There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

Creation Ministries International ^ | 11-25-2014 | Keaton Halley

[fishtank]

‘From the beginning of creation’—what did Jesus mean?

There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

by Keaton Halley

Published: 25 November 2014 (GMT+10)

Not everyone welcomes this news, but some of Jesus’ statements imply, of necessity, that the world is young. This is something I regularly point out when I speak in churches about creation, and it is a theme on which we have written previously, in articles such as Jesus on the age of the earth and in chapter 9 of Refuting Compromise. To reiterate the argument briefly, Jesus claimed that human history began at approximately the same time as all of creation came into existence, not billions of years later. This is evident from Jesus’ statements like: “from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’” (Mark 10:6). The obvious implication from these words is that Adam and Eve were on the scene shortly after the heavens and earth were created; they were not latecomers to a cosmos that had already endured for billions of years, as old-earth proponents insist. Thus, for those who take Jesus’ words seriously, there is no way to fit billions of years into Genesis 1 prior to Adam and Eve.

[Tenacious 1]

I’m glad I take God far more seriously for this amazing creation, and all of the genius that we can see and for what we unlock everyday. He boiled it down simply for early man to understand like parents describe things to children. The real story is far more glorious and people should rejoice in the fact that it is.

Well and simply stated. God gave us the intelligence we enjoy. We are programmed to be curious, seek answers and compelled to investigate mysteries. It is actually what leads us and attracts us to God by nature (or should). In that endeavor, we have long sought the means and methods of God's creation. The lay person (or scientist) calls it astronomy, physics, biology, etc. (that is a joking dig). But the more we learn about the complexities and perfection of ourselves, the planet, the solar system, the universe, etc. the more amazing the design is. From the timing of molecule coelesence to the speed of light and the mystery of gravity, our existence in itself is a miracle. And the more we learn about it, the more God's creation of all that is finds support.

[MrB]

The “age of the earth” by itself is not a salvation issue.

---

Maybe in your experience, but in mine, it definitely WAS an issue. I didn’t fully commit to trusting God because I was “too smart” to believe that creation garbage. I was “scientifically trained” and had a degree, etc!

Not trusting the Word was a major obstacle.

[Resettozero]

"From the beginning of creation..." I had never noticed the timeline implications before...

Like they said about Him: No man has ever spoken like this before!

It's...as if...He were actually there at Creation and was not the less than fifty years old that He appeared to one of the Pharisees or Sadducees or scribes who said how old He looked.

[ScottfromNJ]

When lucifer fell from heaven there was great destruction. Jeremiah 4:23-28 describes the chaos and destruction that occurred. So the exact age of the earth is unknown, and an old earth does not contradict the bible. In Genesis God created man, replenished the earth and made things right again. Note that as a result of this event the heavens were dark and there was no life remaining, unlike the Noah flood where Noah, his family and the animals on the Arc survived:

Jeremiah 4:23-28 -

“I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger. For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.”

[hecticskeptic]

Jesus was invoking Genesis to teach about divorce not some scientific statement that the earth was 6,000 years old.

Sure… but the Bible is a cohesive book which all ties together in a seamless and flawlessly accurate way. While a statement on ‘science’ might not have been the objective, there is nothing wrong with using the science implications of the statement for that purpose.]

[Tenacious 1]

Do you think single cell organisms were created in the image of God?

Send me an image of God and I'll do a quick comparison.

(I was being jovially flipant as this topic always draws intense debate. See my other post for my opinion on the matter. That may better explain my sense of intended humor here.)

[MeganC]

Well said. I believe the same.

God created the universe and He created us, too. How and when He did it is something of His understanding and I’ve never understood people who place conditions on their faith such as: “I can only believe in God if the earth is just 6,000 years old.”

That’s not faith, it’s dogma. Faith allows to trust in God to do things as He wished to do them, not as we wished Him to have done them.

[cuban leaf]

“From the beginning of creation...”
I had never noticed the timeline implications before.....

---

The problem is that if you are going to INFER information not being directly communicated in the particular scripture, it is important to go to the original text language. i.e. the word used for “day” in Genesis really translates “heat”.

The phrase “from the beginning of creation” could be based on a figure of speech contemporaneous with Jesus’ life. That is, he could have meant, as long as man and woman have been around - since their beginning...

I’m not saying it means one thing or another regarding the age of the earth. Rather, I’m saying we must be really careful to not read into scripture which has been translated into another language something that is not really there.

[paristexas]

My interpretation would be that the “beginning of creation” refers to the creation of human beings.

[Hieronymus]

Nevertheless, Jesus said male and female were created “
from the beginning of the creation”. You can’t get around that.

---

Provided that Jesus spoke in English, the argument is rock-solid. “If English was good enough for Jesus, its good enough for Texas.”

Prepositions are notoriously tricky in translation, and when moving between not-terribly-closely-related language groups, verbs tend to become terribly problematic as well. “Creation” is also a fairly technical noun, and the meaning of a technical noun in one language rarely precisely overlies the meaning in a different language. The Greek word translated “beginning” also has a number of quite distinct meanings—it could be equally translated “ordering” in this context.

