and were not destroyed by the flood, since to BCS, it was a local flood anyway. Inevitably BCS has to come to an old - earth perspective in which millions of years are necessary for the great climate changes and diversity of species that we see in our present world.
BCS presents three graphs to illustrate three different views as to the progression of the creation to our present world to Revelation 21 and 22. BCS holds to the third view and can be found on page 210, the other views are on pages 200 and 209. Views one and two represent young and old earth creationism respectively. In reality the only difference between view two of old-earth creationists and view three of BCS is that BCS views the world of Revelation 21 and 22 as equivalent(fulfilled) to the world of today rather than a world that is yet to come.
The Effects of the Curse
The main problem with BCS's thesis of biological death happening before the fall is that the Bible appears to suggest the opposite. Ironically (I say this because they scoff at young - earth creationists who challenge the illusion of the great age of the universe), BCS goes to great length to defeat this illusion and to prove their thesis. In chapters 11 and 12, which deals with this issue, there are no Scriptures given by BCS that clearly supports their thesis. They bring up the warning of God in Genesis 2:17, "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" as evidence physical death had to exist outside the boundaries of the garden in order to serve as a spiritual warning to Adam. Otherwise, Adam could not understand at all what God meant by "die". This is an argument from logic not Scripture. They then go to Adam's naming of the animals to prove, indirectly, that animals did eat one another before the fall. For example, the word for "lion" in Hebrew means "violent", the word for "hawk" means "tearing". So BCS deduces that Adam observed these characteristics in these animals which is why he gave them these names. I will address this later but again BCS is using logic to prove their point, no direct Scripture. They do this as well with other Scriptures where they take similes and extrapolate from them proofs of the physical world prior to the fall. They come finally to a New Testament text when they address the passage of Romans 8: 20 - 22 (pages 234 - 236) where Paul suggests that the whole creation was subject to the fall. This is an important passage and BCS has to address it if their view is correct. Here, they appear to contradict themselves. They agree with Whitcomb and Morris that Paul is referring to the time when God placed the curse on creation at Adam's fall; yet they state earlier in the chapter that the fall did not cause a radical physical transformation in our world. Remember, BCS believes that biological death occurred prior to the fall. So we are left to ponder what part of the curse did come upon the creation. What is the creation groaning about? What is this "deliverance" from the" bondage of corruption" that the creation will one day be granted? It appears that Paul is clearly teaching about the physical universe. Ah, not so fast, says BCS. Incredibly, BCS states that the word for "creation" in Romans 8: 20 - 22 is referring to God's people, "The creation, the entire body of God's covenant people, was being 'brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God'"(page 354). I do not know of any reputable commentary (outside of possible preterists) who take this view. The Greek word here for creation is ktisis which literally means "the act of creating, or the creative act in process . . . . it also signifies the product of the creative act(Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). We see this word in Romans 1, verses 20 ("since the creation of the world") and verse 25 where Paul states that one of the attributes of ungodliness is to worship the "creature" rather than the "Creator" . Clearly Paul is referring to non-covenant people here in Romans chapter 1 for he argues the gospel is the power of God to salvation to the Jew first and also the Greek prior to his comments in verses 20 and 25.
Radical Transformations
So, exactly what was and is the curse that God put upon mankind? BCS would tell us the idea of animals eating each other has nothing to do with the curse. They may be right. I don't know. However, Genesis appears to suggest that maybe all animals were herbivores prior to the fall. We read in chapter one, verse 30, "Also to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food and it was so". Strangely, BCS never addresses this verse. Again, we must not succumb to the temptation of imposing what we see in the natural world today upon the world of Adam and Eve. It is possible that animals eating each other has nothing to do with the curse but with what God imposed or allowed after the flood. We read, after the flood, in Genesis 9:3 that " every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs." It is here that God adds a stipulation, man is not to eat flesh with blood in it. We have another clue that the animals were possibly affected by the curse when we read what God said to the serpent. He said that the serpent was "cursed more that all cattle, and more than every beast of the field." This suggests, and I am not dogmatic about this, even the cattle and beasts were cursed but the serpent was more so. Even the serpent was to undergo a radical transformation. He would now go on his belly! What the serpent was in the garden, we don't know. We do know that it could talk and that Satan either was the serpent or used the serpent. Many think that the snake today which crawls on its belly is the serpent of the garden. It is true Adam named the animals but we are not given any example of these names. It is entirely possible that different names were given to animals, after the fall or the flood, who were no longer herbivores. I am not sure about this but we have a clue in Nimrod. We are not told that Adam or his sons or Noah and his sons were hunters prior to the flood. But after the flood, we read that Nimrod was a mighty hunter before the Lord - Genesis 10:8,9. The only name Adam gives us is the one he gave his wife. He actually named her twice!! He called her woman and named her Eve. That the curse was upon mankind all agree. What BCS and others disagree on is whether the curse was upon all biological creation and the universe. I find it strange that BCS does not believe any radical transformation occurred to the physical world (page 212) because of the fall. How does one explain the plain language of the text in Genesis 3: 17 - 19. Do we not have thorns and thistles in our world today? Does not mankind live on bread - the herb of the field - due to much effort and sweat? Do we not become dust eventually? Are these not radical physical transformations, if we consider man was meant to live forever in a beautiful garden? The increase in pain in child bearing has to be radical if the curse is a curse. Even the balance and equality of the man and woman will be changed as the man would rule over the woman. And, don't these physical transformations affect us all, not just covenant people? This had to be so in order for Christ to be the Savior and Redeemer of all people - whether male or female, Jew or Gentile. There is something else here that is not mentioned in the fall, the word, sin. Now it is mentioned by God to Cain concerning the anger of Cain towards his brother, Abel. Paul tells us that "through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). So in light of what Paul says to us, we must go back and re-examine the curse. The curse tells us that a disease was passed upon all mankind after Adam sinned, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ, all shall be made alive" (I Cor. 15:22). This disease is the sinful nature which passed upon all mankind. I can't think of a more radical transformation than to see the effects of sin. We get a glimpse of it prior to the flood, "So God looked upon the earth and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth" Genesis 6:12. The radical transformation that took place in the physical world was so much that Lamech named his son, Noah, for he hoped that this boy would give them comfort from the work and toil of their hands because of the ground which the Lord has cursed - Genesis 5:29. The other radical transformation that happened due to the fall is that Christ (the Seed of a woman) would have to leave the glory He had with the Father and become flesh so that we all could have the gift of eternal life which Adam and Eve lost in the garden. Paul puts it this way, "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will" - Ephesians 1: 4, 5, and "made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross" - Philippians 2:7, 8.
Could Jesus Die Even Without Sinning
I need to rebut BCS's view that Jesus would have experienced biological death at some point in his life because he was human, even though he had not sinned (see page 225). BCS is correct when they say that Jesus paid the true penalty for Adam's sin when He was cut off from fellowship and communion with God the Father. However, Jesus became sin who know no sin (2 Cor 5:21), thusly, He paid the price of both the Law and the curse put upon Adam - the double penalty: biological death and separation from His Father. For that matter Adam himself is a type of Christ (Romans 5:14). He not only died a biological death but he also faced separation from God as God banished him from the garden. So the second Adam had to face a biological death and to taste the eternal separation that we all deserved. We are not saved from biological death but from the second penalty - which is eternal separation from the Father. As Paul put it, " but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" - 2 Timothy 1:10. Christ did not come to abolish biological death but to bring to light that eternal death, eternal separation is now removed through Him.
Well, I have gone long again. Very difficult to adequately review this book in a short fashion. I did not get to how BCS views the early chapters of Genesis as biblical apocalyptic language rather than straight prose or historical narrative. An example of their thinking on this is page 274 where they state, "Many who clamor for a 'scientific' literal reading of Genesis forget that Genesis comes to us from the original authors through Moses the prophet". BCS suggests to us that since prophecy is in the early chapters of Genesis (such as 3:15) then that is a hint the creation account should be read according to a prophetic literary style. Due to the importance of this subject, I will do a Part 4 of this review in order to cover this ground.
