1 And the LORD spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho, saying: 2 “Command the children of Israel that they give the Levites cities to dwell in from the inheritance of their possession, and you shall also give the Levites common-land around the cities. 3 They shall have the cities to dwell in; and their common-land shall be for their cattle, for their herds, and for all their animals. 4 The common-land of the cities which you will give the Levites shall extend from the wall of the city outward a thousand cubits all around. 5 And you shall measure outside the city on the east side two thousand cubits, on the south side two thousand cubits, on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits. The city shall be in the middle. This shall belong to them as common-land for the cities.

6 “Now among the cities which you will give to the Levites you shall appoint six cities of refuge, to which a manslayer may flee. And to these you shall add forty-two cities. 7 So all the cities you will give to the Levites shall be forty-eight; these you shall give with their common-land. 8 And the cities which you will give shall be from the possession of the children of Israel; from the larger tribe you shall give many, from the smaller you shall give few. Each shall give some of its cities to the Levites, in proportion to the inheritance that each receives.” –Numbers 35:1-8

First, Levites were used as judges, because they were experts in the law. Second, they were to teach the law: they were the national educators.

Imagine the implications of this if applied to the present. It would mean a network across the United States of Christian schools, colleges, and universities, all concerned with establishing a Christian culture and upholding God’s law.

If this seems a visionary idea, we must remember that it once was done to a degree in the United States. Up to about 1900, about seventy-five percent of all U.S. colleges and universities were founded by Scottish Calvinists who were immigrants here. When I was a student, and first learned of this fact, I mentioned it with some awe to an elderly, retired Scottish pastor, a Presbyterian, and he referred to it as a Levitical task. The more trusting ways of his times, and the lack of a Van Tillian presuppositionalism, made it possible in time to subvert all these schools, but it was still a remarkable and Biblical accomplishment.

The Levites were able to go out from these cities to teach in every community; they could also establish in these cities centers of scholarship. A reading of the Old Testament seems to indicate that possibly the Levites were more faithful than the priests. After the Babylonian captivity, Levitical cities apparently were never rebuilt, according to rabbinic tradition.

Levitical city properties could not be alienated. At any time, a Levite could redeem a house he had sold if he had the funds. At the Jubilee, it reverted to him if he had failed to redeem it. The open land could not be sold at all (Lev. 25:29, 34).

In the division of the land, the Levites received four towns in each tribe except Judah and Simeon, where they received a total of nine, and Naphthali, which had only three Levitical cities (Joshua 21).

There was apparently a lack of full faithfulness to this allotment, because the Book of Judges indicates the unsettled and apostate nature of some Levites (Judges 17:7-13). In fact, it would appear from Judges 17:7-13 that some Levites became chaplains to wealthy men, also that their faith was syncretistic, if not pagan (Judges 18:1-31). In 1 Chronicles 6:54-81, we see that the record gives a different story than does Joshua. While there are a similar number of cities, they are not the same: one less in each of Judah and Benjamin, and two less in each of Dan and Zebulun. In other words, some plans and promises were discarded.

In the reformation of Jehoshaphat, the Levites, princes, and priests were used to teach in the cities of Judah, to bring about a return to God’s law (2 Chron. 17:7-9). Hezekiah’s reformation also relied on the Levites, among others (2 Chron. 29:3-19). However, at the end of the Babylonian captivity, proportionately fewer Levites returned to Judea (Nehemiah 7:39-45), only seventy-four as against 4,289 priests. In the New Testament, the priests are often mentioned, and the Levites rarely; Ezekiel 44:10-13 indicates that, before the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, the Levites had become especially apostate and deeply involved in idolatry. It is possible that the rise of the synagogue was a replacement of the Levites and their work.

As we have seen in Numbers 18:24-32, the tithe was given to the Levites, who then tithed the tenth of this tithe to the priests. This meant that instruction, when this law was obeyed, took priority in the faith and life of the people.

In our day, such an emphasis on education and scholarship on the part of the Christian community would revolutionize and recapitalize society. This law is also one reason why theonomy is unpopular in an age when the institutional church claims the total tithe and denies the right of anyone else to a penny of it!

Over the centuries, this Levitical aspect of God’s ministry has been the object of suspicion and control. When the medieval university developed, its scholars were monks, priests, or friars, i.e., under the jurisdiction of a church-controlled order. Protestantism has been no less eager to control its teachers. This has been an impediment to Christian scholarship. If Christian scholars cannot be trusted, are we to assume that only priests and pastors can be? Is it not wiser to recognize the propensity of all to sin and to trust God’s requirements above man’s controls? Men too often have more confidence in themselves than in God; they find it a pity that God will not take their advice!

This dispersal of the Levites meant that they were to have “no corporate existence as a tribe, but were rather fragmented in this way in a God-appointed isolation.” This was to place the stress on their teaching function rather than their corporate status. Our academic lemming, however, insist on tenure and on a host of controlling academic associations. The result has been a politically correct rigidity and an isolation from reality.

From Numbers, pp. 382-83

Someone recently accused our pastor and church of preaching politics instead of the Bible. Let’s look at Church of the King McAllen in the light of Scripture.

First and foremost, our church is full of love. Love to talk to the person in the back row who might feel that he doesn’t belong. Love for the old widow who needs someone to talk with or to clear her computer of unwanted e-mails. Love for the brother fighting cancer and the sister dealing with depression. At Church of the King we try to bear one another’s burdens and fulfill the law of Christ.

Yes, many of our members preach politics, but always in the context of what God says about the civil government. Always in light of the gospel, the whole counsel of God. As a great church reformer has said, “Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.” To keep silent when our people, families, churches, communities, states, and nation are going to hell…that’s just plain irresponsible for any Christian.

Indeed, our pastor preaches the full Gospel. He does what the prophets in the Bible did. He preaches the Gospel of the kingdom as Jesus did. He preaches what was preached to Abraham. “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, ‘In you all the nations shall be blessed.’” The word “gospel” means “good news.” The good news is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The gospel is also, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” So it’s not even just about our own; it’s about His own, from every tongue and tribe.

Why did the Apostle Paul have such a desire to get to Rome? That’s where Caesar was. That’s where he could preach the gospel to the ruler of that world. Today we don’t have to travel to Austin or Washington, D.C. to preach truth to power; we can and must speak through every medium and at every opportunity. It is a godly zeal that drives us, not a zealot hatred.

False prophets preach salvation by politics. We preach that all authority—personal, familial, ecclesiastical, and civil—was given to Jesus Christ before He ascended to the Father. To preach that the individual can be redeemed and reformed but not the culture is pietistic; it is truncating the gospel.

Our pastor and leaders preach to anyone who will listen. We have a cloud of witnesses who are pulling for us, for they had the same objectives. We believe in being Puritan without being puritanical. Our church sings standing up and sitting down during our services. We sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs Sunday through Saturday. Every Sunday, we stand and confess our belief that Jesus died, was buried, and arose from the dead. We also partake of our Lord’s body and blood on a weekly basis. So we worship, believe and confess, and discern the body of Christ. Would that all churches did likewise.

Church of the King joins the psalmist in exclaiming,

Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
“Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”

He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
“Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”

“I will declare the decree:
The LORD has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’”

Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.

by Nina Guajardo

This isn’t an endorsement of Ron Paul.