Picking apart a statement made in Hebrew/Aramaic and preserved in Greek on the basis of an English translation to gain light on something other than what is being directly addressed is not a very good idea. I’d elaborate more, but I have to go teach Greek (of the New Testament sort).

[dangerdoc]

If Adam and Eve were created within days of the creation of everything including the heavens and the earth, when did the angels fall?

I believe Genesis. I think it is God giving us the actual story of our creation, but I think it is meant to be the story of our creation, not a description of the entire universe or limit what God doing before our creation or in other places during our creation.

I think it is hubris to think that there is nothing going on outside of what God tell us in the book of Genesis.

[ealgeone]

I am not sure what I believe regarding this issue; however, I am concerned that CMI and AIG, both of whom I respect, make too much of the “young Earth” emphasis. I appreciate and understand the arguments to be made. But, I also think that “old universe” creationists and Intelligent Design-proponents have brought much to the table concerning human origins.

I agree that you MUST take the resurrection of Christ literally, or you cannot be a follower. But, there is a substantial difference between adhering to that tenant of faith and an insistence that every Christian believe that God made man literally days, as in 24 hour days, after He began His work. In my humble opinion, such a dogged insistence only brings needless division among believers.

First, let me say I respect your opinion on this. I know for many it's a hard topic. But let's examine the Word to see what it says.

We have this from Exodus 20:11:

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”

However, we do have several verses in the NT that support the creation account being literal as many other aspects of Genesis.

Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

We should also note the way Jesus treated as historical fact the accounts in the Old Testament, which religious and atheistic skeptics think are unbelievable mythology. These historical accounts include Adam and Eve as the first married couple (Matthew 19:3–6; Mark 10:3–9), Abel as the first prophet who was killed (Luke 11:50–51), Noah and the Flood (Matthew 24:38–39), Moses and the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14), Moses and the manna from heaven to feed the Israelites in the wilderness (John 6:32–33, 49), the experiences of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28–32), the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), the miracles of Elijah (Luke 4:25–27), and Jonah and the big fish (Matthew 12:40–41). As New Testament scholar John Wenham has compellingly argued, Jesus did not allegorize these accounts but took them as straightforward history, describing events that actually happened just as the Old Testament describes.2 Jesus used these accounts to teach His disciples that the events of His death, Resurrection, and Second Coming would likewise certainly happen in time-space reality.https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/did-jesus-say-he-created-in-six-literal-days/

First, Colossians makes it clear that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was the one who created all things: “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist” (Colossians 1:16–17).

The root greek word for created is ktizo. The definition from HELPS Word Studies:

properly, create, which applies only to God who alone can make what was "not there before" (Latin, ex nihilo, out of nothing, J.Thayer); figuratively to begin ("found"), especially what is habitable or useful.

It is used 15 times in the NT.

In the 15 times it or a variation of it, is used, it refers to God creating something or someone.

We also have 2 Peter 3:4

and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”

We also have Rev 3:14

To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:

There is too much evidence in the NT to not believe in a literal creation.

[cuban leaf]

They are correctly willing to take the resurrection literally....but not the creation.

---

There is a justifiable reason for that. One is a cataloguing of events witnessed by many, many people. The other is Moses writing down what God told him to write down. And God successfully communicated scientifically interesting subjects without offering any spoilers. :-)

i.e. we know as much about events and timing of creation as we do about events and timing of the return of Christ.

In either case, I’m not picking a day.

[Resettozero]

So how does Jesus invoking Genesis in order the reach a Jewish audience familiar with the text some endorsement of Young Earth Creationists? Jesus was invoking Genesis to teach about divorce not some scientific statement that the earth was 6,000 years old.

At first reading, your point appears valid. But upon reflection, if His statement about Adam and Eve (male and female) is true, and it is, it follows that so is the Creation detailed in Genesis.

You bring up Jesus' Jewish audience and I am reminded that Jesus not only is Jewish by human reckoning, so were ALL of his disciples and members of His Church that He founded upon Himself, the Rock of our salvation.

Not many gentiles were among early members of His Church (although at least one or two were fed with crumbs from His table) until He asked Paul why he was kicking against the goads.

BTW, it was Paul, spending a good deal of time in Rome, who is known as a principal Apostle to the gentiles, not Peter or James who remained in the Jerusalem area for the most part, ministering to the Jews.

[Resettozero]

In either case, I’m not picking a day.

Wise choice, No need to pack for the long trip either; just be ready to go in an instant...any instant.

[buffaloguy]

You are correct in all particulars. Good reply to this post.

[ziravan]

Silly. This young earth junk is just as silly as evolution.

1. Genesis provided an explanation of Creation to people 5,000 years behind us, scientifically. It’s not a lie to tell people what they are ready to hear, at the level they are ready to hear it.

If you tell a 3 yr old that a baby comes “from mommy’s belly,” you haven’t lied because you omitted the sexual nature of reproduction. Trying to use the story of Creation in Genesis to explain the science of Creation is like trying to get from “Mommy’s belly” to conception. There are too many gaps to make any credible leaps. That doesn’t make “Mommy’s belly” a lie. It just means that “Mommy’s belly” was never intended to be a scientific defense of reproduction.

