Creation Debate – Job Ch38

Sermons Archive - Greenview Church

Some of you have been asking, what is Genesis Revisited? Are we doing two Genesis series? No, we’re doing one Genesis series. So what’s this about? Well, it’s exactly what it says on the tin. We are revisiting the morning passage, and we’re just going a little bit deeper.

(0:25 – 3:13)

So it might be that as we look at the morning text, there’s maybe a question that rises out of the passage, and we don’t have time to deal with it, so we’ll come back to it at night and we’ll think through the question. Or it might be that we will explore a theme. Maybe there’s a theme in the morning that we just touch on, and in the evening we preach a whole message or give a whole seminar on that theme.

So this morning, I spoke on the days of creation and deliberately avoided at all costs the controversy that swirls around the age of the earth and days. And I said this morning that I think Genesis 1 is not primarily concerned with what we often are concerned about. Fundamentally, Genesis is telling us about a personal, powerful, creative, and good God who created everything.

It’s focused on the who of creation, God. And it’s focused on the why of creation, particularly at the end of chapter 1, that humans are made to bear God’s image. Whereas we typically fixate, because of particularly the last three or four hundred years, on the question of how.

How? How exactly did God make the world? And when? What was the precise timing of creation? And inevitably, people do ask those questions. They want to know about the how. They want an answer on the when.

And they wonder whether ancient Scripture can really fit with modern science, if at all. They want to know how old the universe is, and does the Bible give us any hint about that? And so my title this evening, as you see on the overhead, is How Do We Navigate the Creation Debate? Not how do we solve the creation debate, because this debate has been rumbling for, as we’re going to see tonight, for 2,000 years. So not how do we solve it, but how do we navigate it? How do we think about it as Christians? How do we talk about it? How even do we approach it in terms of our attitude? And that is in terms of individually, collectively as a church, and also as we speak about this to people who aren’t Christians.

So that’s what we’re going to focus on tonight. Now, a little word of warning, there will be… I’m trying to keep this as simple as possible, but there might be a few parts of this that’s a little more dense than normal. So do just do your best to stick with me.

(3:14 – 6:28)

So I’ve got three recommendations tonight. The first recommendation is that we should navigate this debate humbly. We should navigate this debate humbly.

Let’s turn for a few moments to Job chapter 38, the book of Job and chapter 38. And if you’re using the Red Bibles, it’s on page 538. This is the moment in the book when God finally speaks to Job out of the storm, and God begins with questions.

Job 38 verse 2, who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man. I will question you and you shall answer me. Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me if you understand.

Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know. Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set? Or who laid its cornerstone while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy? How would you have liked to have been in Job’s position? A hurricane of questions, a kind of wind blowing in his face as God asks of Job, were you there at the beginning? Are you the maker of the world or would that be me as God? Do you know how I made what I made? God’s point is that as creator, God does things that Job cannot do, and he knows things that Job cannot know. And we do well to remember that the next time we’re having a heated debate with a fellow Christian who may have a different view of creation.

You know the sort of debates where the voices are getting louder and louder, and the interruptions are getting quicker and quicker, and both sides are so certain of every detail that they are right. It would be helpful, I think, if both sides felt the strong wind of Job 38 blowing in their face. Yes, we know some things about creation, and we can certainly formulate opinions, sometimes strong ones, on certain things.

But there’s lots that we don’t know. At least there are things that no single one of us can be absolutely certain of. And here’s the thing from Job 38.

It’s not because we haven’t read enough. It’s not because we don’t have a big enough brain. It’s because we are creatures.

(6:29 – 6:44)

That is the point that God is making to Job. In essence, as a creature, he wasn’t there at creation. And even if he was, he wouldn’t fully understand and comprehend all that God was doing.

(6:45 – 7:05)

So, brothers and sisters, let’s come to this debate through the doorway of humility. I think that’s a biblically backed recommendation, if ever there was one. Now, that having been established, secondly, I would suggest that we should navigate this debate thoughtfully.

(7:06 – 8:36)

We should navigate it thoughtfully. Now, it would be possible to simply bury our heads in the sand and just say, I don’t want to think about the different views of creation. I believe God created the world.

I believe it’s not a gospel issue how exactly he did it. And so I just don’t want to take time thinking about it. I think that would be a mistake to take that approach, for reasons that I’m going to touch on later on.

While this isn’t a gospel issue, I think it’s important that we come to this debate thoughtfully with our brains switched on. And that means having some appreciation of the different positions that Christians have taken about the how and when of creation. It’s important to say that we agree on the fundamental truth that God was the origin of everything.