I did notice the faithful (and intelligent) support Paul had in the last Republican Presidential primary three and a half years ago.

A life-long resident of Texas, I have had a soft spot in my heart for our governors-turned-presidential candidates. I also figured that a governor can run a government, but then, Romney proves that theory very wrong.

My father read to us Mr. Bojidar Marinov’s latest article explaining that today’s conservatives are former liberals, though they probably don’t mean to deceive us. It’s just that we’ve changed our terms. With Bush, Perry, Santorum, I hadn’t imagined them as part of the political machine (known as the two-party system) so clearly depicted in “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” (bigwigs plotting and scheming in dark corners), but politicians do fall in line with the party’s agenda. These candidates mean well (I’m sure), but as we saw with Bush and those “bailouts,” they served only to further bury us under our own debt. These “conservatives” are not traditional constitutionalists.

The media has already chosen their favorite candidate who will be all too easy to tear down leading up to November (reminding me a little of Luke 6:26 “Woe to you when all men speak well of you…”).

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus describes the persecution Christians would face for following him. I can imagine Madison or other founding fathers telling Paul something like “you’ll be blessed when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of our nation’s constitution” (pardon my almost blasphemy Matthew 5:11 is one of my favorite verses).

I wonder if Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are more concerned about each other or about Ron Paul. They cannot control what others say or find out about their respective records. They cannot control what the President says or has others say about them. And they cannot control what Paul says or does if he does not win the Republican nomination. The question I throw out today is this: What do you say Jesus would want Paul to do if someone else is nominated?

On the one hand, Paul’s bowing out graciously would give him a continued platform, steadfast and untainted. It would let him live to fight another day. It probably would also make his son’s future opportunities brighter and more likely. It would give the President an excellent opportunity to win, given what the political machinery, including governmental and news media, has given us glimpses of in its daily attacks on Romney, Gingrich, and the other Republican candidates. (By the way, the recent surfacing of Paul’s old newsletters is evidence that his opponents now consider him a viable threat to the establishment.)

But allowing the would-be antithetical struggle between good and evil political forces (i.e., Republican v. Democrat, you decide which is which) would quite possibly bring about terrible consequences. If the President is reelected, how many more murders of unborn babies would our federal government condone? How many more deaths would go down as “collateral damage” in military conflicts? How much more money will Americans be in debt? How many more federal czars and departments will be appointed and established? And just as scary, would electing a Romney or a Gingrich bring results much different from those of an Obama 2 administration?

On the other hand, what would happen if Paul decides to run as an Independent? No third party candidate has been elected President since 1860, and the odds would not be very favorable. But feasible? Why not?

Of course, most of Paul’s votes would come from either disgruntled would-be Republican voters, or registered voters who would otherwise stay home rather than voting for either of the two candidates. Though Perot and Bush netted 56% of the popular vote in 1992 (compared to Clinton’s 43%) the odds would obviously be in the President’s favor.

But Paul’s followers do not seem to suffer from a Party Spirit. They are not swayed by slick, debonair ways or striking good looks. They are undeterred by the old shibboleth about his supposed lack of electability; in other words, they refuse to treat elections as popularity contests. They appear to be people of principle. If this is true, Paul won’t lose votes over the next few months while every Republican who drops out leaves voters who might end up voting for Paul. If he can do quite a bit better than Perot’s 19%, he would have a decent chance to win.

As the primary season heats up and we begin to track the frontrunners, if the likely nominee is not Paul, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear the nominee adopting more of Paul’s ideas into the party platform. Republicans will disregard Ron Paul at their own peril.

But political posturing and potential backlashes should not be the main concern of the Christian community. Our question on this issue must be clear and focused: should Ron Paul consider running as an Independent if he does not get the Republican nomination?

Which is better for our nation: to continue on the present track of big-civil-government Democrats and Republicans, or to take a stand to turn America in the opposite direction? Can our nation survive as we know her for another four years? And who is to say that things will change after that? Will our grandchildren be able to overcome the degeneration in which we leave them the USA?

As Lincoln put an end to the Whigs, maybe Paul will be the end of the Republicans. What do you think? What solutions or suggestions do you offer?

Christians had better pray and repent for the sins of our nation. Then we need to get off our knees and get to work to save our country…one heart and mind at a time.

She is a woman now; I dare not talk
Or look to her as to a child; I will
Not shout or raise my voice lest she dare balk
And see me cross. For she’s my lady still.

The precious jewel that God has given me
Is but a loan. I must be diligent
To shape and polish her for Him to see.
I hope to please Him with the gem He lent.

I’ll care for her until my days are done,
Or give her to a man…if he’s the one.

We begin to see signs that God might extend mercy on the USA after all. America might get a king who will prove himself an effective leader against the encroachment of an overgrown civil government. He will implement a judicious fiscal policy with shrinking deficits, no bailouts, and no subservience to bodies like the International Monetary Fund, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Federal Reserve. He will defend the Constitution and strive to effect a return to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. He will work with Congress to reduce the function of both branches to the protection of every individual’s life, liberty, and property.

But barring a Great Awakening, after four years, or eight, Americans will be the same people they are before the election of any Republican candidate. Given a Great Awakening, many hearts will be just that: awakened. Such a step toward conversion, whether personal, corporal, or national, is necessary and greatly welcome. It would be a wonderful Pax Americana that facilitates the spreading of the Gospel.

And where must that gospel be spread? Everywhere, of course. Right now it is being preached in too few churches. The gospel preached to Abraham and preached by Jesus to sinners has been replaced by a humanistic, schizophrenic, anti-Christian message. The solution? President Obama has rightly stated it: “education.” Of course, what he means by education is indoctrination in the system just described.

When the grandparents of Ron Paul and Herman Cain were young, America’s schools became homes for the socialization of the child. Instead of the traditional Christian teaching of children to honor God with their knowledge, the system called for the training of good citizens, men and women who would grow to serve their state before their God.

Men and women of good will must work toward the solution for what ails our nation. Though not easy, the answers are simple. As usual, they must come from God’s people, the visible church.

COVENANT THEOLOGY

God is the only sovereign being. Without beginning and without end, he works through His Spirit and His people, beings with a beginning and no end. God made a couple of offers to Adam, who messed up but whose wife received a great promise. God then made a pact with Noah, then Abram, then Moses, then David. He also made personal covenants with many individuals throughout history. Finally, He gave the New Deal to all of mankind, the New and Everlasting Covenant through Jesus Messiah.

The deal is simple: obey the terms of the covenant. God is in complete control. He appointed the Church as His representative on Earth, with an oral and written rule of ethics to serve as His standard. If we abide by His explicit terms, we are blessed; if we do not abide in and by them, we are already condemned. He punishes the guilty for a few generations while blessing the faithful for a thousand.

As long as the church of Christ preaches only the blessings part, our education looks to Jesus as Santa Claus. As long as it preaches that man does not have to obey God’s laws, our education rejects the existence of hell and eternal separation from God. As long as it preaches that God used to save people differently in the Old Testament, our education becomes escapist and takes things out of context. Teaching covenant will confront the unbeliever with his sinfulness and make the humble aware of the grace available to him.

