Last summer, I had the privilege of preaching at our church again in St. Paul. The sermon I delivered was poignant and personal. In light of recently posting about our family’s trials, I thought sharing the sermon here for my readers would be appropriate and offer a window into our world.
The text is Lamentations 3:21-26, but the theme is the biblical genre of lament in general. Going through a dark time really brings home the power and promise of the Bible’s lament songs. Pouring out your soul and your distress to the Lord is part of what biblical faith looks like. All of this is designed to help us wait with hope.
I’m sharing the sermon here, and you can find all my recent sermons from The Heights Church, St. Paul, here.
If you don’t have time to listen to the entire sermon (50 minutes), please do look over my notes.
I feel that the question of the age of the earth has become much more caustic in recent years. This debate has been increasingly polarized with each camp thinking the absolute worst of the other. But how important is such a debate anyway? I would contend that the earth’s age is not all that important as Christians who firmly reject natural evolution are to be found on both sides of that question.
As I read Ham’s title and then his blog post, I first bristled at his willingness to read Taylor’s motives. Is not grappling with the text important, whether or not modern science pulls us one way or another? Here is a sampling of Ham’s reasoning:
I have found over and over again that because of the outside influence from the secular world in regard to an old earth/universe… many… will try to reinterpret the days of creation, or somehow allow for long ages somewhere in Genesis 1… to justify meshing Genesis with what is claimed to be “science.” Of course, when the word science is used in relation to the age of the earth/universe, we are dealing with historical science (beliefs based on fallible assumptions) not observational science (the kind of science that builds technology).
I am prepared to go out on a limb, on the basis of my experience in the biblical creation apologetics ministry and of all I’ve read over the past 40+ years, to say this. When Christian leaders today are rejecting a dogmatic stand on six literal, 24-hour days of creation and a young earth, if you search their writings or question them, you will find that ultimately their thinking is being controlled by the belief in an old earth/universe (billions of years)…. You simply do not get the idea of millions or billions of years from Scripture—it comes from outside of Scripture….
And thus I am saying the age of the earth/universe comes down to an authority issue.
On second thought, Ham might be right. At the root of attempts to re-examine Genesis stands the scientific discovery that the earth is unimaginably old. But ultimatley, we must ask, is it wrong to examine afresh our interpretation of Scripture in light of science? I would argue no, and I believe Ham himself is guilty of the same thing.
I’m talking about geocentrism – the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe. This was the Christian interpretation of the world prior to Copernicus’ revolution. Even the early Reformers did not countenance a rejection of this view. I just shared a review of a Christian scholar from the 1960s who still held to a preference for geocentrism even then. And some conservative Christian professors today still argue for such a view.
Science is clear, and the observations shows that the earth is not the center of the universe, and looking at Scripture in a fresh light, the church came to agree that phenomenological language does not constitute an assertion that the earth actually has 4 corners, and is fixed on pillars, with the sun going on a journey around the immobile earth each day.
Ham tries to quibble over the science behind an old earth by claiming that such science is not observational – but this is to turn science on its head. Much of the science that gives us techonology is not strictly observational, but based on observations which reinforce interpretations based on an examination of the evidence. And there are scientific tests done with carbon-14 and a host of other elements, that all agree. Blind tests with controls. Ham and many dispute the validity of such tests but have yet to come up with alternative tests that consistently (with similar controls) demonstrate a young age for the earth. These tests done by modern science converge with astronomical observations and learnings from astrophysics. At the very least many creation scientists would claim that the earth has an appearance of age. Doesn’t Answers in Genesis spend a lot of time grappling over the question of distant starlight?
Rejecting a young earth is not necessarily a matter of authority. The Scripture has authority, we all agree. The question is what does the text actually say. To go back to Taylor’s post, this really is an interpretational issue. There are clues in the text that today’s widespread Christian interpretation about the age of the earth may be in error. This would be similar to the widespread views of Christians in the 1600s being wrong about the position of the earth. Is it wrong to look anew at our interpretations and the Ancient Near Eastern evidence of Genesis 1-3 being of a particular genre. Could not some of the arguments Taylor offers be an honest grappling with the text in light of the influence of science and history.
Bending on our interpretation, reexamining the evidence — these actions do not prove one is abandoning biblical authority and embracing natural evolutionary science. Taylor himself gives us 5 reasons to doubt the current state of evolutionary theory. Instead these actions are incumbent on faithful Christian leaders. We need to make sure our interpretation is firmly grounded in the text. A lot is at stake in getting this right. Let’s make sure we die on the proper hill.