Summary
1. When God promised not to send a flood on the earth to destroy all flesh, He must have been talking about a global flood not a local flood as there have been many large local floods on the earth after Noah.
2. BCS believes that biological death was here prior to the fall and that the curse was not earth - centered but man-centered. No definition of biological death is given by BCS. They accuse young-earth creationists of believing in hyper-evolution in order to explain how animals could have adapted to climate changes. However, young-earth creationists have always accepted micro-evolution - a word that BCS does not use.
3. BCS uses logic rather than clear Biblical texts to prove that death had to happen before the fall. They do not believe any radical physical transformations affected the earth after the fall. Yet, we have many Biblical texts which suggests the opposite. BCS claims that the word, "creation" in Romans 8:20-22 refers to God's covenant people. Yet, the literal meaning of the word and other texts would suggest that Paul is referring to the whole product of the creative act of the Creator.
4. There were radical transformations after the fall. The Bible even suggests transformations after the flood. The most severe transformation was God's plan to present the Christ in physical form to undo the damage that was done in the garden.
5. Jesus died to fulfill the Law but also to undo the curse given by God, not upon creation nor the animals, but the curse upon mankind. While the creation does groan for its redemption, Christians will not have to face the second penalty for sin. Adam was a type of Christ, in that he faced a double penalty: physical death and separation from God. Jesus had to die physically, who became sin, so that all of us would not have to face the second penalty - eternal separation from God.
HOW DOES A PERSON GET FAITH IN CHRIST?
To start my next blog I pose the question: How does a person get faith in Christ? I would also ask each of you reading this to tell me how you got Faith and how you sustain faith in Christ. After we discuss this I will have follow-up questions about Faith.
Review of Beyond Creation Science - Part 2
What should Drive the Christian Culture
In this Part 2 of my review of BCS, this writer will give a few responses concerning some of the quotes in chapters 5 - 10. I will then look at the local flood vs. global flood sections. In Part 3 of my review, a few comments about some particular passages of Scripture that are important concerning the subjects of the fall of Adam and the curse, eschatology and prophetic language, and a few comments about what ancient writers thought about all of this. First of all, I should point out a few details about my eschatology. This writer does believe that many of the prophecies concerning Jesus, the kingdom of God, and the destruction of Jerusalem were fulfilled in the first century. Even though I believe this, that does not mean I will try to twist every Scripture to confirm to my personal beliefs about eschatology. Sometime we must be honest enough to say we just don't know exactly what God's Word is saying here. We can give an opinion but that is all it is. We must all remember that, whatever our views about eschatology, we should be all united on the person of Christ and how one becomes a Christian. Sadly, I fear, since there are so many divisions on this as well, that now many are going into other areas to sow division and discord. Many writers over the centuries have plunged into the waters of prophecy and end-times. Our generation is no different. My concern is that my name is written in heaven which was what His first coming was all about, not that I be absolutely correct about the circumstances of His second coming. This leads me to mention one of BCS's quotes in their first four chapters that I left out of Part One of my review. On page 31, they state, "Prophetic views drive Christian culture. That is why they are so controversial". Unfortunately, this statement has some merit. But when I read the book of Acts, I don't sense that prophetic views of His second coming dominated the disciples. Now prophecies concerning his First Coming, I do see, and the apostles were adamant about the fact that Jesus came in fulfillment of prophecy. What dominated the Christian culture of Acts was the proclaiming of the gospel - the good news of Jesus Christ and the establishment of His church - in which all the divisions were broken down and there was no more Jew, Gentile, slave, male or female, no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God (Eph. 2: 14 - 22). I believe this is the more important message that should drive our culture today.
In this Part 2 of my review of BCS, this writer will give a few responses concerning some of the quotes in chapters 5 - 10. I will then look at the local flood vs. global flood sections. In Part 3 of my review, a few comments about some particular passages of Scripture that are important concerning the subjects of the fall of Adam and the curse, eschatology and prophetic language, and a few comments about what ancient writers thought about all of this. First of all, I should point out a few details about my eschatology. This writer does believe that many of the prophecies concerning Jesus, the kingdom of God, and the destruction of Jerusalem were fulfilled in the first century. Even though I believe this, that does not mean I will try to twist every Scripture to confirm to my personal beliefs about eschatology. Sometime we must be honest enough to say we just don't know exactly what God's Word is saying here. We can give an opinion but that is all it is. We must all remember that, whatever our views about eschatology, we should be all united on the person of Christ and how one becomes a Christian. Sadly, I fear, since there are so many divisions on this as well, that now many are going into other areas to sow division and discord. Many writers over the centuries have plunged into the waters of prophecy and end-times. Our generation is no different. My concern is that my name is written in heaven which was what His first coming was all about, not that I be absolutely correct about the circumstances of His second coming. This leads me to mention one of BCS's quotes in their first four chapters that I left out of Part One of my review. On page 31, they state, "Prophetic views drive Christian culture. That is why they are so controversial". Unfortunately, this statement has some merit. But when I read the book of Acts, I don't sense that prophetic views of His second coming dominated the disciples. Now prophecies concerning his First Coming, I do see, and the apostles were adamant about the fact that Jesus came in fulfillment of prophecy. What dominated the Christian culture of Acts was the proclaiming of the gospel - the good news of Jesus Christ and the establishment of His church - in which all the divisions were broken down and there was no more Jew, Gentile, slave, male or female, no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God (Eph. 2: 14 - 22). I believe this is the more important message that should drive our culture today.
The Historical Connection of Premillennialism and Geology
Now let us look at a few quotes in chapters 5 - 10. In chapters 5 and 6, BCS tries to connect the historical rise of two events: flood geology and premillennialism. In Chapter 5, BCS states on page 91:
We have arrived at an amazing historical synchronicity. The modern doctrine of pre-tribulational rapture, dispensational premillennialism was completed in 1830 - the same year Lyell (Charles) published his Principles of Geology! The rise of modern geology and modern dispensational premillennialism took place at the same time and in the same English locale.
Later in Chapter 6, BCS states on page 101:
But there is no doubt that young-earth creationism and premillennialism grew to dominate the American Christian scene simultaneously.
Frankly, another important event also occurred in 1830, the Book of Mormon was published. Yet, I have no immediate explanation as to why all three happened in 1830. So, I do not see the importance of the connection as BCS. And BCS appears to contradict itself. On page 94, BCS tells us that the Plymouth Brethren, founders of modern dispensational premillennialism, had no qualms over an ancient earth in the 19th century. Yet they tells us on page 101 that young-earth creationism and premillennialism come on the scene simultaneously. So BCS would suggest to us it took time (well at least 100 years) for the implications of dispensationalism to work its way backwards to Genesis. Hmm! BCS does not explain why it took so long. And it is strange the premillennialists of the 19th century could live with an ancient earth but the premillennialists of today cannot! What has changed! Well, in the opinion of this writer, our knowledge of science has changed today. The exciting events of the 19th century where science appeared to destroy the historicity of the Bible has now changed to where science appears to confirm the historicity of the Bible. One could suggest a modern synchronicity of science and Bible started to occur in the 1950's and 1960's which led Whitcomb and Morris to write their monumental book, The Genesis Flood. Still, it seems odd that BCS can see clearly the connection between premillennialism and young - earth creationism today, but that it took over 100 years for others to see it so clearly. BCS does mention the "curious fact" that some evangelical leaders accept young earth creationism but reject premillennialism. BCS tries to explain this anomaly by suggesting these leaders do not understand the theological implications of dispensational premillennialism on Genesis. However BCS does not explain how some can defend young-earth creationism without being a premillennialist. To BCS, guys like George McCready Price, who supposedly did apply his dispensational premillennial beliefs back to Genesis, was just the tip of the iceberg that finally lead to Whitcomb and Morris' book The Genesis Flood. To this writer, sometimes events happen (God's providential plan) but have no immediate connection except to the common denominator many of these events have - false teachings and false teachers or better yet, a common spirit of a certain generation for the truth.