Men and women who are willing to follow God’s plan must accept His
1. transcendency and immanence (God is everywhere over all, and yet here with His own);
2. structure of hierarchy (God has his Church as His mouthpiece and representative);
3. rules for man (God gave us the Bible);
4. sanctions (God executes judgment on people as they respond to His ethical standard); and
5. sustaining principles (God promises a future, here on earth in history and in eternity…with or without Him).  Living by and in covenant will help a man become less humanistic and either more awakened or more sanctified.

The visible church’s lack of leadership has resulted in a secular schizophrenia, as R. J. Rushdoony calls it. The humanist mind is sometimes full of optimism and excitement, believing that man can do all things through himself who strengthens him. “Sí se puede”; “you can do whatever you set your mind to,” and so on. This pseudo-dominionism is a perversion of Proverbs 23:6-7.
            Do not eat the bread of a miser,
            Nor desire his delicacies;
            For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.
The scripture is talking about a person who is aware of who he is; in the case of the passage, a miser who knows he is one. Sadly, the church often leads the way in endorsing this prosperity-by-magic way of life.

On the other hand, the world (and the church with its own version) has adopted a worldview that wonders if man is going to be able to survive the evil in the world, implying that man probably won’t make it…unless, as well-meaning Christian escapists warn in their attempts to scare sinners into converting, Jesus comes back soon and raptures those who have said the sinner’s prayer. This anti-covenantal paradigm is anti-Christian to the core; it used to be un-American, too. It presupposes and self-fulfills an antinomian (against law) way of life.

Since Adam, man has been prone to wander from God’s commands to man’s own will and desires. Man wants to make and be his own law (autonomy) by which to live. The Bible teaches that man should live by every word/law that proceeds from the mouth of God. Though no preacher would say that men should break the Ten Commandments, many would say that those same laws do not apply either to non-Christians or to anyone today. But since every law imposes someone’s morality, the question is simple: by whose morality should man live? As Rushdoony wrote, By What Standard? (should we live). Greg Bahnsen answered the rhetorical question with his own book: By This Standard, meaning God’s written code of ethics, The Bible.

For the purposes of my present thesis, I must cut to the heart of the matter. (“More matter,” as Queen Gertrude would chide.) America will not survive as we know her if it continues in its direction away from God and His Law/Word. The way to turn around is through teaching, especially our languishing youth, over 90% of whom attend humanistic indoctrination classes eight hours a day, five days a week, for at least 180 days a year.

THE ANSWER

Here’s some good news: it won’t take a majority. It never has taken a majority to turn the world upside down. What we need is a sold-out, well-equipped minority. I am talking of the education of the core group. Rather than sending covenant children to be trained in schools where they are taught humanism for all of life, followers of Christ must obey God’s law and spare their children. Jesus said “Let the little children come to me.” He did not tell the little children to go be salt and light in the Roman educational campuses.

Many Christian parents are afraid to take the leap and teach their children at home. Some would love to send them to a Christian school but cannot afford to pay double tuition (in property taxes to the state whether they send their kids there or not, and to the Christian school). Many excellent articles, even books, have been written encouraging and challenging parents to obey the biblical mandate; but my objective here is to show that Christian schools can be made viable and affordable.

The answer is the tithe. If every Christian tithed, America would be filled with Christian schools from sea to shining sea. Again, for our purposes here, we won’t delve into the different tithes commanded in the Bible. We will accept that God the Father calls non-tithers robbers (Malachi 3), and that God the Son told his listeners to tithe (Matthew 23).

Let’s look at some numbers. Consider a church of 100 tithers with an average income of $40,000, around the national average. That’s $4,000,000, and the tithe without even looking at offerings would be $400,000. Budget annually $40,000 for pastoral pay and another $20,000 for any other labor for the church. From the remaining $340,000, subtract $120,000 for building payment and expenses. From the remaining $220,000, subtract another $100,000 for maintenance and other expenses.

The remaining $120,000 could go to Christian education. With $95,000, a small staff can be paid:
One Headmaster/Lead Teacher:  $20,000
Five Teachers @$15,000 each:   $75,000
The other $25,000 can be used for materials, supplies, furniture, and misc.
This is not much of a budget compared to the public school market, but it would be a starting point. Or instead of hiring six teachers, a school could begin by hiring three and paying them twice as much.

Though admittedly simplistic and probably naïve, this fiscal analysis can work. Now, many American churches do not have 100 members, let alone tithers. First, with half the membership, they could probably afford to offer half of the educational program. Families belonging to small churches might appreciate an intimate, personal school setting for their children. Second, we don’t need one school per congregation; we need a catholic spirit of believers willing to work inter-congregationally. There is no good reason why a small Pentecostal church cannot collaborate with a Methodist, an independent, and even an Adventist church.  Granted, jealousies do exist on the part of some pastors who don’t want their families involved with a school housed in or associated with another congregation. The relationship could tempt the family to consider the church at which the school is located, and maybe leave their present church. Those pastors should consider getting their own church involved in Christian education.

Faithfulness in tithing would make free or drastically reduced tuition possible for the children of covenant keepers. Parents, and even church members with no children, would know that part of their tithes is funding most of the education available to church children. Tithers are responsible for being informed about how their tithes are being spent.

CONCLUSION

Ideally, church families would want to and actually carry out the instruction of their own children, in obedience to Moses’ command to teach our little ones at all times of the day all the things that God wants them to know (Deuteronomy 6). Where these families exist, the church should be disposed to assist the family in the training of those children.

But what about all those families who do not home school? Does their unwillingness or inability excuse the church from its responsibility? On the contrary, this situation only magnifies the role of the church. Its leaders must create opportunities to teach children and youth beyond the Sunday school, Children’s Church, and Catechism classes. One to three hours a week of biblical teaching cannot compete with 40 hours a week of anti-biblical teaching.

If our churches do not adjust their priorities and place Christian education at the top, we should not be surprised when our children leave the church as soon as they have the liberty to do so. We shouldn’t say they leave the faith, for they are merely deepening the faith that has been inculcated into them for years.

John Calvin did not see much separation between church and school in terms of ministry. Professor Vander Walt writes, “According to [Calvin], church and school were mutually dependent and one could not think of one without involving the other. In distinguishing the two, [he] in no way separated them.” Neither did Calvin make a distinction between the sacred and secular, for all things belong to God and there is no truth that is not His.

A better Great Awakening than the one of which I wrote earlier can take place if Christian families and churches do their jobs in training up our children in the way they should go. Without knowing good and evil, our little ones can learn languages, sciences, and history. They will have understanding of the times and know what Christians ought to do. They will become citizens of godly impact on their communities, not for the sake of their country but for the sake of their God. May God not damn the United States of America.

The year 1992 was hell on earth for us.  I lived through the summer of my discontent, and Sylvia suffered through a clinical depression that didn’t let her eat or sleep for three months.  When she was able to ingest food, she usually threw it up within minutes.

That June Sylvia made friends with a very nice lady named Rose, who used to pray continually.  One day she gave Sylvia a little booklet bearing the name God’s Pills.  “Read these verses three times a day,” she said. “After you read them, put your name in there and personalize each verse.”