So these are differences beyond that core agreement. So what are some of the differences? Well, there’s a difference of opinion over the age of the earth and indeed the age of the whole universe, which is not quite the same thing as the age of the earth. But one of the great debates is how old is planet earth? According to many Christians, there’s one count that says that the earth is relatively young.

(8:37 – 11:32)

You’ve probably heard the phrase young earth creationists. Young earth creationists believe that the earth was created somewhere between six and 10,000 years ago. They will usually calculate the length of that length of time based on the genealogical lines, the kind of family trees that we find in the Bible.

So when you keep tracing it back from father to grandfather to grandfather, eventually you get back to Adam. And when you do the sums, you can approximate the age of the earth to about six or 10,000 years old. Assuming that the earth and humans were created at the same time.

Now, how do young earth creationists deal with the appearance, the appearance of an old earth? You speak to any geologist today, they will tell you that there’s various tests you can do that show that the earth appears to be very old. They will usually argue that the flood of Noah, which we’re going to be looking at in chapter six, they’ll argue that that flood changed the earth’s geology and made the rock stratas beneath our feet appear extremely old, when in fact they’re not. Sometimes people call that flood geology.

Of course, that does not deal with a further problem of other observable phenomenon that appear to support a very old universe. What about things like background radiation or light coming from stars that are billions of light years away? Very often it will be argued by young earth creationists that God simply created these things to appear mature, appear old. After all, Adam was created as a mature adult, a mature human being.

So why not other things? So that’s in the red corner, young earth. In the blue corner, we then have the old earth position. And these Christians would agree with modern geologists that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old.

There’s various dating methods that seem to converge with a date round about 4.6 billion years. They are sceptical of flood geology, not necessarily of the flood itself, but of the take that it changes the earth’s geology. And they say that it can’t account for these other phenomenon that we’ve just spoken about in astronomy and in other things.

(11:33 – 12:46)

They will argue that there was a clear reason why Adam was made mature, to be married, to have children. And he hardly could have raised himself as a baby. So there was purpose and reason if Adam was made mature, why he was made mature.

Whereas there is no apparent reason why God would make stars appear old. Indeed, some of these people would argue that it’s almost misleading, and we have a God of truth. Further, those who hold this old age view would point to Genesis 1 itself.

Strictly speaking, they will say, Genesis 1 doesn’t tell us how old the earth is. Furthermore, they would also point out that the earth was already created in Genesis 1 verse 1. Strictly speaking, before the first day of creation. You can see that in your Bible.

If you look in Genesis 1.1, God creates the heavens and the earth. The stuff, the matter of creation is made first without any form or any filling. But Genesis doesn’t tell us how long God left things before day one when He formed the earth.

(12:48 – 13:03)

And so these are the sorts of arguments that old earthers would appeal to. So that’s the first great debate, young earth or old earth. The second huge debate is then the days of creation.

(13:04 – 13:45)

And again, there are two broad categories of how Christians understand these days. I’m going to call these, this is, no one else uses this, but I’m going to, because I’m simple, I’m going to call this the short view and the slow view, the short view and the slow view. The short view is what it sounds like.

The short view is that Genesis 1 happens in a short period of time, in a normal week of time. The days of creation equal six normal 24 hour periods. So between right now, Sunday and this Friday, God did the whole thing.

(13:46 – 14:38)

Now, people who hold this view are sometimes called six day creationists. Now, I personally think that title is one of the most unhelpful labels. It’s not helpful at all, really, because if you think about it, every Christian is a creationist, right? To be a creationist means you believe there is a creator.

So we’re all creationists. And every Christian believes that there were six days of creation. The only question is, what kind of days they were.

So it’s not the most helpful label, but you’ll hear it used. And those who hold this view will say that six normal days is the natural reading of the Genesis text. They will often say that they’re reading the text literally.

(14:38 – 16:50)

Literally. And that if you understand the days in any other way, you are in danger of undermining the history, the very historical fact of the event. It will also be argued that the six days of creation and the Sabbath later become the pattern for our working week.

And therefore, it must be seven literal days because our week is seven actual days. And it’s important to recognise that many theologians in church history have taken this position. It’s not answers in Genesis who’ve come up with the literal six-day theory.

It seems that the majority of the early church fathers, which were people that lived between about 200 and 400, it seems that the majority were six-day creationists. It was a position of Calvin and Luther and many other modern people that you would know. And yet, not every Christian agrees with this position.

There are other Christians who view these days more flexibly and poetically. Yes, they believe that creation is historical, but they think that Genesis isn’t giving us a blow-by-blow account of God making the world in an actual working week. Some will argue that the days of creation, each of the days represent a long geological period of time.

