I came across a recent debate that R. Albert Mohler and C. John Collins had at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School on the topic: “Does Scripture Speak Definitively on the Age of the Universe?” Here is a link to the video of the debate.
The 2 hour long debate is worth watching, particularly the contributions of C. John “Jack” Collins, OT professor at Covenant Theological Seminary (St. Louis, MO). Skip the first 10 minutes of the video, which is just preliminary info about the debate programs at TEDS). Collins’ presentation starts at 47:43 on the video.
Listening to the whole thing, I thought that Mohler’s presentation argued more from a theological standpoint — staying in the tradition of Christian thought down through the ages, and alarmed at the potential slippery slope that allowing for an old earth presents. He marshals Scriptural arguments but not in a cogent and forceful manner. Most of the observations Jack Collins gives are agreed to in principal by Mohler but then they are just not enough to push him out of a literal 24 hour day/young earth view.
Collins is no friend of evolutionary creationism (or Biologos). He comes off every bit the conservative churchman he is, as a subscriber to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Yet Collins takes pains to read the text in a way the Text wants to be read. He doesn’t twist the meaning of “day” but sees the days as an analogy and thus not meant to be taken literally. He argues compellingly that the Scripture does not aim to speak definitively on the age of the universe or the age of the earth. I found his presentation winsome and very carefully laid out. The debate bogged down at the end with Mohler taking most of the time and some important points being skipped for lack of time.
Collins’ emphasis on precision of language and his overall thoughts about the science and faith debate refreshing. Here is a faithful scholar who is thinking deeply on this matter and offering some helpful thoughts. This debate spurred me to pick up my copy of his Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care. The book is excellent and I hope to search out other materials Dr. Collins has written on this overall topic.
The short account of Zipporah being forced to circumcise her son is one of the most enigmatic and puzzling texts for modern readers. I want to look at the text here briefly and allow Duane A. Garrett to help clear things up. Garrett is the author of the latest commentary in the Kregel Exegetical Library. His A Commentary on Exodus is absolutely superb, I am thoroughly enjoying it and hope to have a review up soon.
Here is our text, first in the ESV and then in Garrett’s translation provided in the commentary:
24 At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision. (ESV)
24 Now it happened along the way at a lodging place that YHWH encountered him and sought to put him to death. 25 And Zipporah took a flint, and she cut off her son’s foreskin, and she touched his feet, and she said, “You are my hatan damim (kindsman by the blood of circumcision)!” 26 And he let him alone. In that episode she said hatan damim with reference to the circumcision ritual. (Garrett, p. 222-223)
I cannot reproduce Garrett’s entire discussion, but will provide the introduction to his discussion of this text. I’ll also summarize some of his many arguments (against the “standard interpretation” and for his own) and then present his conclusion. I’ll also excerpt his theological take-home points as well.
This text is very difficult. What would probably pass for the standard interpretation among evangelical Protestants is as follows. Moses had two sons, but he had not yet circumcised one of them. On the way to Egypt he was suddenly incapacitated (by a severe illness) as a punishment from God for this neglect. Moses, calling from his sickbed, told Zipporah what the problem was and that she had to circumcise the boy, and she performed the circumsion. By doing this, she averted the wrath of God against Moses. But she found the whole process disgusting and blamed Moses for putting her through the ordeal, so she threw the boy’s foreskin at Moses’s feet and called him bloddy and disgusting). Her revulsion toward what had happened was so great that she went back to her father at that time; we do not see her again until Exod. 18:2.
Every aspect of the above interpretation, except that Zipporah circumcised her son, is almost cerainly wrong…. (p. 225-226)
Some of his key arguments are that the text calls the boy “her son” and focuses on Zipporah, not Moses. There is no indication in the text that Moses is present with her at this time. The pronoun “him” likely points forward to the boy as being sick. The text doesn’t say Moses told Zipporah to do anything. Zipporah a shepherdess was likely very familiar wtih anatomy and familiar with circumcision rites in her own tribe. The most natural reading of the text is that she touches the boy’s feet – not those of Moses. “Feet” can be a euphemism for genitals, but doesn’t need to be in this case. It could be a ritual touching of the feet, similar to the annointing in Leviticus that puts blood and annointing oil on the priest’s big toes. The same word for “touch” here is used in Exod. 12:22 which may point to this being a ritual ceremony.