Sylvia faithfully began to read and recite from that booklet.  Her favorite passage came from the Book of Revelation:  “They [the believers] overcame him [the Enemy] by the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony.”  She kept repeating it so much that she made me mad.  I didn’t want to hear about any overcoming or testimonies, but I let her talk to herself and usually just tuned her out.

Besides the anguish of looking at Pablo everyday and the reminder that he was to her, Sylvia also had to deal with a very difficult pregnancy. She actually weighed less on the day of delivery than at conception.  The only thing that got her through the ordeal was her faith.

During labor I asked her if she wanted to talk about a name, but she solemnly said, “I
want God to give it to us.”

I didn’t roll my eyes but did say, “OK, we’ll wait and see then.”

Every time the contraction pains came, Sylvia would start her “I am an overcomer; I
overcome by the blood of the lamb and the word of my testimony.”  She must have quoted it fifty times that morning.  Later she told me that every time she said the verse, off to her right side she could see the profile of Jesus.  When she turned to face him, he would be gone.  I just thought it was all a little spooky, seeing faces and things.

Sylvia had the baby before noon; then she was wheeled to a recovery room on the same
floor.  After Pablo’s C-section she had been inactive for a couple of months.  With Nina, it had been two or three weeks.  But now, three hours after the delivery, we were walking down the hall to catch a glimpse through the window of the ward for newborns.  I cannot explain her strength; she said she didn’t even feel her legs as she strode along.  It was eerie how firm her steps seemed as her slippers reflected off the shiny white tile.  There was no slouching, no dragging; there was no sign of the weakling that I had checked in that morning.

“Inez,” she said when we were back in the room.  “I like the name Inez.”

“Fine, let’s find out what it means,” I said as I picked up the phone to ask the ladies downstairs for a book of names.

An hour later a nurse came in with two little books. I immediately opened the one
on girls’ names and went to the letter “I”.  Looking across to find the right column, I read that Inez comes from Spanish/Portuguese origin, and that it means lamb.  When I told Sylvia she started to shake, and the tears began pouring down to her chin.  “What is it now?” I asked completely befuddled.

“Don’t you get it?” she asked.  “He gave us the name.  Remember?  ‘I overcome by the
blood of the lamb and the word of my testimony.’  Through her blood and my faith I am
overcoming.”  I had no comeback for that one.  I just stood there dumb and motionless.

That evening Sylvia’s sister Fina came to visit.  She was carrying a bouquet of white, pink, and yellow carnations in a white porcelain vase. The vase was in the shape of a lamb.  “You’re not going to believe this, Fina; but do you know what her name means?” asked Sylvia.

“No.”

“It means lamb.”

“Wow,” said Fina, “you’re not going to believe this, but every gift I looked at in the shop kept pointing to lambs!”

“Oh, I believe it,” laughed Sylvia.  And she proceeded to tell her sister about the day’s experience.

In about five minutes the nurse walked in wheeling a bassinet, and in it, tightly wrapped in a pink flannel blanket, lay Sylvia Inez Guajardo.  Her mother introduced Inez to her aunt, and the baby squinted and began to cry almost sentimentally.

That was just the first time the child would cry like that.  I resented it at first, seeing her big and round, dark, chocolate eyes weeping and whining as if her feelings had been
hurt.  I did not realize that I was beginning to reap what I had been sowing for a long time.

Throughout the pregnancy, Sylvia’s depression had been intensifying.  Around the thirty-eighth week, Dr. Vela and Dr. Wilson suggested inducing labor so that Sylvia could
begin treatment sooner; but I balked at the idea.  The medication wouldn’t allow her to nurse, so I insisted that we wait a few weeks.  Both obstetricians had said that the colostrum produced by the mother during the baby’s first two weeks is very helpful for his immunological system.  Sylvia did not resist; she delivered on time then breast-fed for about ten days.

“Please, honey,” she begged around the middle of the second week, “I can’t go on any more.  Please let me go to the doctor.”

“All right,” I finally gave in.  “We’ll go tomorrow.”

Every other week, I drove her to the psychiatrist in McAllen.  I couldn’t understand how he was helping her since he spent most of the time reclining behind his desk and listening to her; then he would just tell her not to worry.  I think the best thing he did for her was to prescribe a medicine that made her drowsy and gave her a chance to sleep.
Her body was able to rest and recuperate from the months of exhausting,
sleepless torture.

Of course, most of that torture was administered by yours truly. Our marriage was in shambles, and we both agreed that it was her fault.  But Sylvia did not give up on life.  She would sit down and hold Inez tightly to comfort herself.  “I have to live.  I have to live for her,” she kept repeating to herself, oblivious to my menacing presence.

“Stop exaggerating!” I would shout at her.

And all she’d say was, “All right, Juan, I’ll stop.”

Knowing that she had a little life that depended on her motivated Sylvia to eat and move around.  She seemed to take a strange delight in rocking the baby’s little body; at least it
looked strange to me.  I confronted her one late Saturday night in November, and she didn’t want to answer me.

“What’s the matter?” I accosted her.  “You got some sordid secret you’re keeping
from me?”

“No, honey, I’ve bared my whole self to you.”

“Well then, why do you keep on looking at Inez when I’m talking to you?”

“Can’t you understand?” she asked.  “I need the warmth of her little body.  That’s why I hold her tightly and rock her so. She comforts and encourages me.  She’s the one person in
my life who needs me, and I only want to live because I don’t think anyone will take care of her if I’m not there.”

I stormed out of the house and went outside to mow the lawn.  After furiously tugging on the mower chord several times, I finally got it to start.  The knee-high grass made it easy for me to open the throttle full blast and be able to shout as I continued working.  “Thanks a lot,” I shouted at God.  “You really know how to kill a guy.  What did I ever do to you?  Why did you give me this woman?”

I said a lot of other blasphemous things to Him, saving some choice descriptors for Sylvia.  I didn’t know that she was sitting by the window hearing everything that I was yelling.  It wouldn’t have mattered; I said those things to her face frequently during those days.  I couldn’t see her softly humming to the baby, her sorrowful tears trickling down and wetting Inez’s little chest.

I used to be very tender with Sylvia myself, but that was years before.  When we were dating, I was a sweet and charming guy.  When we were newlyweds, I was a romantic young husband.  But when it came to living “in sickness and in hard times,” I saw myself
justified in being a jerk.

Inez was our third born.  And according to the psychologists of the latter part of the twentieth century, third born children tended to be independent and daring.  Not so with Nezi, as I started calling her when she began to crawl.  She exhibited more second-born characteristics, and after a couple of years I began to understand why.  She was the second born girl.  Though she was almost five years younger than Nina, Nezi immediately displayed a need for acceptance and companionship.  But it was not just for Nina; we noticed that she was especially drawn to me.  Whether driving down Highway 107 or going for a walk when Pablo could still move his legs, Nezi always wanted to be next to me.  She would begin to whine and reach for me when Nina didn’t let her ride up front or hold my hand.  Her melancholy dark eyes would look up at me as if she wanted me to pet her.

But there was another side of Nezi that slowly began to break down my barriers.  Even as a toddler she would laugh at my corny jokes. It was uncanny, for there was no way she could know the meanings.  I think she just knew that the tone of my voice meant I was delivering a punch line. “Así era Sylvia con su papá,” my mother-in-law said to me many times.