This writer, for example, is not a premillennialist. I have never thought my views of any present or coming millennial period colored how I interpreted Genesis or prophecy. I hold there have been many physical changes in the earth after creation, but this has nothing to do with my views of prophecy. This has to do with my understanding of faith, empirical science and hermeneutics. Now you can debate as to whether my faith, my science and hermeneutics are true and rational, but please don't confuse this with my views of prophecy. Is it possible that my understanding of hermeneutics could lead me astray when it comes to prophecy? Yes, that is possible, but lead me astray to what end. If I agree on the rules of hermeneutics with the writers of BCS and I still come to a different interpretation, then that shows we are all in the same boat here as many believers have disagreed. The biggest problem we have with New Testament prophecies concerning the end-times is we have no inspired writer telling us when they were all fulfilled. Even the authors of BCS admit this on page 370. We do have inspired writers telling us that Jesus was a fulfillment of OT prophecies. For example, none of the church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries write with any authority concerning their interpretation of Matthew 24 and Luke 21. So BCS relies on the historical evidence, which by the way is a branch of science, to prove their case for preterism. The problem here is that both non-preterists and preterists use empirical observation as an avenue to find God's truth concerning creation, flood geology, and prophecy.
Hermeneutics
I do agree with BCS in their Appendix A, page 452, that "Our primary goal should be to find the biblical interpretation, not the literal interpretation". However these two do not always have to be mutually exclusive - they can merge and most of the time, they do! We surely can accept the biblical interpretation of why, Jesus, the Son of God, died on the cross and literally accept it happened. Gnostics, as many of you know, had problems with the historical event of God and Jesus, the man, dying on the cross which led them to question the interpretative message of the cross. The spirit of antichrist, as John told us, was that Christ had not literally come in the flesh (I John 4:3). I can literally believe baptism is for the remission of sins according to Acts 2:38 and still maintain man cannot be saved through his own efforts or works. Yet millions of believers would state I teach a salvation by works and since they are convinced of this, they try to not take Acts 2:38 literally. Is it possible to take Acts 2:38 literally and still harmonize the biblical teaching of salvation? Yes, it is. Another example would be the role of women in the church. Millions will not take what Paul had to say about this literally. While there are extremes on both sides on this issue, we either take what Paul said literally, and isn't it interesting that Paul uses Genesis to back up his claim that women be silent, or we find a biblical interpretation that suits our interests and needs. Let’s look at an example in the area of prophecy. Many scholars debate the word virgin, which can mean either young woman or virgin (although all major translations have virgin), in Isaiah 7:14. Still that prophecy was literally fulfilled in the birth of Jesus, if you accept the literal fact that Mary was a virgin. There are some passages where it is difficult to take them literally. Jesus, in John chapter 7, talks about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Many disciples upon hearing this stated: "This is a difficult saying, who can understand it". But even hear while we do not literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, we still literally partake of a Supper in which we spiritually consume His flesh and drink His blood. So even hear we come close to both the literal and biblical interpretation. Sometimes literal interpretation is misplaced due to a cryptic and enigmatic statement. I have already mentioned the misunderstanding disciples had concerning whether John would literally die. In reference to the temple at Jerusalem, Jesus stated at least once to the Jews, "Destroy this temple, and in three days, I will raise it up". The Jews thought Jesus was literally talking about the temple which was still in construction after 46 years. But Jesus was literally talking about His body. I will come back to this subject when I talk more about the interpretation of prophetic language in Part 3 of my review.
Science and Genesis
Now a few comments about the use of science to interpret Genesis. BCS laments this attempt. On pages 263 - 265, they state that modern science and scientism have profoundly influenced the approach and interpretation of Genesis. The problem with their criticism is BCS uses scientific thought and ideas to negate the possibility of a world-wide flood, literal seven day creation, etc. Many times they will use our modern understanding of genetics, anthropology, physics, and geography to help prove their case for a local flood or other events in Genesis. I give a few important examples. We read on page 115, "How can global-flood advocates seriously believe that Christians have always taught a global flood, involving all the continents and people around the globe, before Christians even recognized the size, scope and nature of our planet Earth? Now BCS is arguing with logic AND the science of geography. On page 137, BCS states, "Anthropology suggests that by Abraham's time there were long established civilizations on most, if not all of the habitable continents". On page 173, BCS states in reference to the materials used to build bricks for the tower of Babel: "Mesopotamia did not have an abundance of trees to fuel brick kilns". How BCS can claim to know with any certainty the geographical features and natural resources of Mesopotamia some 4,000 years ago is not explained. To this writer they are imposing what is known today upon what is not known yesterday. On page 196, BCS states, "If there were no deserts before the flood, then from where did the plants and animals specific to these environments come from? A good question but is not BCS using scientific principles in asking this question? Then, on page 218, BCS, because they believe that the curse put upon Adam was covenant death not biological death, states: "There were hurricanes on planet Earth before Adam. There were also avalanches. Meteor impacts, tornados, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions - the magnitude of which we can scarcely imagine - wiped out much of life on planet Earth millions of years before Adam was on the scene". Now there is no evidence from the Bible for this. But BCS comes to these scientific conclusions based on their theological conclusions AND modern geology.
Local Flood vs. Global Flood
Chapters 7 - 10 focuses on Noah's flood. There are two statements in these chapters which encapsulate all that BCS wants to say about this. The first is on page 126, BCS states:
A fully consistent appeal to miracle undermines flood geology. One of the perennial objections raised by old-earth Christians and unbelievers alike is that flood geologists are arbitrary at this key point; they simultaneously demand geological naturalism and the multiplication of miracles over the course of the story.
Our second quote is on page 147:
There is no compelling textual evidence to believe Genesis teaches a global-flood event.
In other words, young - earth advocates have to engage in wild speculations and constant miracles to explain how a world-wide flood could have worked because the Biblical text and logic suggests a local flood. Granted to those of us who live some 6000 years later and see naturalistic forces at play, it is difficult to understand the combination of both miracle and naturalism in a world-wide flood. BCS would argue that they do not have to resort to miracle after miracle with a local-flood concept. The writer does admit that this is an attractive idea which does have merit. I just wish that BCS's arguments for this view were more attractive. Their appeal to Josephus who quotes an ancient writer, Nicolaus, concerning a local flood is weak. Despite the obvious fact that neither were eyewitnesses of the flood, there is the fact that both Josephus and Nicolaus are reporting what others have said. Then there is the fact, that even with a local flood you have to have some miracles and speculations. BCS does not explain how the animals, once released from the ark, could have gotten food and water since even after a huge local flood (even a local flood that was 20 to 30 feet deep had to be huge), fresh water and food would not have been immediately available. So the animals must have stayed around to be fed and watered by Noah (which is not in the Biblical text) or they took off for miles and miles in search for food (and this would have to be way beyond the flood or on tops of hills) and fresh water. Then there is the strange fact that BCS NEVER defines for us the boundaries of this local flood. One can deduce from their book that the local flood was probably within the area of Mesopotamia but we are not sure. Which is more speculative: the idea of a world - wide flood or the boundaries and location of this huge local flood? To this writer, the speculative ideas of what the boundaries and dimensions of this huge local flood would have been are endless. We have another speculative and textual problem with the local flood view of BCS when we look at the length of the flood. We are told that the waters of the flood prevailed for 150 days (I assume we take a day to be literal here) and after the 150 days, the waters decreased (Genesis 7: 24 and 8:3). We are told the flood began in the second month (Genesis 7:11). We are then told that on the tenth month, the first day, the tops of the mountains (BCS would call them hills) were seen. 40 days go by in which a raven and a dove were sent out, but they could not find a resting place (odd, since all they would have to do is fly to the top of the nearest hill- particularly the raven - which is now available according to 8:5). So doing a little arithmetic, we get that the waters began to recede in the seventh month and some 140 days later receded enough for a dove not to return. Now why, if this was a local flood, does it take almost 140 days (almost 5 months) for a local flood to dissipate so that a dove does not return!! BCS never addresses this fact or these Scriptures.
Why Build an Ark If Local Flood?