Garrett’s longest discussion is on the “bloody bridegroom” terminology and the use of the various Hebrew terms. He takes it as a liturgical expression that was probably used in Midianite circumcisions and it survives here in Exodus as a “linguistic fossil,” and does not follow normal Hebrew meaning. The specific interpretation he gives for the entire account does seem quite probable and I tend to agree with his view here on this term, particularly since it doesn’t mention Moses but is said of the circumcision act. Verse 26 has to remind the Hebrew readers what this phrase was directed toward, since it is an unusual expression even for Hebrew readers.
Here then is Garrett’s interpretation:
We might, therefore, suggest the following reconstruction of the story behind this text. Moses and Zipporah set out for Egypt. Along the way, their son suddenly became deathly ill. Zipporah recognized that the boy needed to be circumcised, and she did the act with a flint knife (flint can be more finely sharpened than can bronze and is therefore better for performing surgery). After the removal of the foreskin, she ritually touched the boy’s feet (or genitals) with her hand or the flint while saying, “You are hatan damim to me” (a member of my community by virture of the blood of circumcision). These formulaic words concluded the circumcision ceremony. The act formalized the inclusion of the boy in the community. After that, the boy recovered. Ziporah had turned aside the wrath of God.
Which son was it? We do not know, but since there is no birth report for Eliezer during their time in Midian, it is possible that he was born right about the time Moses set out for Egypt. This would explain Moses’s desire to get a donkey for the woman and the children. Why was one son not circumcised? Again, we do not know, but if the above conjecture is correct, it may be that they thought it dangerous to circumcise the boy right as they set out on a journey across the wilderness. ON the other hand, it may be that the uncircumcised son was Gershom, the firstborn, as some Jewish interpreters have maintained. Why is the boy called “her son” and not “Moses’s son”? Probably because Moses play no role in the story; this is about what Zipporah did.
An important feature of the text, however, is how it is linked to its context. In v. 20, Moses provides for “his sons,” while v. 23 speaks of “my son” and “your son,” and v. 25 speaks of “her son.” Thus, the issue of how parents treat their sons dominates this passage. In addition, as Sarna points out, 4:22-23 is focused on the life and death of the “firstborn,” while 4:24-26 indicates that the son must be circumcised in order to live…. This parallel further suggests that it was the son, not Moses, whose life was in danger…. In the broader context of Exodus, the portrayal of Zipporah turning aside God’s wrath from her son is paralleled in Moses’s doing the same for all of Israel in Exod. 32:9-14. (p. 230-232)
From this interpretation of the text, here are a few of Garrett’s theological take-home points:
The circumcision of Zipporah’s son makes the point that one cannot be considered to be part of Israel, and so to be YHWH’s son, unless one is circumcised. For the Israelites, the warning was that they could only escape the great wrath of God directed against Egypt’s sons by being sure that their own sons were circumcised. By analogy, one is not one of God’s people by mere association….
Zipporah, in her actions, demonstrates spiritual insight applied to the protection of her children. Spiritual wisdom and intervention is necessary in order to save one’s children from destruction….
Christ is the supreme example of the obedient son. He is also the true firstborn of God, and he provided for us the circumcision that removes the defilement of the flesh and allows us to join the people of God (Eph. 2:11-13; Col. 2:11). (p. 232)
I found this treatment extremely helpful and illuminating. This is an example of the care with which Garrett handles the text and is representative of his exegetical treatment throughout the commentary. He is not usually offering an innovative interpretation (as he does above), but he brings clarity and his masterful knowledge of Hebrew to bear on the questions at hand.
Check out the book’s detail page at Kregel.com, where you can find an excerpt. Or pick up a copy at any of the following retailers:
My recent post in response to Justin Taylor’s article explaining Biblical reasons for viewing the six days of creation as not 24-hour periods has received a lot of attention. My Facebook profile doesn’t normally light up so much! And I engaged in some endless blog debates at Sharper Iron, and another site.
I’ve read a lot more on old earth creationism lately, and see the need to continue my studies in this area personally. Justin Taylor recommended a few sources for additional reading, and I wanted to share those here with a couple additions of my own, for the benefit of my readers.
For a simple explanation from a Christian geologist of the evidence for an old earth, this post (and his series, linked at the bottom) are helpful.