Besides letting me know that she needed my help constantly, Nezi also had a strong desire to please her father.  She was always hungry for attention, “Look, daddy, I can hang from the swings,” or “Watch me, daddy, I can roller blade!”  She really wanted to impress me.  I still believe that the abuse she and her mother endured from me while she was in the womb made an impact on the way my daughter related to me in her early years.

Along with her attachment and dependence on me came a fear of disappointing or angering me.  Though she enjoyed my cheerful side, she couldn’t handle it when I’d become serious and begin to scowl.

I remember one time when she was three.  We were low on groceries, so Sylvia left the
kids with me to go to HEB.  Busy watching the Dallas Cowboys battle the Washington Redskins on Monday Night Football, I forgot that I was supposed to be baby-sitting. During a commercial break I walked to the kitchen to get a drink, and I saw the three of
them with cereal all over the floor.  Nezi was sitting on the table with the box on her lap, and Nina was at the counter spilling milk as she tried to serve the party.  The Cowboys were losing at that point, so my fuse was short.  I shook my index finger at each one and began to browbeat them and shout at the top of my lungs.  “What are you kids doing in here?  Nina, how can you explain this?”

“I’m sorry, daddy; but we were hungry.”

“Well why didn’t you ask me for food?”

“We did, we did!  You never said anything, so we thought it was OK.”

“But why did you have to make such a mess?  And you, get off from there, Inez!”

Nezi had been sobbing the whole time, but when I addressed her she broke down uncontrollably.

“All right, all right, let me get you down; and let’s start to clean up, kids.”  But my softening made no difference to Nezi.  She cried all the more, so I gave her three swats in an attempt to get her quiet.  But my foolish attempt to discipline only made her more emotional.

“No, daddy, no!  I want my mommy now,” she cried.

“Well, she’s not here right now, so just get quiet.”  She stopped her whining but continued to whimper with intermittent sighs.

Right then and there I repented of being a disgraceful father.  Nezi fell asleep crying that
night, and I learned a lesson I hope never to forget.  My little girl was suffering for my own
stupid sake.

Several good things happened to us around 1995.  Besides the breakthrough episode in the
kitchen, my mind also became gradually renewed once I accepted that Pablo’s condition had ultimately been sent by divine providence.  And as all of this took place, I became
fonder of Nezi.  At first it was like trying to make up for all the love I hadn’t given her early on, but little by little I came to feel a caring and tenderness for my daughter.  And as I got closer to her, I also began to get closer to her mother.

We speak out against abortion, as well we should; and we raise some awareness. We speak out against homosexual unions, as we should; and we persuade a few people. We speak out against civil government’s funding of fetal stem cell research, against euthanasia, and against cloning; and we might persuade a few here and there. Evolutionists raise doubts about God’s creation and design, and they forge an educational system for a century. That system produces evolutionists who become anti-Christian civic and cultural leaders.

While Christians busy ourselves addressing the issues of the day, evolutionists attack the biblical worldview at its root: Genesis. If the historicity of the creation, fall, and redemption of man can be sold as mythology or legends, the evolutionist has won half the war.

God either created Adam and Eve, or he didn’t. If he did, how much of the biblical account and declarations are true? The answers to these questions determine a person’s outlook on life and the world. Bible believers and followers of Jesus Christ must address these questions. Here’s my attempt.

A FULLY-FUNCTIONAL CREATION

Because we are surrounded by things and by people that obviously had a beginning, we are tempted to jump to the conclusion that everything had a beginning. Such a conclusion, however, would be a fatal leap into the abyss of absurdity. It would be fatal to religion. It would also be fatal to science and to reason.

Why? Did I not say that everything in time and space had a beginning? Isn’t that the same thing as saying simply that everything had a beginning? By no means. It is simply logically and scientifically impossible that everything had a beginning. Why? If everything that exists once had a beginning, then there had to be a time when nothing existed.
(R. C. Sproul. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, p. 57)

Since nothing can be created by something that does not exist, only an existent being can create something. God is eternal, without beginning and without ending; his human creation is without ending but not without beginning. (Gordon J. Spykman. Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics, pp. 148-149). This cosmological explanation for a creation created by a Creator must be expounded without neglecting teleological arguments (implying “a purpose or direction”), rational (implying “a mind behind” creation), ontological (implying “a God who imprinted such a consciousness”), or the moral (implying “an innate awareness of a code of law”). (Henry F. Schaefer. Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence, p. 47) Unlike some liberal believers in Jesus Christ (and some conservatives as well), Sproul, Spykman, and Schaefer resist the temptation to speculate and read into Scripture ideas that will support their preconceived notions. And if differences exist among Christians, the contrast is drastically more pronounced when Christians are compared with unbelievers; many Christians believe in divine creation while most non-Christians in “chance.” Without trying to be syncretistic, we might consider Spykman’s words: “Could it be that from both sides we have locked ourselves into a set of dubious assumptions, false dilemmas, and methodological decisions which offer no promise of a happy outcome?” (p. 151)

While “a happy outcome” is not necessarily our goal in delving into the subject of creation, we would do well to keep in mind that since there is so much knowledge that God has chosen not to share with His creation, a real need exists for discernment of what He has revealed, things not of private interpretation but accepted by the pillar and ground of truth. To that end I have directed this synthesis. I have come to believe that God created everything in six 24-hour days, all in a mature, fully functional world of beings. I agree with the Westminster Shorter Catechism’s answer to Question 9: “The work of creation is God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.” Let us proceed by tracing Moses’ description of the facts in Genesis 1, according to the New King James Version, to be used throughout this paper.

DAY 1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.  Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.  And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.  God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.  (vv. 1-5)

John Calvin pointed out that Moses did not use the word “ruy, (yatsar,) which signifies to frame or forms but arb, (bara,) which signifies to create. Therefore [Moses’] meaning is that the world was made out of nothing.”  (ewordtoday.com/comments/genesis/calvin/genesis1.htm)  Out of nothing God created the earth; then He spoke the light into being—immediately. The text gives no logical or grammatical reason for justifying the view of a long period of time between His speaking and light’s being. Mathematician Vern Poythress agrees; after deliberating linguistic and logical issues, he says: “I conclude, then, that Genesis 1:1 describes the original act of creating out of nothing.” (Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach, p. 74)
The Maker of everything defines day and night in this passage, but a man might argue that there is an inconsistency here since the sun, stars and moon were not created until the fourth day. Another Calvinistic comment addresses this concern: “[T]he Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon.”  (ewordtoday.com/comments/genesis/calvin/genesis1.htm)

DAY 2

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”  Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.  And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.  (vv. 6-8)

The word firmament comes from Latin not Greek. But the Hebrew “eyqur (rakia) comprehends not only the whole region of the air, but whatever is open above.” (Calvin) Those who know Spanish can understand how the word cielo can mean sky/firmament, or heaven; the same dynamic exists in these verses. The idea of waters in the sky can sound unlikely, but King David is inspired to declare God’s miracles in Psalm 104:3, “He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters….” And again in Psalm 148:4, “Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, and you waters above the heavens!” Who are we to say that there is no water in the sky? Is that not the place from where the rain comes?