Then there is the problem of if this was a local flood, why did Noah have to build an ark at all. Just walk away. BCA admits that there is some merit on the surface to this argument in Appendix B, page 457. BCS explains this argument away by saying that the ark was necessary to picture the coming gospel of Jesus Christ where all those in the ark were figuratively “in Christ” that is saved from judgment. However I find it odd that God would use such an impractical example to picture the coming salvation in Christ. In other words, Noah had to go against common sense and his own sense of logic to obey God’s word. One might suggest that Abraham offering to sacrifice Isaac was against logic and common sense; yet Abraham did it. However the two examples are not analogous because God had already told Abraham that in his seed all the nations would be bless. So Abraham had, what appeared, two conflicting statements from God. How did Abraham reason this through? According to Hebrews 11:19, Abraham believed God would have to raise Isaac up from the dead. Furthermore, we are told that Noah not only walked by faith but was moved with fear (Heb 11:7). I fail to see how fear would have been a motivation if this had been a local flood. BCS then brings out their own theological bias in suggesting that to tell Noah to hike out of danger would be to teach that man must get up and save himself by his own two feet. This is a strange argument from the Old Testament. Did not Lot, his wife and daughters have to hike out of Sodom in order to escape judgment on that city? Did not the Israelites have to actually look at the serpent on a pole in order to be healed in Numbers 21? Did not the Israelites have to literally put blood on the two side posts and the upper post in order for God to passover them? For that matter, did not Noah and his sons have to obey and build an ark with their own two hands? It was not God who built the ark. In fact, even the New Testament states that we do have to do something in order to accept God’s salvation and escape judgment. We have to believe, repent of our sins, confess Christ and be immersed so that our sins might be forgiven and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2: 36 – 28). I do not find BCS’s arguments here very convincing.
Additional Miracles
BCS questions the need for so many miracles to justify a global flood; yet, there are many additional miracles (some are implied) the Bible mentions that occur during and after the flood (whether local or global). BCS either ignores or does not address directly these miracles (outside of prophetic language), except for the bringing of the animals and the flood itself. Let me list a few which go from Genesis 8 – 11:
1. God made a wind to pass over the earth.
2. Seasons are mentioned for the first time suggesting climate change.
3. Fear is put into all the animals towards man.
4. The rainbow – either due to climate change or put there by God.
5. The confusion of languages at Babel (which I will speak of later).
Long Life Spans
I do not put this next miracle in the list because it is implied and it demands a literal interpretation of the long life spans mentioned in Genesis chapter 5 and 11. BCS would have us to believe that these long life spans (BCS refers to them as apocalyptic) only applied to God's covenant line, the faithful sons of Seth and Shem. Even for the sake of argument, we accept this view; it does not explain why the ages of covenant people began to decline. Nowhere do we have an explanation by BCS for Noah living 950 years but, Abraham, one of Shem's descendants, lives to be only 175 years old. In fact, the average life span of even Christians, surely a covenant people, is about the same as non-Christians today, and rarely( in comparison to the world's population) does one live past 80 years of age. How does one explain this? BCS does not even try. God must have changed the genetic code as well as the climate after the flood. This would apply also to the next implied miracle. How are the sons and daughters of Shem, Ham and Japheth to marry unless they marry their own cousins or possibly even their own sisters? We know this had to happen with Cain. Yet the blood line remains pure without possible birth defects (that we know of). Now BCS suggests that Shem and his descendants stayed true to their covenant line. In other words, they married only within Shem’s blood line but not within Ham or Japheth’s blood line. The problem with this is we see Shem’s son, Arphaxad, mentioned in Genesis 11:11, 12. At the age of 35, Arphaxad had a son named Salah. So who did Arphaxad marry? I’m sure that BCS does not believe that he married outside of his own family. BCS believes there were other non-covenant survivors to the local flood. Was it his own sister (a daughter of Shem) or his first cousin – a daughter of Ham or Japheth? I think it is more likely that he married his first cousin, but I don’t know. Does anybody?
Genesis 9:19
BCS makes much of the fact that the word for earth is the Hebrew word erets and ge in the Greek (the Septuagint - a Greek translation of the Old Testament) and this means, over a thousand times in the OT - land, country and ground but not the planet Earth. I will not spend any time in this part discussing this except for one particular passage of Scripture. In Genesis 9:19, we read in reference to the three sons of Noah, "from these the whole earth was populated". Now, if we accept BCS's position of a local flood and that ONLY covenant people perished in the flood(with the exception of Noah's family), yes, BCS, believes other non-covenant people survived the flood, how do we explain this verse in view of translating the word, earth, as land or country. This would clearly deny anyone else survived the flood even at a local level for we are told the whole earth (land, region, or country) was populated by the sons of Noah.
"In His Days the Earth Was Divided”
Before I close, I want to refer to a serious speculative error in Chapter 10 concerning the flood and the tower of Babel. BCS cannot understand how there can be another huge civilization (upon reading Genesis 11) on earth within three generations of the flood. The key here is the birth of Peleg. Since his name means division, it is commonly thought that the incidents of the tower of Babel (division by confusing the languages) occurred at his birth. However many times people are named for a particular concept, character, or event years before they happened. Lamech named his son Noah (his name means rest), for he hoped that Noah would give them comfort (rest) concerning their work and toil (which suggest the continuing effects of the curse which I will get to in Part 3). Abram's name was changed to Abraham because he would become the father of many nations. Isaac named his son Jacob (which means one who supplants or deceitful) - a clue was given in the way Jacob grabbed his brother’s heel at birth - way before Jacob actually did the deceitful things to his father and Esau. Even Jesus was so named at his birth because "He will save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). So the Scripture states concerning Peleg, "in his days the earth was divided "(Genesis 9:25). We also read that after Peleg begot Reu, he lived 209 years in 11:19. So when do we want to date the confusion of languages at the tower of Babel? Do we do it at Peleg's birth, in the middle of his life, or near his death? Granted any time period requires speculations as the Scriptures are not clear about this matter. However, if I view that the division occurred near his death, let’s say around the 200th year of Peleg, then the great civilizations mentioned in Genesis are some 300 years after the flood not 100 years. That is sufficient time. For example, if you check the census of the United States in 1800, you see that we have about 5 million people with New York City having the largest population of around 60,000 people. In 200 years, the population of the United States had grown to around 280 million people with New York City now having around 8 million people. Even if I give a 25 - 40 % of that population growth to immigrants, this is still significant growth. So it is possible for large civilizations (including technology), at least comparable to the size of New York City in 1800, to have arrived in three hundred years since the flood.
IF THEY ARE PUBLISHING THE TRUTH WHY IS IT RESTRICTED?
I went to the Blog that included Uncle Jesse, Don Preston & Myself as heretics to read what is on their site & this is what I now find:
This blog is open to invited readers onlyhttp://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/
I have read the charges against us preterists at this site before and found I could not post a comment, but only send an email. I never received a reply to my challenge for debate and now I can't even do that. I can't even read their "Lessons" and charges against preterism on the site. If they think they have the truth why don't they openly proclaim it. Maybe they can convince me and if I am wrong I would want to know and repent - but, alas, they must not want me to be convinced by them by their arguments. At least "heretics" to be burned at the stake were given the opportunity to recant. It must be they would rather we continue in our "heresy" and convert others so they can build an even bigger fire.
This blog is open to invited readers onlyhttp://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/
I have read the charges against us preterists at this site before and found I could not post a comment, but only send an email. I never received a reply to my challenge for debate and now I can't even do that. I can't even read their "Lessons" and charges against preterism on the site. If they think they have the truth why don't they openly proclaim it. Maybe they can convince me and if I am wrong I would want to know and repent - but, alas, they must not want me to be convinced by them by their arguments. At least "heretics" to be burned at the stake were given the opportunity to recant. It must be they would rather we continue in our "heresy" and convert others so they can build an even bigger fire.
