Jesus, the Young Age Creationist.

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

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

by Keaton Halley

Mark 10: 6 (ESV) 
6  But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

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

Figure 1.

Evasive maneuvers

Following such presentations, people have often shared that they rejoiced to learn of this biblical teaching, and some individuals have even been persuaded to change their minds about the age of the earth based on Jesus’ words. But, sadly, many Christians are so strongly committed to their belief in an old earth that they will go to desperate lengths to avoid the clear meaning of the text. Almost invariably, when someone voices an objection to the argument, it goes like this: “Actually, it’s not clear that Jesus was referring to the creation of all things. He might have meant simply the creation of humanity.” This answer is not only given in casual conversations; the same response also appears in the writings of thoughtful scholars like C. John Collins, who argues: “The most obvious ‘beginning of creation’ for this verse is the beginning of the creation of the first pair of humans”.1 Frankly, however, this interpretation cannot be sustained when the text is examined carefully. The idea that Jesus was referring to the creation of humanity overlooks four important exegetical considerations which reinforce the plain meaning of Jesus’ words and thereby confirm that the earth is young.

Broadly speaking

First, Jesus could have worded His statement differently if He had wanted to indicate that He was speaking strictly of the origin of mankind, rather than the beginning of all things—yet He chose not to. For example, Jesus could easily have said “from the beginning of man” or “from the time of their creation” or something similar if that’s what He had wanted to convey. But He did not qualify His statement in this way. He did not modify the word “creation” with any other terms that would restrict its focus, but instead spoke of “creation” broadly the way He would if He had wanted to talk about the created world in general.

Parallel passages

Second, the intuitive meaning of Jesus’ words is supported by several parallel passages. In parallel passages we have separate authors telling the same story in their own words, as often happens in the Gospels, and the slight differences in wording can help to clarify a text’s meaning. For example, Matthew 19:4 is parallel to Mark 10:6, so Matthew’s phrase “from the beginning” (used again in v. 8) must be equivalent to Mark’s “from the beginning of creation”. Now, since Matthew’s phraseology is even more generic than Mark’s, he certainly does not give us any indication that this “beginning” is limited to the origin of humanity. But since Matthew has the word “beginning” immediately followed by Jesus’ quotation of Genesis 1:26, he is likely alluding to the introductory words of the creation account as well, which starts, “In the beginning”. If so, there is no possibility of ambiguity in Jesus’ meaning, because the “beginning” in Genesis 1:1 is not referring merely to the start of human beings, but to the origin of “the heavens and the earth.”

Jesus could have worded His statement differently if He had wanted to indicate that He was speaking strictly of the origin of mankind, rather than the beginning of all things.

Even more tellingly, the words of Jesus that appear in Mark 10:6—“from the beginning of creation”—are used again by Jesus in Mark 13:19.2 Now, both passages are from the same book of the Bible. They both involve the same person (Jesus) using similar language to make a similar point, so we have every reason to conclude that the phrases have the same meaning. But the meaning of Mark 13:19 is also illuminated by a parallel passage. Compare:

• Mark: “from the beginning of the creation” (Mark 13:19)
• Matthew: “from the beginning of the world” (Matt. 24:21)

According to the parallel, “the creation” must have the same meaning as “the world”. In other contexts, the term “world” (kosmos, κόσμος) can refer to mankind (e.g., Rom 3:19), but there is no justification for that rendering here. Given the parallel, the contextual meaning of these terms must be found in their semantic overlap, and therefore it isn’t just humanity that is in view, but all of creation.

Multiple witnesses

Third, there are several other New Testament passages which, although they are not connected to Mark 10:6 by parallels, contain the same implications about the age of the earth. Like the passages already mentioned, these texts take it for granted that all the events of creation week happened in the very beginning, including the creation of mankind on Day 6. So, in addition to the above passages (Mark 10:6; 13:19; Matthew 19:4, 8; 24:21), we add the following:

• Luke 11:50–51 — Prophets’ blood was “shed from the foundation of the world” (note: not from the foundation of mankind).
• Hebrews 9:25–26 — People have been sinning and in need of atonement “since the foundation of the world”.
• Romans 1:20 — People have been able to recognize God’s attributes “since the creation of the world”.3

Not only do these texts reinforce the face-value meaning of Mark 10:6, but they also provide independent scriptural testimony to a young earth. After all, it would be preposterous to apply the old-earth interpretive ‘escape hatch’ to every one of these passages. Consider, for example, the passage in Luke’s Gospel where Jesus spoke about “the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world”; there is no basis at all for suggesting that He was really only talking about the world of humanity or the world of prophets. Rather, each of these texts is self-evidently speaking about the beginning of the whole world, and therefore each indicates that the earth is not significantly older than mankind.

Mixed-up meanings

Fourth and finally, the argument that Jesus was referring to the creation of humanity in Mark 10:6 actually misrepresents what Jesus meant by “creation”. In both English and Greek, the word “creation” can refer to either an object (a created thing) or an act (the process of creating). The statement, “this artwork is my own creation”, refers to an object. But “the creation of this artwork took many hours” describes an act.