DAY 3

Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.  And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.  Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.  And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.  So the evening and the morning were the third day.  (vv. 9-13)

As another evening and day come and go, God creates again, this time He first separates the land from the water, that His creation may live without being flooded prematurely. And as with the first two days, I see no reason to suspect that millions, let alone billions, of years go by between days. After all, how long will the tree take to yield fruit and the seed to multiply itself?

DAY 4

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;  and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.  Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.  God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,  and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.  So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.  (vv. 14-19)

Here might be a good place to point out God’s provision in preparing the housing for His creation throughout the week. On Day 1 He created the habitat for the celestial beings of Day 4. On Day 2 He created a place for the sea creatures and birds of Day 5 to live. On Day 3 He dried the earth so that the land animals and man of Day 6 could live on dry ground. Indeed, a God of order, the one Creator and Provider.

Scientists may argue the merits of calling the moon a light since, as we know, it mostly reflects the light from the sun. However, one must keep in mind that Moses was communicating to the common, average Hebrews, many of whom did not even read or write. His was not an astronomical exposition but a plain explanation of historical events in everyday language, not withstanding our romantic concept today of the words of Shakespeare and King James.

But in giving power to the sun and moon to “rule” the day and night respectively, does God possibly give up some of His own power? Calvin did not think so: “God governs the days and nights by the ministry of the sun and moon, because he has them as his charioteers to convey light suited to the season.”

DAY 5

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”  So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.  And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”  So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.  (vv. 20-23)

On this day God created the beings of the air and those of the sea. Theologian Louis Berkhof aptly explains the commonality of these animals: “Birds and fishes belong together, because there is a great similarity in their organic structure. Moreover, they are characterized by an instability and mobility which they have in common with the element in which they move, in distinction from the solid ground.” (Systematic Theology, p. 156) Berkhof also points out that, as with the other creatures, these “too were created after their kind, that is the species were created.”

We should notice that God created the birds with the ability to reproduce through their eggs. In other words, the chicken came before the egg.

DAY 6

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.  And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.  Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all [or “all the wild animals of] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”  So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.  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.  Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.  (vv. 24-31)

Interestingly, Moses gives no hint of a plan for tiny creatures to evolve into other, different types of creatures. He did not speak of one eye coming into existence, developing into two and beginning the making of a nose or ear…and all from a one little creature over a very long period of time.

As God continued His work of that week long ago, He was preparing all creation for His jewel, for the apple of His eye, for him whom He made in His own image, so that man would have a domain over which to take dominion. It is fascinating that God created everything in an order of increasing intimacy to Himself. He created the heavens and the earth; He began to fill the earth with life; then from the earth itself He created Adam—a fitting reminder of our own creatureliness. But we should never overlook the fact that man is not an animal; man was created sinless and with the capacity to commune and live with God forever. So from dust to dust our bodies come and go, but because we carry that image, our eternal being will last forever.

DAY 7

And then God rested from all the creating that He had done. Was He tired of working? Did millions (or billions) of years of creation fatigue Him to the point that He needed another million or billion years to rest? Moses did not seem to think so, as evidenced by his words regarding the Fourth Commandment:
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work; you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 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. (Exodus 20:8-11)

How likely is it that Moses was speaking of seven 24-hour days in the Hebrew context yet a long period of time in God’s case of creation? I find no grammatical or logical reason to believe that in either case, especially given the “evening and morning” of Genesis 1, the Holy Spirit was speaking of anything other than days of the 24-hour kind. The idea that one day is as a thousand years with God, and vice versa, does not apply because Peter was admonishing believers not to presume on God’s patience (2 Peter 2:8-9); he was not commenting on the duration of the historical event of creation.

Genesis 2 begins by finishing the first week. The first three verses show God’s delight in what He made, and give us the model for the Fourth Commandment. We must address, however, the question of whether the rest of the chapter describes a second act of creation. Berkhof strongly rejects this idea, and his assertion makes much sense:
The second chapter of Genesis begins the description of the history of man, arranges its material to suit this purpose, and only repeats so much of what was said in the previous chapter, without any consideration of chronological order, as is necessary for the author’s purpose. (p. 158)

Our understanding of creation is of utmost importance not just for the strengthening of our faith but for the redeeming of our culture. This first act of God was not done without laying the chief Cornerstone. From there was built the whole foundation for Christianity, and it is all told in the first of our holy writings. Creationists Ken Ham and Paul Taylor put it well:

Why has the Bible’s most respected [in fact most quoted-from] book become the most attacked in our modern world? Why do the enemies of Christianity put so much effort into defeating that particular book above all others? Because Genesis is the most foundational book of the Bible. And, as the psalmist said, “When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Ps. 11:3)

To see the truth of that statement, think about building a house. A building is constructed from the foundations up, for a very important reason. The foundation is crucial to the whole structure. If the foundation is suddenly removed, the structure will almost surely collapse.

In a similar way, Genesis is a foundation for the rest of the Bible. Ultimately, all biblical doctrines of theology (the structure) are based directly or indirectly on the Book of Genesis (the foundation). (The Genesis Solution, p. 25)

TODAY’S OBJECTIONS

In analyzing the elements of the mature creation view, Vern Poythress addresses some common opposition to it.

Objection 1: The Mature Creation View Implies That God Has Deceived Us

Not wanting outright to challenge God’s sovereign right to create something and make it look of any age He wishes, some still wonder what else He would do that might look one age and be another. Poythress answers the question first by using Adam and Eve as an example.

God apparently indicated to Adam, either by direct words or by some other means, that he had newly created Eve from Adam’s rib. Adam said, “…she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Gen. 2:23b). Adam saw a mature woman in front of him, but he did not mistakenly thing that she had already actually lived for some 20 years. (p. 117)

Poythress points out that the only people feeling deceived would be those who already “deny the possibility of mature creation.” Otherwise, why would we have a problem accepting that God’s primary creation would be made capable of reproducing? He did not tell Adam and Eve to grow up and after puberty, when fully grown, be fruitful and multiply. Another argument against the deception objection is Eden itself. It was created with plants and soil ready to yield their fruit, with all necessary chemicals and bacteria for immediate reproduction. The apparent age would not lead Adam or Eve to conclude that the garden was many years old.