Part One of Review of Beyond Creation Science
A Review of Beyond Creation Science
Introduction
I have spent the past few weeks reading the book, Beyond Creation Science, (hereafter in the review, referred to as BCS). Many chapters I have read at least twice in order to not misunderstand the authors' intention. In attempting to be as objective as possible in reviewing this book, I have not read any other author's reviews, comments, and interpretations of this work. I have submitted a few comments to Tim Martin in a blog concerning a few issues in the book upon preliminary examination of the book. It is in many ways a remarkable book. BCS is an attempt by the authors to integrate two subjects: end-times prophecy and Genesis creation. In this attempt, the authors are to be commended for their contributions on the subjects of preterism, eschatology, local flood vs. global flood, hermeneutics, prophetic fulfillments and covenant theology. The thesis of the book is stated in the forward where we read "Our thesis is that the common mistakes Christians make regarding origins and prophecy are deeply connected". So in essence the book is about these errors and how preterism solves these errors. The main errors that BCS focuses on are young-earth creationism and dispensational futurism. There are two key statements in the books that illustrate this. In their chapter on Worlds Collide, BCS states on page 108, "The reign of young-earth creationism is inescapably tied to the reign of futurism among American Christians." Then, in one of the key chapters of this book, Covenant Creation, BCS states on page 271, "Among many other things, preterism represents an advance in understanding the nature and redemptive function of biblical prophecy. This advance is ultimately rooted in the biblical way preterism handles the prophetic and apocalyptic language we find in Scripture." With these two key statements in mind, the authors' give, what is probably to most Christians, a surprising interpretation of the second coming of Christ. They believe, that the end of the old covenant age (Jewish age from Moses onward) and the beginning of a new heaven and earth, both came about with the second coming of Christ during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The book is a long read with over 500 pages counting notes. It is difficult to adequately review the book without writing a long treatise. I will do this review in three parts somewhat in harmony to the three parts of the book. The first four chapters, while setting the foundation for the rest of the book, basically outlines the author's attempt to use preterism (which comes from the Latin praeter - "past") in explaining that all of the prophetic language of the Old and New Testament were fulfilled in the first century (the past). Since this concept is so important to BCS's thesis, I will spend the first part of my review on these chapters.
First Four Chapters
Chapter one begins with the statement by Jesus to his disciples that some "will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”(Matt. 16:28 and Luke 9:27). On the surface, this appears to be a straight forward statement by Jesus. However it has generated a variety of interpretations and controversy. It has been normally interpreted to mean one of two options: (1) that Jesus was predicting the coming of His Kingdom with power. Mark tells us (9:1) that some of the disciples would not taste death till they see the kingdom of God "present" (NKJV) with power. The Greek here is a perfect active participle indicating completed action. Therefore many translations say "having come". In other words it is better to state that death would not come to some of the disciples until they saw that the kingdom had come and was to continue permanently. Many have suggested this refers to the events of Pentecost, the giving of the Holy Spirit, and the first fruits of the church as recorded in Acts 2. (2) The second option has been the preterist view that Jesus was talking of His coming in judgment on the city of Jerusalem with its destruction in 70 A.D.
However there appears to be at least two other options in interpreting this difficult passage. Before I give these two other options, let us explore further option (1) mentioned above. Now this statement is addressed in context to the twelve disciples because this statement comes after the great confession by Peter that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God (Matt 16:16 and Luke 9:20). Before we go to what Jesus meant by the "Son of Man coming in his kingdom", we must note that at least two of the original twelve did taste death as recorded in Scripture. Judas hanged himself and Herod killed James, the brother of John with the sword (Acts 12:2).
Introduction
I have spent the past few weeks reading the book, Beyond Creation Science, (hereafter in the review, referred to as BCS). Many chapters I have read at least twice in order to not misunderstand the authors' intention. In attempting to be as objective as possible in reviewing this book, I have not read any other author's reviews, comments, and interpretations of this work. I have submitted a few comments to Tim Martin in a blog concerning a few issues in the book upon preliminary examination of the book. It is in many ways a remarkable book. BCS is an attempt by the authors to integrate two subjects: end-times prophecy and Genesis creation. In this attempt, the authors are to be commended for their contributions on the subjects of preterism, eschatology, local flood vs. global flood, hermeneutics, prophetic fulfillments and covenant theology. The thesis of the book is stated in the forward where we read "Our thesis is that the common mistakes Christians make regarding origins and prophecy are deeply connected". So in essence the book is about these errors and how preterism solves these errors. The main errors that BCS focuses on are young-earth creationism and dispensational futurism. There are two key statements in the books that illustrate this. In their chapter on Worlds Collide, BCS states on page 108, "The reign of young-earth creationism is inescapably tied to the reign of futurism among American Christians." Then, in one of the key chapters of this book, Covenant Creation, BCS states on page 271, "Among many other things, preterism represents an advance in understanding the nature and redemptive function of biblical prophecy. This advance is ultimately rooted in the biblical way preterism handles the prophetic and apocalyptic language we find in Scripture." With these two key statements in mind, the authors' give, what is probably to most Christians, a surprising interpretation of the second coming of Christ. They believe, that the end of the old covenant age (Jewish age from Moses onward) and the beginning of a new heaven and earth, both came about with the second coming of Christ during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The book is a long read with over 500 pages counting notes. It is difficult to adequately review the book without writing a long treatise. I will do this review in three parts somewhat in harmony to the three parts of the book. The first four chapters, while setting the foundation for the rest of the book, basically outlines the author's attempt to use preterism (which comes from the Latin praeter - "past") in explaining that all of the prophetic language of the Old and New Testament were fulfilled in the first century (the past). Since this concept is so important to BCS's thesis, I will spend the first part of my review on these chapters.
First Four Chapters
Chapter one begins with the statement by Jesus to his disciples that some "will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”(Matt. 16:28 and Luke 9:27). On the surface, this appears to be a straight forward statement by Jesus. However it has generated a variety of interpretations and controversy. It has been normally interpreted to mean one of two options: (1) that Jesus was predicting the coming of His Kingdom with power. Mark tells us (9:1) that some of the disciples would not taste death till they see the kingdom of God "present" (NKJV) with power. The Greek here is a perfect active participle indicating completed action. Therefore many translations say "having come". In other words it is better to state that death would not come to some of the disciples until they saw that the kingdom had come and was to continue permanently. Many have suggested this refers to the events of Pentecost, the giving of the Holy Spirit, and the first fruits of the church as recorded in Acts 2. (2) The second option has been the preterist view that Jesus was talking of His coming in judgment on the city of Jerusalem with its destruction in 70 A.D.
However there appears to be at least two other options in interpreting this difficult passage. Before I give these two other options, let us explore further option (1) mentioned above. Now this statement is addressed in context to the twelve disciples because this statement comes after the great confession by Peter that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God (Matt 16:16 and Luke 9:20). Before we go to what Jesus meant by the "Son of Man coming in his kingdom", we must note that at least two of the original twelve did taste death as recorded in Scripture. Judas hanged himself and Herod killed James, the brother of John with the sword (Acts 12:2).
And tradition tells us that Peter was killed, probably in Rome, around 67 A.D. Now why are these deaths significant? It confirms my earlier point that some of the disciples would not taste death until they saw the kingdom coming with power and was here to stay. Surely Peter understood this at the time of his death. Furthermore, the authors of BCS are proposing that the Son of Man did come in 70 A.D., therefore, Jesus was stating that some of the disciples would live to see that day. The problem with this is that almost all scholars believe most if not all of the apostles were dead, with the possible exception of John (and we are not sure of this) prior to 70 A.D. Further, those apostles who were possibly still alive in 70 A.D. were not even in Jerusalem. This would mean that the "some" Jesus was talking about would be just John, highly doubtful. Even John was probably not in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. For tradition tells us that he made his home in Ephesus later in his life. Now it is possible that all of these scholars are mistaken and that many of the apostles were still alive in 70 A.D. The key word here is "some". So now we come to our third option which is really an extension of option one. If we interpret the coming of the Son of Man in his kingdom to mean Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father (notice that Stephen sees this in Acts 7:55 and cries out, "Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God", then we can say that some (not including Judas) did see the Son of Man in his kingdom prior to their death and by the time after the death of James, they saw the kingdom established on a permanent basis among the Gentiles (see Acts 15). Peter uses this language in Acts 2 where he states that "this Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. . .being exalted to the right hand of God " (verse 32,32). We see similar language by Jesus to the high priest, where Jesus tells him that you will see "the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 26:64). In Luke 22:69, we get a little different version, "Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God". The Scriptures are clear that Jesus, when He ascended, went to sit at the right hand of the Father as fulfillment of Psalm 110:1. Furthermore, the high priest who confronted Jesus is also the same one that confronted Stephen (Acts 7:1). Therefore is it possible that the high priest saw with Stephen, as fulfillment of what Jesus told the high priest, Jesus standing at the right hand of God? We don't know, but this is possible. It is not altogether clear the statements by Jesus to the disciples in Matthew 16:28 and to the high priest in Matthew 26:64 are referring to the same event. It is possible that all will see Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father and coming in the clouds before they face the final judgment. So the high priest will rise on that day and actually see Him before facing judgment. Passages such as Romans 2:5,16, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Philippians 2:9-12 clearly indicate an appearance by all before Jesus Christ to face judgment. Some scholars suggest the you of Matthew 26:64 is not the high priest (you is plural) but rather the Jews that Jesus is referring. So all the Jews will recognize that the Christ, they have reviled and ignored for hundreds of years, will actually be Lord of Lords and King of Kings and they will see at the final judgment Him whom they pierced and all the tribes of earth will mourn because of him (Revelation 1:7).