Each of these texts is self-evidently speaking about the beginning of the whole world.

Notice that when the critics take Jesus’ reference to “creation” and tack on the words, “of humanity”, they are assuming that the term “creation” refers to an act—God’s making of mankind. Certainly, the Bible does use the term in this way in Romans 1:20, which speaks of “the creation of the world,” meaning God’s act of making of the world.

However, it makes little sense to impose this definition on Mark 10:6. Jesus could not have meant that God made people male and female from the beginning of the act of creation, because even old-earth creationists would agree that Adam and Eve were made on Day 6, toward the end (not the beginning) of God’s creative activity.4 Rather, what Jesus meant by “creation” is not the act, but the object that resulted from God’s creative activity. Jesus was talking about something that God made. This becomes even more obvious by looking again at Mark 13:19, in which Jesus used additional wording to help clarify which type of “creation” He was speaking about. His extended phrase reads (note the emphasized words): “from the beginning of the creation that God created until now”. It makes absolutely no sense to speak of God creating the act of creation. Unquestionably, then, the creation here and in Mark 10:6 is not an act, but an object.

Even so, if the critics were to admit their mistake of confusing creative acts with created objects, they might still try to maintain that the created object refers to mankind rather than the entire created realm. But this amounts to saying that the word “creation” here just means “mankind”, and there is no scriptural precedent for this at all. While the Greek word for “creation” (ktisis, κτίσις) can mean “creature” (as in 2 Cor. 5:17), the Bible never uses the singular form to refer to humanity collectively.

Thus, those Christians who try to limit Jesus’ statements to human origins are caught in a dilemma. If they claim “creation” means the act of making mankind, they import a meaning completely foreign to the context. But if they maintain that “creation” refers to (created) humanity, they adopt a meaning completely foreign to New Testament word usage. Better to abandon all the hermeneutical contrivances, and accept the obvious truth that Jesus believed in a young earth.5

Taking our cues from Scripture

As Christians, we ought to take the words of Jesus, and indeed all the words of Scripture, as authoritative (John 10:35; 17:17; 2 Tim. 3:16–17). Yet Jesus’ testimony about the age of the earth is clear even if uncomfortable for some. So I would challenge those Christians who cling to an old-earth perspective to ask themselves if they are honestly submitting to the Word of God on this point, or just finding ways to rationalize their lack of faith. The Bible clearly teaches that mankind is about as old as the rest of creation, so let us humble ourselves before God’s Word as the Thessalonians once did:

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. (1 Thess. 2:13)

May that same Word continue to be at work in us.

Genesis: Bible authors believed it to be history

‘The important thing is that God created, isn’t it?’

by Jonathan Sarfati

Ever had someone tell you, ‘You’re missing the whole point! The purpose of Genesis is to teach that God is our Creator. We should not be divisive over the small details. Genesis teaches the theological truth of “Who?” and “Why?” not about the “How?” and “When?”’ Or else they say that the Bible is a book for faith and morality, not history.

An obvious answer is, why should we trust Genesis when it says God created if we can’t trust it on the details? After all, Jesus told Nicodemus, ‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ (John 3:12). So if Genesis can’t be trusted on an earthly thing, such as Earth’s age, the sequence of creative acts upon it, or the Flood that covered it, then why trust it on a heavenly thing such as who the Creator was? Also, if Genesis 1were merely meant to tell us that God is creator, then why simply not stop at verse 1, all that’s necessary to state this?

However, the critic has overlooked something even more important—Genesis is written as real history. This is why the rest of the Bible treats the events, people and time sequences as real history, not parables, poetry or allegory.

What does the rest of Scripture say?

The age and unique creation of Adam and Eve mattered to Jesus

When teaching about marriage, Jesus said:

‘But at the beginning of creation God “made them male and female. … For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one’ (Mark 10:6–8).

Here, Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 about a real first man and first woman who became the first couple, and this was the basis for marriage between one man and one woman today. Not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or more than two people. Evolution teaches instead that a whole population of humans evolved from a population of ape-like creatures.

The important thing is that God created, isn’t it?

Also, in the context of what Jesus quoted, the two become one flesh because Eve was taken from Adam’s flesh, and a man leaves his parents because Adam had none. Furthermore, Jesus said that Adam and Eve were there ‘from the beginning of creation’, not billions of years later.

Far too few Christians defend the foundation of marriage—the recent creation of Adam and Eve as Jesus taught. Then they wonder why sinful deviant acts such as adultery, fornication and homosexual behaviour are increasing, even within the church.

The timeframe of Creation Week matters to God

God Himself wrote the Ten Commandments with His finger. The 4th one is:

‘Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.’

The reason he gave is:

‘For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.’

Clearly the timeframe is important, otherwise this Commandment is meaningless. And if the creation days were really long periods of time, then logically the days of the working week would have to be as well. But ‘Work for 6 billion years and rest for one billion years’ doesn’t quite have the same ring to it …

Adam’s sin bringing death mattered to Paul’s preaching of the gospel

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul explains the Gospel he had taught these people, and how central Jesus’ Resurrection is. And he explains whyJesus came to die:

‘For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. … So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit’ (1 Corinthians 15:21–22, 45).