In their view, God guided evolution, and that’s what’s been described here poetically as six days. Others will take the view that these days speak of God intervening through a long period of time. It’s a little bit different from just the God-guided evolution in that some people think it happened over a long time, but God intervened at certain points and pushed things forward a considerable way, kind of shunting it up the track bit by bit.

(16:51 – 20:13)

Others still don’t view these days as consecutive at all. You may have heard of something called the framework view of creation. The framework view of creation sees it more like a poem, you could say.

It’s not really a running order, but it’s a beautiful pattern that God is using just to help us understand what He did at creation. Again, if you look at the table that we considered this morning, remember how everything matches up in a pattern. Days one and four match up, days two and five match up, days three and six match up.

It may be that the point is not to give us a chronology, but to present us in a poetic way with a framework of the sorts of things God did, however exactly He brought them about. Again, it’s important to stress that this is not a new view. It’s not that we get to Charles Darwin and then people start coming up with this kind of position.

This goes way back in church history. Early fathers like Augustine and Origen did not hold to a literal 60 view of creation. You’ll see on the sheet I’ve given you that there are some respected Bible scholars today and Christian scientists who would agree with that.

And this is because these people have noted some unusual things about these days of creation, some untypical things. For example, they’ve noted that on day one of creation, God creates the light. And yet strangely, He does that before He creates the lights of day four.

So how do you have light day one when you don’t have lights, the sun, the moon, the stars, to give us the light? And people like Origen looked at that and said, these don’t seem to be our kind of typical days. And they further noted that the seventh day, the concluding day of the week in Genesis 1, is also not a usual day. It is famously incomplete and unending.

It’s the only day that there’s not an evening and a morning. Now, which of these two views is right? I’m not going to tell you this evening. I’m not even going to share my opinion.

I do have an opinion, but it’s only my opinion, and it’s no more valid than your opinion. And actually, I’ve changed my opinion over the years, which is one of the things that gives me great pause before I pontificate about this. This stuff is not easy.

And we may even come to a view on certain points, we may say, you know, I’m actually agnostic about some of this. I feel as if I don’t know on some points. And I think that’s okay.

Or, you know, you might be sitting and you’re really sure of your perspective, and you’re ready to debate it afterwards with the person next to you. Do it humbly. At the end of the day, a lot of this comes down to an even deeper debate.

(20:15 – 20:51)

And the even deeper debate than the age of the earth and the days is the literature of Genesis 1 itself. That’s really the underlying core of this debate. What do I mean? What I mean is, is Genesis 1 a straightforwardly written historical narrative? Or is Genesis 1 telling you something historical, but through poetry and symbolism that may not have happened in the kind of straightforward sequence of this happened, that happened, that happened? That’s the big issue.

(20:52 – 21:20)

What kind of literature is this? Is it straightforward? If it says day one, it’s day one. Or is there a clear symbolism and poetry here so that we’re not meant to read this in a kind of flat way? And if you take that kind of more symbolic view, then maybe a helpful way of thinking it would be that you see Genesis 1 as something a bit like Revelation. You know, the book of Revelation, how there’s so much symbolism in the book of Revelation.

(21:21 – 21:58)

It’s telling you about Jesus’ return with lots of symbols. It’s historical, but it’s not necessarily giving you the blow by blow. That would be the view if you see it more symbolically.

Now, Don Carson, always good to quote him. He’s a very respected Bible scholar. I’ve been unable to find out what his position is on creation, despite the fact he’s written so much.

But he says this, and I think this is helpful. See if you can follow this. He says, the Genesis account is a mixed genre.

(21:59 – 22:20)

What he means there is that it mixes together different kinds of literature in the one thing. He says, it’s a mixed genre that feels like history and really does give some historical particulars. At the same time, however, it’s full of demonstrable symbolism.

(22:22 – 22:37)

And he’s referring there, when he’s talking about symbolism, he’s referring there to things like I’ve just mentioned. You know, a day with no ending, that’s symbolising something. And Carson goes on to say, sorting out what is symbolic and what is not is very difficult.

(22:39 – 22:54)

Now, maybe that doesn’t help you very much, or maybe it does. Because Carson is saying it’s complicated. There’s history, this is real history, there’s a real creation going on, and yet there is enormous symbolism.

(22:55 – 23:26)

And that’s probably why Christians have debated this passage for about 2000 years. Now, there’s tonnes of things that I’ve missed out there and simplified, but that’s the general landscape. And I think it’s important for us as Christians to at least know that landscape and be able to at least talk about it at some level with our children, and to be able to speak about it also with those who are not Christians.

