Clough Evolution Lesson 7
The Curse
We come to the fourth section of the block of material on the Bible and science; we want to review once again that we have covered first the problem of Genesis 1:1-3; the problem of the “days;” Genesis 2:1-3; and the creation of man. We have two more problems left before winding up our study on the Scriptures. The fifth and sixth items will be respectively, The Curse, and The Flood.”
Now before we go any further, because while this series is being run, news has been published that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, the 109th general assembly has recently concluded that “the Bible and theory of evolution are not contradictory but only after certain fiery fundamentalists had their say.” And because I think this bears very much on this discussion of the Bible and evolution, I want to take time to comment on this particular newspaper article, and then we will deal with the curse.
This announcement was made about April 29, 1969, so the 109th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States went on record that the Bible and the theory of evolution are not contradictory. Now I first want to comment on the statement that the Bible and the theory of evolution are not contradictory and then I want to close by the preliminary remarks on this article by discussing the last statement of this opening paragraph, (quote) “but only after fiery fundamentalists had their say,” (end quote).
First let’s discuss the statement that the Bible and the theory of evolution are not contradictory. It’d be interesting to see, although I haven’t read it, it would be interesting to see exactly the line of argument by which this was made. I rather suspect that no serious attempt was made by the Presbyterian Church at this point to reconcile the Scripture and evolution, rather all that was said was that well, evolution is true, and we don’t want to give up the Bible so somehow they both have to be non-contradictory somehow. Unfortunately it’s this kind of sloppy thinking that has left this issue unresolved since 1859. It’s interesting that in over 100 years since Darwin wrote his book no one has really adequately handled the issue: is evolution actually contradictory to the Bible or not, and no one has shown that it is non-contradictory. That is, in every way you approach it evolution conflicts with the normal interpretation of Scripture. So one is left either with adjusting constantly one’s interpretation of Scripture to meet certain contemporary scientific views or you are stranded on the rock of liberalism which says all right, the literal normal interpretation of the Bible is true but it just so happens the whole Bible is wrong. These are the only two options you have, other than the one we are taking in this series, namely that the Bible normally interpreted is true, and wherever scientific theory conflicts with this science has misunderstood the issue.
We’ll discuss these things more specifically but I just want to show you and remind us once again that there are only three options one can take. If you have a logical contradiction there are only three things that can happen to relieve or relax the tension of the contradiction. First you can change one statement; second, you can change the other statement; or third you can deny the law of contradiction. So in this particular Bible-evolution debate one can say the Bible is wrong, and this the liberals do, namely, that the normal interpretation is exactly what Moses intended to say but unfortunately Moses was wrong. Now this is now this is one way of relieving the tension of the contradiction. Of course, this leaves you without an authoritative Bible and once you are left without an authoritative Bible, as we’ve seen earlier in the series you are thrown upon the creed of human viewpoint, namely that man is his own ultimate authority, that the universe is a self-sustaining machine ran by itself, ran by Chance, and three, that death is an inherent feature of the universe.
Now these three ideas of human viewpoint are the only alternatives when you start to take this route of relaxing or denying what the Bible says is true. That’s one way we can resolve the tension between the Bible and evolution—say the Bible is wrong. The other way we can resolve the tension between the Bible and evolution is to say that evolution is wrong, and this is, of course, the route that we are taking in this series. Now there is a third, subtle one, which most people don’t realize and I suspect this is where the major portion of the Presbyterian people who voted for this thing, I suspect this third option is the option they took and that is that they’ve denied the law of contradiction. By this I simply mean that the Bible normally interpreted is simply…Moses’ interpretation is kind of a myth, evolution is true, the Bible isn’t meant to really describe the historical facts; the Bible is not really giving us a series of observations of what happened in primal history, that these observations are just images to teach us vital doctrines God wants us to know. And of course, this is nonsense and I believe we have previously treated this question.