Poythress then admits that “a more nuanced objection arises: …records or traces of earlier apparent events from an unreal (ideal) past.” (p. 118) Two examples of such assumed events would be the rings on trees and a belly button on Adam, neither of which would have been a true sign of age in the beginning. But this line of thinking neglects the miracle-making power, which of course was used at creation. For instance, were the wedding guests at Cana to reject Jesus’ wine because the fermentation process was not followed? “Modern scientists often research the past using the assumptions that all apparent ages must be real. But that is their assumption. They assume that God (or their idolatrous substitute for God) must have acted in the past in exactly the same way as they see him operating now.” (p. 120)

Objection 2: Mature Creation Would Falsely Imply That Death Preceded the Fall

This objection is answered with the explanation “that older fossils belong to the projected past” and are therefore not necessarily older. But was there death before the Fall? Certainly not human death. As far as the animals are concerned, however, we must note that God did give Noah the right to kill animals. Whether God did the first killing of an animal to cover Adam and Eve’s nakedness after the Fall is unclear from Scripture and actually really misses the point; for animals were not created in God’s image and therefore do not share the status of God’s final creation. As Poythress says, “[W]e must beware of presuming to dictate to God what kind of world he had to create. It had to be ‘very good’ in his sight; but that is not the same as saying that it must match what some of us may think ideal.” (p. 122)

Objection 3: The Mature Creation View Makes Scientific Investigation Illegitimate

Some scientifically minded individuals insist on God’s responsibility to act consistently and ordinarily. But God never promises objector Davis Young or any other human being that He will behave in the controlled manner and work in a laboratory environment conducive to man’s experiments. Young claims that mature creation makes his work a waste of time “inasmuch as these rocks were created instantaneously in place.” (p. 123) What he does not realize is that he is actually working on quite reliable specimens because “[t]he coherence of processes in ideal time is also an aspect of the display of God’s wisdom, and Young makes a genuine contribution by studying this wisdom.” (p. 124) Any further frustrations might just be symptoms of human pride.

Objection 4: The Mature Creation View Undermines Noah’s Flood

Many geologists and astronomers believe in an old earth, with the former arguing that this view goes against the Flood. But we must remember that the key element in the theory of a mature creation is that the age of things at creation was an apparent age, thus making the ages of rocks and other geological objects of study also apparently of a certain age.

Poythress posits that the mechanics and extent of the flood are critical for scientific understanding. God’s creation was miraculous but not a violation of “so-called ‘natural law.’” (p. 125) God acted supernaturally, whether by degree or design, but always by law—His spoken word, that is. As primary cause of everything, God can use secondary causes like storms and “chance” happenings, and these might make a scientist scratch his head or reject God. But the scientist must come to terms with his inability to explain all things; sometimes God chooses not to reveal things to men. What He has shown us is that the Flood served as a second mature creation, so to speak. (See 2 Peter 3:5-7.) As such, it again gives scientists the appearance of old rocks and fossils.

Now, about the extent of the Flood, Poythress summarizes after a lengthy grammatical and cultural analysis: “The Bible does not say one way or the other whether the waters covered the whole globe or only an extensive area in the ancient Near East—enough to wipe out all the human beings, who in Noah’s time had not yet spread out over all the earth (Gen. 11:8-9).” (p. 129) The story of Noah concentrates on him, not on whether the waters were in liquid form or whether they receded in a way that we would expect today. Therefore, the flood geologists and mainstream geologists both continue to work with their assumptions in mind, the latter seeming to have the upper logical hand given modern radiometric dating. “But when we return to the Bible and let it free us from some of the limitations of the modern worldview, we may recognize that both of these assumptions are just that—assumptions. The assumptions are natural and plausible, but need not necessarily be true.” (p. 130)

AN HONEST FORMER EVOLUTIONIST

The mature creation theory is one of several views on how everything on earth came to be. Some theories are based on an intelligent designer/creator, and some on evolutionary thinking. Some can fall under both of these categories, creation by a God who worked in evolutionary and very slow, long method(s). Proponents of each theory employ logic, grammar, history, morality, and every argument they can think of to support their beliefs. Ultimately, though, belief is just about all it is, for the Bible does not give an abundance of evidence for one particular view over all the others.

We are reminded that God’s Word is useful in preparing the man of God for every good work…echoing the work of God that was “very good.” He has promised to give us grace as we humble ourselves before Him; and when we have the grace to trust and obey Him as babes, He reveals His secrets to us. He brings His chosen ones to that faith according to His own design, just as He created all things, according to His own design.
Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum, visited America in 1981 and gave the following lecture before the ichthyology department of the Natural History Museum. His candidness and humility are refreshing and should be emulated by everyone seeking truth.

Now, I think always before in my life, when I’ve got up to speak on a subject, I’ve been confident of one thing—that I know more about it than anybody in the room, because I’ve worked on it.

Well, this time that isn’t true. I’m speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it’s true to say that I know nothing whatever about either of them. Now, one of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let’s call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That was quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long.

So either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally I know there’s nothing wrong with me. So for the last few weeks, I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
The question is: can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true? I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said, “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.” [Laughter] (Tom Bethell. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, pp. 216-217)

CONCLUSION

I have presented the case for what I believe is the most plausible set of facts regarding God’s making of a fully grown, mature creation. This is not the only possible explanation for the truthfulness of the biblical account, and it is not necessary to believe exactly as I do to be an effective apologist. But one thing is clear to me: the enemies of God are busy attacking the very foundation of Christianity.

The biggest challenge for Bible believers is not convincing unbelievers of the veracity and reliability of the Scriptures. The first and greatest task is preaching to the proverbial choir. Christians who do not believe in a literal creation, fall, and redemption of man must repent, study, and let God teach them. As long as some would-be followers of Christ do not believe in the whole Bible as the inspired, infallible Book of God, we run the risk of fighting battles on the issues that flow out of man’s evil nature at the expense of neglecting the basis for man himself. The bad guys are shooting at our foundation; we must not waste bullets shooting at their banners in the air.

This is my Father’s world. If you’re my brother, help me defend it against those who want to steal it and its history. After all, is it not the inheritance of the meek?

I say this so that you may once more see what a risky business it is to approach the holy things of God in the rash audacity of human reason, without God’s spirit. If Christ is “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world” (cf. John 1:29), it follows that the whole world is under sin, and condemnation, and the devil. So your distinction between parts that are principal and parts that are not is profitless. “The World” means men, who savour of the things of the world in every part of them. (Luther, The Bondage of the Will, p. 254)

Their television appearances were frequent some twenty-five years ago. Strange-looking orange-and-purple-haired people raising their conspicuous, sometimes gaudy “John 3:16” posters. One might wonder how well they understood the scripture; let alone what Martin Luther and other reformers meant with statements like the one above. Discussing sin, condemnation, and the devil are not popular topics; and the seeker-friendly gospel announced at public sporting events did not do much to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come. The posters don’t appear so much anymore.

Today, of course, most Protestants can recite from memory the verse on God’s love for the world. In fact, the love that comes from God is a theme that all too often is preached and taught to the exclusion of love for and its necessarily accompanying fear of and obedience to God. Consider this: would a God who loves His chosen ones with complete holiness expect His beloved to love Him with any less than our own whole, sanctified being?

One historically pivotal Thursday night over 2,000 years ago, the Son of Man proposed to the sons of men. His twelve disciples accepted the proposal and married Him. Of course, one of them would betray Him that same night. May God grant repentance to any who betray Jesus Christ today.

THE JOYFUL, FEARLESS FRIEND AND BEST MAN

Before sending His son to be born of a virgin, Yahweh sent a man to meet the family. The last of the Old Testament prophets, he introduced Messiah by preaching repentance and baptism. His namesake the evangelist used him as supporting actor in the fourth version of the story of Jesus of Nazareth; he also appears prominently in each of the synoptic Gospels. By all accounts, the Baptist was a humble man who faithfully served the Father in the task he had been given.