Our final interpretation of Matthew 16:28 deals with the context of this statement and other Scripture. It is interesting that after Jesus made this statement, six days later, He was transfigured before Peter, James, and John. It is clear that Jesus was glorified at this event. Notice also a cloud descended and overshadowed them and a voice spoke saying, "This is My beloved Son, Hear Him" (Luke 9:35). Peter refers to this event in 2 Peter 1:16, "we made known to you the power and coming (this is the same word as used in Matthew 16:28) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased', and we head this voice which came from heaven when were with Him on the holy mountain". It is possible Matthew 16:28 was fulfilled by the events of the transfiguration. However, I find this view rather weak, especially if we take at face value the statement of Jesus that some would not taste "death". An event that happened some 6 to 8 days later does not seem to fulfill this prediction by Jesus. Still, the language is so similar in 2 Peter, one has to be intrigued by this interpretation.
I will now address the passage written by John concerning his death and Peter's. BCS makes much of this to prove that Jesus was predicting John would be still alive when He would come in 70 A.D. The passage can be read in John 21:18:22. This is proof to BCS of the validity of Matthew 16:28. So John would be part of the "some" who would not taste death. Evidently a saying had gone out among the brethren that from this passage, John would not die. Clearly, John included this passage of Scripture to put this saying at rest. Jesus did not say that John would not die but that "if I will that he remain, till I come, what is that to you". This is clearly a conditional statement suggesting that it is in the power and prerogative of the Savior to decide when and how people shall die and it is not Peter's business. One thing BCS does not explain is how could the brethren misunderstand that John would not die. According to BCS, although the disciples did not know the exact hour or day of the coming of the Lord, they did know that it would happen within a generation (around 40 years). So if the brethren believed that the second coming was to occur in 70 A.D. then John would die afterwards ("till I come"), however the saying went out that he would not die at all!!
BCS wants to compare the localized event of the destruction of Jerusalem and back view it to the days of Noah. Using Jesus' words of "But as the days of Noah, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be"(Matt.24:37) as proof that the flood must have also been a localized event. What we have here is a similitude, but what is the main purpose here of the similitude. The problem is that while the historical facts of the flood are used by Jesus to talk about His coming and judgment, Jesus is talking more of the attitudes and lifestyle of the people of Noah's day and His coming than an actual time sequence or localized event. He tells us that people were doing normal events during the time that Noah was building the ark (possibly at least 100 years) such as eating and drinking and giving in marriage. In other words they had neither concern nor belief in the coming event of the flood until "the flood came and took them all away". Jesus is suggesting that there will be similar attitudes when He comes again. In fact, the whole context of Matthew 24, 25 appears to be disciples who are not watching nor prepared for the coming of their Master. I fail to see any such attitude, historically, by the disciples prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. In fact Paul warns that the Day (of Christ) will not come unless the falling away comes first (2 Thess. 2:3). While the Christians did suffer persecution and some did fall away (Paul states, "Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world”), there is no evidence of a world-wide falling away by the disciples immediately prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Concerning the first letter to the Thessalonians, BCS wants us to believe that the Thessalonians would actually live to see the coming of the Lord. Quoting I Thessalonians 4:17, BCS states, "Why would Paul teach that some of his audience would live to see the coming of the Lord? Again, the answer is rooted in Jesus own promises in passages such as Matthew 16:27, 28, John 21:22,23, and Matthew 24:24. Paul believed that some of his own audience would live to see the coming of the Lord because of the Lord's own teaching." There are two problems with this interpretation. First, the passages that BCS uses to back up their claim that the Thessalonians would live to see the coming of the Lord are addressed to the apostles. Matthew 16:27, 28; John 21:22, 23 and Matthew 24:24 are addressed to the apostles. Now granted it is possible, for example. that when Jesus states "when you see these things, know that it is near - at the door" (Matt 24:33) that He does have in mind all disciples. Still we need to be careful here. A further example of watching the context and grammar is that BCS ignores the personal pronouns "we" that Paul uses, "We, which are alive". This is why I highlighted the word "some" earlier in this paragraph. Paul includes himself in the "we", if I understand grammar at all. How are we to understand the "we" of I Thessalonians 4:17? Paul was put to death around 67 A.D. some three years before the destruction of Jerusalem, the coming of the Lord, according to BCS. Well, BCS decides that the we refers to "some" of the Thessalonians, but has to exclude Paul as part of the we. We either must believe, that this "we" is a futurist "we" referring to those who are alive on the earth when Jesus comes again not in 70 A.D. but an unknown day or hour; or we must further examine what Paul meant by the phrase "which are alive"
Concerning the passage of 2 Peter 3:3,4 (of which I will spend more time in Part Two of my review), BCS refers to the scoffers of this passage who had remembered the words of Jesus concerning His coming and wondering why it had not happened. Interestingly, BCS does not give Peter's explanation. Why does Peter refer to a thousand years being like a day, if the coming of the Lord was imminent? Peter's response to these scoffers are two-fold. God's word is sure and it will happen just as God's word created the heavens and the earth. By God's word the world was destroyed by a flood, and so the present heavens and earth are preserved by the "same word". In other words, this present age is just waiting for God's word. Secondly, Peter tells us that our time sequence is not the same as God's. A thousand years is like a day to the Lord. I fail to understand why Peter would argue such if the day was just a few years hence (Remember according to BCS, Peter must have known that around 70 A.D., the Lord would be coming).
BCS argues that as the day began to come closer and closer, the language of some of the later books of the New Testament reflect this growing urgency. BCS uses the book of Hebrews (10:35 - 37) quoting Hab. 2:3 as proof of this. God did not tarry in judging Judah for soon after Habakkuk gave his prophecy, God sent the Babylonians in 586 B.C. to destroy the temple and Jerusalem. Therefore the writer of Hebrews, in using Habakkuk, is telling his readers that it also would be very soon, not an indefinite time period The understanding of phrases such as "age", generation", "eternal", "day", "hour", "a little while", "Today" "in the last days", "shortly", and "quickly" are important in the study of eschatology. I will not address these phrases in this part of my review. However I must point out that the book of Hebrews quotes another prophet using a similar time phrase. Interestingly BCS nowhere mentions this passage. In Hebrews 12:26, we read, "whose voice then shook the earth, but now He has promised, saying, 'Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven' ". Hebrews is quoting Haggai 2:6. The words "once more" means from the Hebrew, in a little while or soon. Yet, Hebrews almost 500 years later, states that it is yet to be fulfilled. However you interpret Hebrews 12:26, 27, we have to realize that our concept of "a little while" or "soon" is different than God's. Sometimes it might be a small period of time and at other times, it may mean a great period of time. For a thousand years is like a day unto the Lord.