My primary reason for holding to an old-earth position is detailed in this article – God speaks through creation and He doesn’t deceive. For additional explanation of how the Bible allows for an old earth, see this post.
For two free e-books from a Reformed persuasion, which model a helpful and careful consideration of this debate, see:
Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach by Vern Poythres – ebook (free – PDF) / paperback (Westminster Bookstore)
A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture by Keith Mathison – ebook (free) / not available in paperback
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 wanted to share an important excerpt from Robert Stein’s helpful book on biblical interpretation. This helps in understanding the prophetic genre, and makes good sense of Peter’s quote of Joel 2 in Acts 2.
An additional proof for his claim comes in the recognition that the prophets often maek use of language from the covenant curses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. They are using a specific language intentionally – the language of covenant. They are not just describing a foreseen future in strictly literal terms.
Much of the terminology found in prophecy makes use of customary imagery used in this genre. For instance, in the judgment prophecy found in Isaiah 13:9-11 we read:
“See, the day of the LORD is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger — to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it. The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light. I will punish the world for its evil, the wicked for their sins. I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty and will humble the pride of the ruthless.”
Because of the cosmic imagery found in this prophecy, many interpreters assume that it is referring to the end of history. Yet it is clear from Isaiah 13:1… and 19… that the prophecy concerns the Babylonian empire of the sixth century B.C. The Babylonian kingdom that destroyed Jerusalem and the Solomonic temple, this empire that sent the cream of Judean society into exile, was about to experience divine judgment.
Yet this judgment is described in cosmic terminology. Such terminology, however, was part of the imagery and symbolism available to the prophets when they sought to describe God’s intervention in history and his sovereign rule over the kingdoms of this world (cf. Dan. 2:21; 4:17,25,34-35; 5:21). Such imagery was not meant to be interpreted literally. The sun was not actually going to be darkened; the moon would not stop giving its light; the stars would not stop showing their light. “What” the author willed to communicate by this imagery, that God was going to bring judgment upon Babylon, was to be understood “literally.” And that willed meaning, God’s judgment upon Babylon, did take place. This prophecy was fulfilled with the rise and rule of the Persian empire over the territories once ruled by Babylon, and the later readers of this prophecy knew that this prophecy had indeed been fulfilled. Babylon had been judged just as the prophecy proclaimed, and it was God’s doing just as the cosmic imagery described. The imagery, itself, however, was understood by the prophet and his audience as part of the stock terminology used in this kind of literature to describe God’s intervention into history.
In Acts 2:14-21 Peter and Luke interpreted the events of Pentecost in a similar way as they saw in it the fulfillment of the prophetic message of Joel:
“Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: ‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my SPirit in those days, and they will prophesy. I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'”
These cosmic signs did not literally take place at Pentecost, even though what the author willed to convey by those signs did. God did enter into history and bring about the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel. God in fulfillment of his promises gave to the church the blessed gift of the new covenant….
There have been attempts to deny that the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 was fulfilled at Pentecost. Usually this is due to a misunderstanding of the figurative nature of this cosmic terminology. Some have suggested that Luke and Peter believed that Pentecost was “kind of like” what Joel prophesied but not its actual fulfillment. Such a manipulative interpretation of this passage of Acts, however, is impossible in light of Peter’s words in Acts 2:16: “this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel.” Furthermore such interpretative gymnastics are unnecessary when we are willing to accept what the author meant by the use of such terminology. We need only note other passages to see how widespread the use of such cosmic terminology is in the Bible (Isa. 24:23; Jer. 4:28; 13:16; 15:9; Ezek. 32:7-8; Joel 2:10,31; 3:15; Amos 8:9; Hab. 3:11; Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:24-25; Luke 21:25; Rev. 6:12). (Attempts to see Mark 15:33; Matt. 27:45; Luke 23:44-45 as the fulfillment of this prophecy also err. They do not explain the signs of Acts 2:19 and most of 2:20. Second, and more important, they err because Peter and Luke associate the fulfillment of these signs with what is happening then and there on the day of pentecost.
I came across a recent debate that R. Albert Mohler and C. John Collins had at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School on the topic: “Does Scripture Speak Definitively on the Age of the Universe?” Here is a link to the video of the debate.
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