Paul explains that the Gospel (= ‘good news’) is necessary because of the bad news that our ancestor Adam sinned and brought death to all people (Romans 5:12–19). Thus, the last Adam, Jesus, cured this by living a sinless life, dying for our sin, and rising from the dead. Also, Jesus rose physically from the dead (rising from an empty tomb with flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)). So the death Adam brought must also have a physical component, as shown by his return to the dust from which he was made (Genesis 3:19).

All compromise views place death before Adam’s sin, thus undermine the Gospel.

Jesus’ ancestry mattered to Luke

In chapter 3 of his Gospel, Luke traces Jesus’ lineage from Mary all the way back up to Adam. There is not the slightest hint of a break showing where historical characters end and mythical figures begin—all are treated as equally historical; none are mythical. This includes Adam himself, who was created directly by God, not through a long line of ape-like ancestors or pond scum (Luke 3:38).

This is important for Paul’s teaching in the above section. It is also vital for the Atonement. The prophet Isaiah spoke of the coming Messiah as literally the ‘Kinsman-Redeemer’, i.e. one who is related by blood to those he redeems (Isaiah 59:20, which uses the same Hebrew word גוֹאל (gôēl) as is used to describe Boaz in relation to Naomi in Ruth 2:20, 3:1–4:17). The book of Hebrews also explains how Jesus took upon Himself the nature of a man to save mankind, but not angels (Hebrews 2:11–18). So only Adam’s descendants can be saved, because only thus can they be related by blood to the Last Adam.

So if anyone thinks that Genesis history doesn’t matter, then ask how they should preach to the Australian Aborigines. If they have really been here for 40,000 years (according to carbon-14 dating that old-earthers accept), then how could they come from Adam, and how could they be related to Christ, so how can they be saved? Indeed, a compromising clergyman of Darwin’s day claimed that Aborigines had not evolved enough to preach the Gospel to them!1

Cain and Abel’s reality mattered to John

The Apostle John taught:

‘Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous’ (1 John 3:12).

Thus, in teaching the church about good and evil, John accepted the real history of Cain murdering Abel, as an example of real evil.

John accepted the real history of Cain murdering Abel, as an example of real evil.

Jesus also believed that Abel was the first man whose blood was shed. And He taught that Abel’s blood would come upon that unbelieving generation as surely as that of the other martyred prophets throughout Scripture (Matthew 23:35).

Also, Hebrews 11 lists Abel, Enoch and Noah as heroes of the faith, without any hint that they were less real than any of the others listed.

The order of creation mattered to Paul

Paul taught much about the role of men and women in church. Paul justified it by citing the real history of Genesis. He wrote:

‘For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man’ (1 Corinthians 11:8–9).

Thus, Paul accepts the Genesis history that God created first Adam, who then named all the land vertebrate animals that God had previously created, then God made Eve from Adam’s rib—she was not an evolved apewoman! However, later on Paul points out:

‘In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God’ (1 Corinthians 11:11–12).

Here, Paul is following Genesis as well, for Adam named his wife Eve because she would become ‘the mother of all the living’ (Genesis 3:20).

Jesus taught about the sudden reality of His future judgment by comparing it to the time of Noah.

Paul repeats this even more directly in his instructions to his pupil Timothy, ‘For Adam was first formed, then Eve’ (1 Timothy 2:13). Next verse, Paul teaches that Genesis 3is also real history, ‘And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.’

Noah, the Flood and Ark mattered to Jesus and Peter

Jesus taught about the sudden reality of His future judgment by comparing it to the time of Noah:

‘Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the Ark. Then the Flood came and destroyed them all’ (Luke 17:26–27).

Here, Jesus treats Noah as a real person, the Ark as a real ship and the Flood as a real event that destroyed all people outside the Ark.

Peter likewise warned of a coming Judgment by comparing it with the Flood. He even said that one characteristic of ‘scoffers’ was a willful ignorance of two things: the reality of special creation of the world out of water, and its destruction by water (2 Peter 3:3–7).

But if we deny that the Flood was a real event, then logically the future Judgment must be denied as well. And if the Flood was merely a local Mesopotamian flood, then people could have escaped simply by emigrating. Logically, sinners could escape the future wrath of the Son of Man just by keeping out of Iraq!

Summary

These are only a few examples of where other Bible writers take Genesis as history. Indeed, the inspired writers treat the people, events and times as real, not merely literary or theological devices. And the reality of the history is foundational to crucial teachings about faith and morality.

Creation Ministries International  Dear  Augustine: You are welcome to post CMI articles on the mentioned website, as long as you agree not to change any of the content and reference creation.com and the relevant authors, as you have indicated.
Kind regards,  Annalouise Bekker  Administration
Creation Ministries International (Australia)  https://creation.com/from-the-beginning

 “Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.