Much of chapter 3 is BCS comparing the historical writings of Josephus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem with the prophetic words of Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and His coming again. To this writer, BCS is very selective and choosy as to which prophecies are to be taken as literally fulfilled in history and which ones were symbolic prophetic "collapsing universe" language commonly used by prophets to describe national judgments. For example, Josephus does not mention a literal sun being darkened nor a moon that does not give a light, nor of stars falling from heaven as stated by Jesus. To BCS they do not have to be mentioned literally since they are symbolic language. Still BCS tries to suggest to us that these signs were fulfilled by the strange signs mentioned by Josephus such as a star resembling a sword which stood over the city and a comet( a star that fell??) that continued for a year. Then there is the "incredible phenomenon" as stated by Josephus of chariots and soldiers in their armor who were seen running in the clouds and surrounding cities.
Concerning chapter 4, I will not spend any time in this part of my review concerning my interpretation of "the last days" or the "end of the age". BCS believes that the end of the old covenant age (Jewish) happened with the destruction of Jerusalem. My concern here is their interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10 - 12, particularly the word "elements". BCS would have us to believe that the word for elements does not mean the hidden components of all life and matter (such as atoms, etc.) in this passage, but rather the regulations of the Mosaic Law. It is true that sometimes Paul uses this word to refer to the Mosaic customs and traditions such as Galatians 4: 3, 9. But BCS goes further. They believe that in every use of this word it means the final end of the old covenant world. Is this true? The word in the Greek, is "stoichion". It signifies any first things, first principles, first in row, rank such as the letters of the alphabet or an element of a speech (See Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). In Col 2:8, Paul uses the word as the basic "principles" of the world. By this Paul means "philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men". Vine tells us that this is the delusive speculations of Gentile cults and of Jewish theories. I have read this passage many times and I do not get that Paul is clearly referring to the end of a covenant age. Another occurrence of this word is in Hebrews 5:12 where the writer admonishes his readers that they need to be taught again the first "principles" of the oracles of God. While an interpretation of this could be the Old Testament, it could also mean the first principles of the new covenant. The context seems to suggest this for the writer of Hebrews does not want to lay again the foundation of repentance, faith, baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment.
Summary
Let us summarize what I have tried to say in this review of the first four chapters of BCS.
1. The authors have basically used the concept of preterism to convince readers that all of the prophecies of the Old and New Testament were fulfilled in the first century. They believe the end of the old covenant age occurred with the destruction of Jerusalem and at this destruction, Jesus came again in judgment.
2. Origins, the story of the flood, and destruction of the Jerusalem must be understood not only historically but also in symbolic, prophetic "collapsing universe" language similar to the language of judgments throughout the Bible and which reaches its final prophetic judgment with the destruction of Jerusalem.
3. It is not as clear as BCS would like for us to think that Matthew 16:28 and similar passages in Mark and Luke refer to only the coming event of destruction of Jerusalem. It could refer to the sitting of Jesus on the right hand of the Father while His Kingdom (the church) was being established in Acts chapter 2 and permanently established with the Gentiles in Acts 15.
4. Some apostles did die before the staying power of the kingdom had been established. We must note that it wasn't until Acts 15 that universal agreement was given by the apostles (whatever you loose, whatever you bind) concerning the Gentiles being acceptable to God. This was after the death of James, the apostle.
5. The fact the disciples believed John would not die suggests the opposite of what BCS would have us to believe. For if the disciples believed that Jesus would come within their generation, John would have to die after He came. However the saying went out that John would not die at all!!
6. I Thessalonians 4:17 is actually a problem passage for BCS, not a proof passage due to the "we". Since Paul died before the destruction of Jerusalem, how are we to understand this "we" since grammatically, it should include Paul. It must be a futurist "we".
7. The fact that Peter gives us the understanding that a thousand years is like a day to the Lord in 2 Peter 3:8, seems to suggest that scoffers, who want a more immediate fulfillment, do not understand God's view of time nor the power of God's word. The fact that God is longsuffering suggests that God is willing to wait a long period of time. It is odd that in this passage Peter does not bring up the fact that this day is soon, in fact a few years away, if BCS's view is correct.
8. Concerning time, BCS fails to mention the prophecy of Haggai 2:6 which the writer of Hebrews states has yet to be fulfilled. Clearly, the concept of soon here is different than our normal concept of soon.
9. BCS is highly selective and choosy as to which passages of Scripture are to be interpreted as literal and historical, and which passages of Scripture are symbolic, apocalyptic language.
10. Stoichion does not always mean in context the end of the old covenant age as BCS would have us believe - particularly with 2 Peter 3: 10. I am convince that the old understanding of this passage is correct. Here Peter is talking about the first principles that make up the earth as being burned up and dissolved; not the end of an covenant age. Therefore this passage is still waiting to be fulfilled.
I know I have been long, but I hope thorough, yet easy to understand. I await comments
Pascal Redfern
Our final interpretation of Matthew 16:28 deals with the context of this statement and other Scripture. It is interesting that after Jesus made this statement, six days later, He was transfigured before Peter, James, and John. It is clear that Jesus was glorified at this event. Notice also a cloud descended and overshadowed them and a voice spoke saying, "This is My beloved Son, Hear Him" (Luke 9:35). Peter refers to this event in 2 Peter 1:16, "we made known to you the power and coming (this is the same word as used in Matthew 16:28) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased', and we head this voice which came from heaven when were with Him on the holy mountain". It is possible Matthew 16:28 was fulfilled by the events of the transfiguration. However, I find this view rather weak, especially if we take at face value the statement of Jesus that some would not taste "death". An event that happened some 6 to 8 days later does not seem to fulfill this prediction by Jesus. Still, the language is so similar in 2 Peter, one has to be intrigued by this interpretation.
I will now address the passage written by John concerning his death and Peter's. BCS makes much of this to prove that Jesus was predicting John would be still alive when He would come in 70 A.D. The passage can be read in John 21:18:22. This is proof to BCS of the validity of Matthew 16:28. So John would be part of the "some" who would not taste death. Evidently a saying had gone out among the brethren that from this passage, John would not die. Clearly, John included this passage of Scripture to put this saying at rest. Jesus did not say that John would not die but that "if I will that he remain, till I come, what is that to you". This is clearly a conditional statement suggesting that it is in the power and prerogative of the Savior to decide when and how people shall die and it is not Peter's business. One thing BCS does not explain is how could the brethren misunderstand that John would not die. According to BCS, although the disciples did not know the exact hour or day of the coming of the Lord, they did know that it would happen within a generation (around 40 years). So if the brethren believed that the second coming was to occur in 70 A.D. then John would die afterwards ("till I come"), however the saying went out that he would not die at all!!
BCS wants to compare the localized event of the destruction of Jerusalem and back view it to the days of Noah. Using Jesus' words of "But as the days of Noah, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be"(Matt.24:37) as proof that the flood must have also been a localized event. What we have here is a similitude, but what is the main purpose here of the similitude. The problem is that while the historical facts of the flood are used by Jesus to talk about His coming and judgment, Jesus is talking more of the attitudes and lifestyle of the people of Noah's day and His coming than an actual time sequence or localized event. He tells us that people were doing normal events during the time that Noah was building the ark (possibly at least 100 years) such as eating and drinking and giving in marriage. In other words they had neither concern nor belief in the coming event of the flood until "the flood came and took them all away". Jesus is suggesting that there will be similar attitudes when He comes again. In fact, the whole context of Matthew 24, 25 appears to be disciples who are not watching nor prepared for the coming of their Master. I fail to see any such attitude, historically, by the disciples prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. In fact Paul warns that the Day (of Christ) will not come unless the falling away comes first (2 Thess. 2:3). While the Christians did suffer persecution and some did fall away (Paul states, "Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world”), there is no evidence of a world-wide falling away by the disciples immediately prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Concerning the first letter to the Thessalonians, BCS wants us to believe that the Thessalonians would actually live to see the coming of the Lord. Quoting I Thessalonians 4:17, BCS states, "Why would Paul teach that some of his audience would live to see the coming of the Lord? Again, the answer is rooted in Jesus own promises in passages such as Matthew 16:27, 28, John 21:22,23, and Matthew 24:24. Paul believed that some of his own audience would live to see the coming of the Lord because of the Lord's own teaching." There are two problems with this interpretation. First, the passages that BCS uses to back up their claim that the Thessalonians would live to see the coming of the Lord are addressed to the apostles. Matthew 16:27, 28; John 21:22, 23 and Matthew 24:24 are addressed to the apostles. Now granted it is possible, for example. that when Jesus states "when you see these things, know that it is near - at the door" (Matt 24:33) that He does have in mind all disciples. Still we need to be careful here. A further example of watching the context and grammar is that BCS ignores the personal pronouns "we" that Paul uses, "We, which are alive". This is why I highlighted the word "some" earlier in this paragraph. Paul includes himself in the "we", if I understand grammar at all. How are we to understand the "we" of I Thessalonians 4:17? Paul was put to death around 67 A.D. some three years before the destruction of Jerusalem, the coming of the Lord, according to BCS. Well, BCS decides that the we refers to "some" of the Thessalonians, but has to exclude Paul as part of the we. We either must believe, that this "we" is a futurist "we" referring to those who are alive on the earth when Jesus comes again not in 70 A.D. but an unknown day or hour; or we must further examine what Paul meant by the phrase "which are alive"
Concerning the passage of 2 Peter 3:3,4 (of which I will spend more time in Part Two of my review), BCS refers to the scoffers of this passage who had remembered the words of Jesus concerning His coming and wondering why it had not happened. Interestingly, BCS does not give Peter's explanation. Why does Peter refer to a thousand years being like a day, if the coming of the Lord was imminent? Peter's response to these scoffers are two-fold. God's word is sure and it will happen just as God's word created the heavens and the earth. By God's word the world was destroyed by a flood, and so the present heavens and earth are preserved by the "same word". In other words, this present age is just waiting for God's word. Secondly, Peter tells us that our time sequence is not the same as God's. A thousand years is like a day to the Lord. I fail to understand why Peter would argue such if the day was just a few years hence (Remember according to BCS, Peter must have known that around 70 A.D., the Lord would be coming).