2. It seems to me that one of our chief purposes here is to learn faith. Faith is believing that which is unseen. How can “new earth” possibly be proved as science? If I could prove to you that the Earth is 11 thousand years old, then every other thing we know about science (the junk that is evolution aside) would require us to believe in a divine creation. It would be proven by the facts as they exist. Who needs faith for that? This idea that new earth must be believed misses the point.

In fact, the concept of new earth requires a lack of proof precisely to protect faith (hint, this is EXACTLY why Genesis’ account of Creation is relevant today). If I must have faith to believe in an unprovable new earth, then my faith is and can be just as assured without believing in it, thank you very much. This concept of new earth is adding to that which we’ve been told, unnecessarily at that.

If that’s not the point of the new earth argument, to offer a proof, then what is the point? How is my faith lessened one iota to acknowledge that maybe I don’t know, and maybe the Genesis account wasn’t designed TO BE a proof? You can believe in new earth if you like. That’s not the point of this article. The point of this article is to suggest that I must believe it, too. What is it with new earthists and evolutionists that they aren’t content to believe their own theories, that they must shove them down my throat as well?

3. Ultimately, new earth is a derivative of “Last Thursdayism”. Wiki it. The Omphalos Hypothesis is dangerous to faith. If the world is Created in aged motion, then maybe it was created last week, and you and everything you’ve experienced was just created “in motion”. Taken to its conclusions, this notion denies a permanency to our existence. It is the teaching of the Word that just the opposite is true: we are eternal beings. The underpinnings of new earth theory denies a permanence to Creation that is my birthright.

Faith requires us to believe that Creation involves things unseen and unexplained. Trying to wrap that up in a neat bow of a simplex formula is just as silly as trying to force the evidence at hand to suggest macro-evolution, and for the same reasons.

4. If you’re going to use the syntax of a phrase to make your point, to the exclusion of else, then you can make the Bible say anything you want it to say. Try this: Genesis 11. “Come, let us go down...” Spend a few minutes on that one, cause it’s mind blowing.

There is no reason whatsoever to try to compete with the silliness of evolution. Evolution is a theory because you cannot elevate to Law that which violates other Law. The story of Creation wasn’t designed to be a counter to evolution. It’s a five thousand year concept that stands tall before the passing fancy of an ill-advised theory. There’s no reason to grant evolution credit by comparison (and that, to me, is the point of new earth). That’s like trying to compare Washington to Obama. Why bother?

We have the answers we need without making stuff up.

[afsnco]

Agreed, fishtank.

There are a lot of people who just simply haven’t thought the whole thing through, or read the Bible all the way through. Creation is taught in many, many passages besides Genesis. Here’s just a couple of references from Revelation:

Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Rev 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

We can either believe what the Bible said, or we can call
God a liar. It robs God of glory only He deserves as our Creator, to claim He didn’t create everything. As our Creator, He owns us, and because He owns us, He may either eternally reward us or eternally punish us, according to rules He sets down. This is alluded to in Romans:

Rom 9:21 Or has not the potter the right to make out of one part of his earth a vessel for honour, and out of another a vessel for shame?
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to let his wrath and his power be seen, for a long time put up with the vessels of wrath which were ready for destruction:
Rom 9:23 And to make clear the wealth of his glory to vessels of mercy, which he had before made ready for glory,
Rom 9:24 Even us, who were marked out by him, not only from the Jews, but from the Gentiles?

It’s also clearly stated here:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

My God created everything in six days and deserves all the glory for His creation. I’m uninterested in any other “god.”

This really isn’t of some sort of secondary importance. Just as important as having faith in God, is the God we have faith in. If we have faith in a “god” of our (or the world’s) imagination, that’s committing idolatry, worshiping a nonexistent “god” that seems to be just the sort of “god” Satan would want men to believe in, a passive and powerless one.

The bottom line, of course, is that nobody alive on earth today was there then. Both views are therefore faith-based. I choose to place my faith in God’s Word.

[fishtank]

[Springfield Reformer]

It’s true that Jesus’ teaching in this passage was focused on divorce. However, to make His case against divorce, He presents His Jewish audience with a truth claim grounded in divine revelation that they would be obligated as Jews to accept. His truth claim was that from the beginning of creation, the formation of a monogamous, heterosexual human relationship was supposed to be permanent. If it wasn’t always this way, from the beginning of creation, His claim would be false. If His teaching was false, He could hardly be the Son of God, and we would have no basis for accepting any of His other truth claims, or those made about Him by His apostles, such as John’s claim that Jesus was in fact the Creator. If, under the New Testament narrative, not even the Creator knows what really happened in the timing of creation (God forbid!), then the entire record becomes untrustworthy and we are still all lost sinners.

So it comes down to this. If Jesus says one thing and Darwin or Hawking or Dawkins says something to contradict it, you have to decide where your starting point is in resolving the conflict. For me, it’s a no-brainer. Jesus was there. He created it. So He knows firsthand how it happened, and what is the most truthful way to talk about it. Everybody else just has to catch up to Him if they want to get at the truth.

Peace,

SR