(23:27 – 23:45)

The great majority of Christians in the church over the centuries have not made this a test of orthodoxy. That’s an important thing to say. There is no great creed of the church that says you must believe in a literal view or a more symbolic take on the days of creation.

(23:47 – 24:08)

So, we mustn’t put up that barrier either and say, you know, to be a real Christian, you must agree with my particular view. Now, that being the case, let me leave you with one more recommendation this evening. Lastly, thirdly, we need to navigate this debate missionally or evangelistically.

(24:11 – 28:36)

Missionally, evangelistically. Now, there’s a kind of a mystery here to me. I don’t know if this stumps you as well.

I don’t know if you recognise some of these people on the screen. The guy on the left is an American guy called Ken Ham. He’s the head of Answers in Genesis.

He believes in a young earth and a six-literal-day view of creation. And he goes around the United States and other parts of the world, and he uses that view in an evangelistic way. And some people have come to faith through his lectures and through reading his material.

And the second guy there is a guy called William Lane Craig. William Lane Craig is not a literal six-day creationist. And he has a more of an open view of maybe God using longer processes.

And he also travels around the country speaking to people. And in the great mystery of God, people come to faith through his lectures. Now, you try and work that one out, because one of these views is wrong.

But there are people who are arguing from either side, and they’re kind of using their view evangelistically. And at one level, I think we need to applaud that. It’s a great thing to want to convince people to come to faith in Christ.

But really, when I’m talking about being missional in terms of creation, I’m not so much thinking, you know, go out there and sort of argue your position to bring someone to faith in Christ. So what am I talking about? Well, really, what we’ve already thought about this evening. I think in the times in which we are living, our attitude towards people who differ from us is as important as the arguments that we make.

I think if we apply the Job 38 humility when we speak as Christians and when we speak to non-Christians, I think that’s going to go a long way to diffuse the idea that non-Christians have. Because the idea non-Christians often have is that we as Christians are very arrogant and very prideful about what we think on just about everything. And if they see that we love the sound of our own voice and we’re interrupting them in the middle of speaking, then actually they’re not really going to listen to what we’ve got to say at all.

I also think then that if we as Christians can be thoughtful, that says something as well. So this goes back to the point earlier, you know, you could just bury your head in the sand and say, I don’t really want to think about this kind of stuff. I just don’t know, or I just don’t care.

And it’s not a gospel issue. But I don’t think that’s helpful. And I think it slips us into the trap that is a problem for us already that many non-Christians think that we as believers don’t use our brains and we don’t use our minds.

They think we’ve got our heads buried firmly in the sand. And it’s not really that helpful when we say, oh, I don’t have a clue about any of that stuff. When our non-Christian friends are read well up on this sort of thing.

And this is true, even if on some things you are saying, I don’t know, I’m agnostic. You know, there’s two ways to say that you don’t know something. Here’s the two ways.

Number one, you read a whole bunch of stuff and then you decide, I still don’t know. And number two, you read nothing. And of course you don’t know.

And I think the difference between those is quite important. I think when our kids ask us questions, when our non-Christian friends ask us questions, it’s not a great look when we say, I just haven’t thought about that. In a book I was reading recently, The Surprising Rebirth of God, the author was saying that one of the things that evangelicals did in the last century was we became very pietistic, very devotional in the way that we shared the gospel, i.e. we dumbed down the intellectual element.

(28:37 – 29:36)

It was almost as if we thought we’re kind of losing the intellectual battle in the universities. We can’t compete with that. So let’s dumb that down and give people just a very simple, straightforward gospel.

I don’t know if you agree with this, but the author’s view was that the church’s anti-intellectualism had been disastrous for the church. And that it is part of the reason for the church’s collapse in the Western world. Because as everyone else was tooling up with arguments and all sorts of theories, the church was sitting back saying, we don’t know anything except the simple gospel.

Let’s be wary of that. And in the end, let’s remember that the greater message of this week is the who of creation and the why of creation. We can talk around the when and the how till we’re blue in the face.

(29:37 – 30:35)

But in the end, as we’ve been saying, the greatest division between a Christian and a non-Christian is the fact that we start with a creator and they start with the natural world. And we can tell them that actually all Christians agree that God existed before creation and that only God is the reasonable hypothesis for how everything came to be. And in a world that is having a meaning crisis, there was some stat I read the other day that said nine out of 10 young people in Britain say their lives have no meaning and no purpose.

They’ve got no sense of direction. In a world that’s having a meaning crisis, we can take people to Genesis 1 and we can say humanity is given a meaning because we are created. More on that next week.

The post Creation Debate – Job Ch38 appeared first on Greenview Church.