BCS argues that as the day began to come closer and closer, the language of some of the later books of the New Testament reflect this growing urgency. BCS uses the book of Hebrews (10:35 - 37) quoting Hab. 2:3 as proof of this. God did not tarry in judging Judah for soon after Habakkuk gave his prophecy, God sent the Babylonians in 586 B.C. to destroy the temple and Jerusalem. Therefore the writer of Hebrews, in using Habakkuk, is telling his readers that it also would be very soon, not an indefinite time period The understanding of phrases such as "age", generation", "eternal", "day", "hour", "a little while", "Today" "in the last days", "shortly", and "quickly" are important in the study of eschatology. I will not address these phrases in this part of my review. However I must point out that the book of Hebrews quotes another prophet using a similar time phrase. Interestingly BCS nowhere mentions this passage. In Hebrews 12:26, we read, "whose voice then shook the earth, but now He has promised, saying, 'Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven' ". Hebrews is quoting Haggai 2:6. The words "once more" means from the Hebrew, in a little while or soon. Yet, Hebrews almost 500 years later, states that it is yet to be fulfilled. However you interpret Hebrews 12:26, 27, we have to realize that our concept of "a little while" or "soon" is different than God's. Sometimes it might be a small period of time and at other times, it may mean a great period of time. For a thousand years is like a day unto the Lord.
Much of chapter 3 is BCS comparing the historical writings of Josephus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem with the prophetic words of Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and His coming again. To this writer, BCS is very selective and choosy as to which prophecies are to be taken as literally fulfilled in history and which ones were symbolic prophetic "collapsing universe" language commonly used by prophets to describe national judgments. For example, Josephus does not mention a literal sun being darkened nor a moon that does not give a light, nor of stars falling from heaven as stated by Jesus. To BCS they do not have to be mentioned literally since they are symbolic language. Still BCS tries to suggest to us that these signs were fulfilled by the strange signs mentioned by Josephus such as a star resembling a sword which stood over the city and a comet( a star that fell??) that continued for a year. Then there is the "incredible phenomenon" as stated by Josephus of chariots and soldiers in their armor who were seen running in the clouds and surrounding cities.
Concerning chapter 4, I will not spend any time in this part of my review concerning my interpretation of "the last days" or the "end of the age". BCS believes that the end of the old covenant age (Jewish) happened with the destruction of Jerusalem. My concern here is their interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10 - 12, particularly the word "elements". BCS would have us to believe that the word for elements does not mean the hidden components of all life and matter (such as atoms, etc.) in this passage, but rather the regulations of the Mosaic Law. It is true that sometimes Paul uses this word to refer to the Mosaic customs and traditions such as Galatians 4: 3, 9. But BCS goes further. They believe that in every use of this word it means the final end of the old covenant world. Is this true? The word in the Greek, is "stoichion". It signifies any first things, first principles, first in row, rank such as the letters of the alphabet or an element of a speech (See Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). In Col 2:8, Paul uses the word as the basic "principles" of the world. By this Paul means "philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men". Vine tells us that this is the delusive speculations of Gentile cults and of Jewish theories. I have read this passage many times and I do not get that Paul is clearly referring to the end of a covenant age. Another occurrence of this word is in Hebrews 5:12 where the writer admonishes his readers that they need to be taught again the first "principles" of the oracles of God. While an interpretation of this could be the Old Testament, it could also mean the first principles of the new covenant. The context seems to suggest this for the writer of Hebrews does not want to lay again the foundation of repentance, faith, baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment.
Summary
Let us summarize what I have tried to say in this review of the first four chapters of BCS.
1. The authors have basically used the concept of preterism to convince readers that all of the prophecies of the Old and New Testament were fulfilled in the first century. They believe the end of the old covenant age occurred with the destruction of Jerusalem and at this destruction, Jesus came again in judgment.
2. Origins, the story of the flood, and destruction of the Jerusalem must be understood not only historically but also in symbolic, prophetic "collapsing universe" language similar to the language of judgments throughout the Bible and which reaches its final prophetic judgment with the destruction of Jerusalem.
3. It is not as clear as BCS would like for us to think that Matthew 16:28 and similar passages in Mark and Luke refer to only the coming event of destruction of Jerusalem. It could refer to the sitting of Jesus on the right hand of the Father while His Kingdom (the church) was being established in Acts chapter 2 and permanently established with the Gentiles in Acts 15.
4. Some apostles did die before the staying power of the kingdom had been established. We must note that it wasn't until Acts 15 that universal agreement was given by the apostles (whatever you loose, whatever you bind) concerning the Gentiles being acceptable to God. This was after the death of James, the apostle.
5. The fact the disciples believed John would not die suggests the opposite of what BCS would have us to believe. For if the disciples believed that Jesus would come within their generation, John would have to die after He came. However the saying went out that John would not die at all!!
6. I Thessalonians 4:17 is actually a problem passage for BCS, not a proof passage due to the "we". Since Paul died before the destruction of Jerusalem, how are we to understand this "we" since grammatically, it should include Paul. It must be a futurist "we".
7. The fact that Peter gives us the understanding that a thousand years is like a day to the Lord in 2 Peter 3:8, seems to suggest that scoffers, who want a more immediate fulfillment, do not understand God's view of time nor the power of God's word. The fact that God is longsuffering suggests that God is willing to wait a long period of time. It is odd that in this passage Peter does not bring up the fact that this day is soon, in fact a few years away, if BCS's view is correct.
8. Concerning time, BCS fails to mention the prophecy of Haggai 2:6 which the writer of Hebrews states has yet to be fulfilled. Clearly, the concept of soon here is different than our normal concept of soon.
9. BCS is highly selective and choosy as to which passages of Scripture are to be interpreted as literal and historical, and which passages of Scripture are symbolic, apocalyptic language.
10. Stoichion does not always mean in context the end of the old covenant age as BCS would have us believe - particularly with 2 Peter 3: 10. I am convince that the old understanding of this passage is correct. Here Peter is talking about the first principles that make up the earth as being burned up and dissolved; not the end of an covenant age. Therefore this passage is still waiting to be fulfilled.
I know I have been long, but I hope thorough, yet easy to understand. I await comments
Pascal Redfern
Covenant Creation As Taught By Dr. John H. Sailhamer
Thought you guys might find this interesting:
Covenant Creation As Taught By Dr. John H. Sailhamer
Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com
Covenant Creation As Taught By Dr. John H. Sailhamer
Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com