When the priests and Levites asked him if he was the Christ, Elijah, or the prophet, he said no, that he was merely someone crying in the wilderness, preparing the way for the Lord (John1:19-23). “[T]hey turned on him,” says Walter Kaiser. (The Messiah in the Old Testament, p. 60). Amazingly this prophet of prophets might not have known that he was Elijah, even though Jesus later called John the greatest man born of woman (Matthew 11:11-14) and the fulfillment of Malachi 4.

John showed his love for the Lamb of God in Chapter 3 of the Gospel of John:
He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease. (vv. 29-30)

John rejoiced to serve as “the best man” for the Son of God. (Kostenberger, Encountering John, p. 65) He was happy to serve his Lord, not coveting the personal relationship between Jesus and each member of His bride. John loved his cousin, but he loved Jesus more once he knew him as the sacrifice for his sins. He was then willing to lay down his own life for the love of his life.

John the Baptist was firm in his convictions. This man, who would not bow to an adulterous king and was not afraid of priests or Pharisees, was compared by Jesus to something not bending in the wind; he bowed to God and served Him only. Luke tells us what Jesus said of this fearless man:
When the messengers of John had departed, [Jesus] began to speak to the multitudes concerning John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind?” (7:24)

May the Spirit of Jesus grant His beloved the bold, willing, and faithful disposition displayed by our best man. May we appreciate his service and sacrifice to the Lord. May we take the marriage seriously.

THE TRUE WITNESS

The prophet whom the multitudes came out to hear and see was a true witness of the groom’s love.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. (John 1:6-8)

Everything that John preached he preached as a witness in the name of God. He spoke clearly and directly, whether to the priests and Pharisees or to the common people. John’s words were so convicting and well understood that he went to prison for them, eventually getting his head chopped off. He could have said the following just as accurately about himself as about Jesus: “For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God….” (John 3:34) Jesus said it bluntly: “You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth.” (John 5:33)

May we who call ourselves Christians, on this side of the apostles and early Church Fathers, be as truthful as was the one whom Jesus Himself declared to be truthful. May we not violate the Third Commandment as we dare to speak for God and take His name. May we faithfully report the things that we have seen and heard, without adding or detracting from the message of the cross.

THE GREATEST PROPHET

Malachi had prophesied that God was going to send John the Baptist:
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet
Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.
And he will turn
The hearts of the fathers to the children,
And the hearts of the children to their fathers,
Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.” (4:5-6)

Before Jesus affirmed that John was Elijah (Matthew 11:14), an angel of the Lord had told John’s father that his son would fulfill Malachi’s prophecy (Luke 1). The Bible does not detail how much John turned children’s hearts to their fathers, but we do know that those whose hearts were turned by the heavenly father were not turned away, according to Jesus (John 6:37). And we know that the unbelieving Jews (like any unbelievers) were cursed. The kingdom was even taken away from them. The incarnation of the Son engendered offspring who turned the world upside down, bringing man’s reconciliation with the Father. The peace of God and peace with God facilitates children’s hearts and fathers’ hearts turning toward and not at each other.

As Israel lost its place in the kingdom of God, any nation that turns from God’s covenant will likewise lose its light. Gary North aptly puts it:
Christianity was not invented in the United States; it was invented in heaven. The United States is only one of several “authorized distributors” of Christianity, and if its people cease to be faithful, this “distributorship” will pass to others entirely. It should be the goal of every Christian to see to it that he does all that he can to enable his nation to become one of these “distributors.” (Liberating Planet Earth, 12)

John the Baptist would agree with North. He saw his ethnic group forsake their LORD because they loved their evil deeds. John hated evil, and he would become angry with a righteous anger. But, as Jesus, he would “be angry and sin not.” (Ephesians 4:26) Loving righteousness and knowing of the wrath of God against sinners, John preferred to lose his head than not to speak the words of the Father. He let vengeance be God’s and went like a lamb to the slaughter. That is the meekness and courage fitting for a follower of Jesus Christ. As North says, “A Christian must be willing to give up everything except his heavenly ‘citizenship.”” (p. 12)

John told the unrepentant Jewish masses who came to be baptized: “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’” (Luke 3:7-8a) The unborn child who leapt in the womb when his recently conceived little cousin came into his house grew to become a true prophet. His grown cousin, whom he now knew as his savior, called him a true prophet and greatest of men.

John preached at risk of his life against Herod’s coveting someone else’s wife. The Baptist was a man who wore camel’s hair and ate locusts and wild honey. He was not part of the religious inner circle even though his father had been a priest. He preached against sin and for repentance. He was not envious of his cousin’s preeminent place in God’s kingdom. Like Nathanael, he was a man in whom there was no guile.

May we exercise our responsibility as a prophetic people and speak truth to power. May we not be ashamed of the gospel of Christ and its power to save souls, but beyond that, may we equally speak for God as Luther did:
If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. (albatross.org)

Today’s war against sin and the grave is waged on many fronts. The battle rages not only in the proverbial playing field where we attack with signs on posters. It rages in every institution on earth: family, church, state, private business…any and every sphere of life; for man cannot escape the immanent and transcendent sovereignty of almighty God. And Christians are unfaithful if we do not join in the battle for the culture. As the soul can be saved, so can society be reformed.

CONCLUSION

John was sent to prepare the way for Jesus. He was humble and rejoiced at being part of the wedding between Messiah and His bride. According to Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart (How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, p. 127), we don’t know much about John the Baptist because John the evangelist was selective in what he chose to share with his readers. For example, in Chapter 20, the Gospel of John says, “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book…” (v. 30) In the last verse of that book, he says in supreme hyperbole: “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.” (21:25)

Not many Christians in Twenty-first Century America are called to be exactly like John the Baptist, crying in the wilderness and prophesying so confrontationally that we all killed for righteousness’ sake. Though we are often ridiculed and routinely touted as ignorant and superstitious, our lives for the most part are not in imminent danger.

But regardless of our position and place in society, every believer can do the work that God has destined for him. Before Jesus did all the things His father sent Him to do, John had started to do all the things that God had told him to do. The greatest man born of woman loved God with everything he had. He joyfully and dutifully served as best man for the bridegroom and His bride. May we work on our marriage by being obedient and faithful to honor our husband.

Here’s an acrostic poem I wrote after my wife had suffered a second miscarriage several years ago.  God has not given us Juan Samuel or Sylvia Ester…yet.

For the seed I planted in my wife this year, I
Only dare to trust and thank my harvester, a
Reaper of a crop that does not rot.

Out of season and in season, the two of
Us have sown and reaped with blood and tears…
Rejoicing in our trials, our perseverance led to hope.

Late last night the angry flow began to ebb:
On and off, from gentle tinge of
Spotting, to scarlet, to crimson clots
That forced their way through her.

Better see the doctor, I
Anxiously suggested several times,
But she preferred the cramps and labor of
Yet another fortunate miscarriage.

We know what comes upon us is for good and not for
Evil; we accept the loans, and He will keep the store.

The two shall be as one, and the one will multiply –
Here on earth where we are told to take dominion
And subdue, and overcome, and receive the gifts
No other creatures can obtain. Then, when my
King decides, He reaps. We need no longer bleed.

God, in His eternal wisdom, controls the seasons
Of our lives. He knows the pain and purpose that He
Destines for us all. Our baby’s safe with Him, you see.