Some have examined the evidence afresh and have come away with a stronger position for a young earth. Don’t look at those who disagree with you and criticize them for examining the evidence too. We all are trying to grapple with science and our interpretation of Scripture. Where we disagree, lets do so charitably and with recognition that this isn’t an authority issue. Both sides uphold the authority of the text. We are all trying to make sure our interpretation is sound.
I’ve been thinking about the relative merits of approaching the book of Revelation with the aim of taking all the visions and judgments literally as opposed to symbolicly. Rev. 1:1 does say that John has a message for us to know, but it says more than this. This message was “signified” to John (this is the alternate reading in the footnote of the NASB, the main text has “communicated”). The word for “signified” is semaino, which means to “communicate by symbols.” So John in effect is answering our question: he is telling us his book communicates via symbolism.
For more help on the question of how to approach Revelation I turned to Invitation to Biblical Interpretation by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson for help. Their book is endorsed by a wide assortment of conservative evangelical scholars and is the best work on hermeneutics I’ve ever read. (Read my reiew here.) I found their comments on this question insightful.
What could be wrong with interpreting apocalyptic literature such as Revelation literally? The main problem with such an approach is that it inadequately considers that the literary genre of a given text establishes the rules for how it should be interpreted. Meaning is intrinsically bound up with genre.119 It follows that genre provides a context assigned by the author to communicate meaning. We have already shown that the genre of Revelation is prophetic-apocalyptic. The apocalyptic genre, by definition, is highly symbolic and not intended to be interpreted in a literal manner. For this reason, a rigid literal interpretation or literalism may actually obscure the author’s intended meaning rather than expose it. Kevin Vanhoozer correctly poses a distinction between the literal sense and literalism.120 If the interpreter is concerned with authorial intention, the literal sense must not be reduced merely to letters, langue, or locutions. Vanhoozer contends that “literalistic reading is less than fully ‘literal’–that it is insufficiently and only ‘thinly’ literal–insofar as it ignores the role of authorial intentions and communicative acts.”121 What Vanhoozer means by this is that the literal–but not the “literalistic”–sense is what the author intended to convey by a given text; this, in turn, is especially true for figurative and symbolic language. In other words, if Revelation is prophetic-apocalyptic in nature, ascribing literalism to its numbers, proper nouns, and other images may actually prevent a proper understanding of John’s intended meaning.122 A more profitable hermeneutical approach is to reverse the interpretive order by placing the symbolic in the foreground while shifting the literal into the background. Thus, rather than positing the dictum “When the literal makes sense, seek no other sense,” we suggest that a better maxim in interpreting apocalyptic is “Start out with the assumption that a given statement or image is figurative rather than literal.”
G.K. Beale makes a strong case for the primacy of the symbolic over straight one-to-one literal correspondence.123 He argues that semaino in Revelation 1:1 conveys the idea of “communication by symbols,”124 noting that the normal usage of semaino in Scripture implies some type of “symbolic communication.”125 Since Revelation is a symbolic means of communication, the literal approach for interpreting the “plain sense” of the image may actually distort the intended meaning of the text. Beale maintains, “Of course, some parts are not symbolic, but the essence of the book is figurative. Where there is lack of clarity about whether something is symbolic, the scales of judgement should be tilted in the direction of a nonliteral analysis.”126 For reasons such as these, the symbolic plane should be considered primary while care should be taken not to reduce the meaning of symbols to something exclusively spiritual.
(pg. 550-551)
Footnotes 119 Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, 236. 120 Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?, 310. 121 Ibid, 311. 122 Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 90. 123 Beale, Book of Revelation, 50-55. 124 Ibid, 52. 125 Ibid, 51. See the discussion of the allusion to Daniel 2:28-30 (LXX) in Revelation 1:1. 126 Ibid, 52.
The authors go on in their book to explain how Revelation itself, through John’s extensive use of the Old Testament (quoting and alluding to OT Scripture, as well as making use of well known OT symbols), helps us when it comes to discerning when and where symbolism exists and how to interpret it.
For my part, knowing that the author intended his book to “communicate by symbols” (Rev. 1:1) as an apocalyptic book, requires me to take this into account as I approach this great book.
Last summer, I had the privilege of preaching at our church again in St. Paul. The sermon I delivered was poignant and personal. In light of recently posting about our family’s trials, I thought sharing the sermon here for my readers would be appropriate and offer a window into our world.
I feel that the question of the age of the earth has become much more caustic in recent years. This debate has been increasingly polarized with each camp thinking the absolute worst of the other. But