And that the Bible and evolution are contradictory, that fundamentalism which is essentially just simply the position the Bible is to be interpreted in a normal straightforward fashion, that there really is a tension was shown by an article in Christian Century back in the 1920s. Now remember, during the 1920s is when this evolution-Bible controversy peaked. So therefore if we go back to that time, instead of reading this new report of April 29:1969, we go back into the 1920s and examine reports then, from the scene, and one of the greatest observations ever made on the whole controversy I think was made in Christian Century, January 3, 1924. And that issue of Christian Century Magazine had the following statement. It’s a beautiful statement because it shows what we have been saying all along, namely that fundamentalism is totally incompatible with these other viewpoints.
Now listen to what Christian Century analyzed; I think this is a very, very discerning analysis of the problem. (Quote) “Christianity, according to fundamentalism, is one religion. Christianity, according to modernism, is another religion. Which is the true generation is the question that is to be settled in all probability by our generation for further generations,” (end quote). That statement, of course the last one is pessimistic, what happened in the 1920s is that denominational hierarchies were all liberal controlled and of course were able to consolidate entire denominational machinery. So that fundamentalism today, by and large, resides in independent churches free from the politics of liberalism; free from the restraints and coercion of the liberal hierarchy. So therefore the controversy was never resolved, it’s simply that power politics took over and the power battle, the struggle for power, was won by liberals, but the struggle for truth still goes on. And so one has to make this distinguishment as he reads the statement that this is a question that will be settled in this generation,” namely the generation of the 1920s. It was not settled in the generation of the 1920s, if it had it wouldn’t be with us today. The reason why it’s with us today is because the settlement, back in the 1920s, was a settlement purely on the basis of power and control, not on the basis of truth and fact.
Now continuing the statement, (quote), “There is a clash here as profound and grim as between Christianity and Confucianism; amiable words” and I think this is an important observation, listen carefully to this word because read this now, this is 1924 and I’ve just read you an article from 1969 in which the Presbyterian Church says the Bible and evolution are not contradictory. And yet back in the 20s when far, far more people were aware of exactly what the issue was, Christian Century wrote this word. (Quote) “…amiable words cannot hide the differences,” and that’s a tremendous statement, “amiable words cannot hide the differences, ‘Blessed Be the Tie that Binds’ may be sun till doomsday but it cannot bind these worlds together,” that is the worlds of modernism and fundamentalism. Continuing, (quote), “The God of the fundamentalist is one God, the God of the modernist is another; the Christ of the fundamentalist is one Christ, the Christ of modernism is another; the Bible of fundamentalism is one Bible, the Bible of modernism is another; the church, the kingdom, the salvation, the consummation of all things, these are one thing to fundamentalists and another thing to modernists. Which God is the Christian God? Which Christ is the Christian Christ? Which Bible is the Christian Bible? Which church, which kingdom, which salvation, which consummation are the Christian church, the Christian kingdom, the Christian salvation, the Christian consummation? The future will tell.” (End quote)
I think you have to keep this is in mind and this is exactly what we’ve been saying all along. Now these words were not written by a fundamentalist; they were written by a very acute and astute reporter who was on hand during the 20s to watch thing being battled out and evolution and the Bible was one of the great issues back during the fundamentalist-modernist controversy.
Now when we pick up the paper in 1969 and I read that the Presbyterian Church has concluded that the Bible and the theory of evolution are not contradictory, one would therefore expect them to cite some reasons why, because after all, it was precisely this issue that split churches by the hundreds across the nation, by the thousands. Millions of people were affected, this is a tremendous statement. If it’s really true then they should give reasons, but there’s no reasons given and I suspect because there are no reasons can be given. And so they blissfully conclude the Bible and the theory of evolution are not contradictory and one gets the sneaky suspicion that this, like the 1920s battle is simply once again power dominating truth by denomination hierarchies that have decreed and all of the peons will kiss their feet. This is basically what goes on.
Now I want to deal with the last clause on this introductory sentence, a very clever paragraph, it comes out under AP from Mobile, Alabama. And the AP writer, whoever he was, added this statement and it shows you his thinking. And one should be able to, by reading many of these news articles, be able to tell just the thoughts of the reporter as he writes and describes what happened. Of course, knowing a little bit about church history and so on, it’s very easy to tell that this AP reporter at this point is simply giving us the old line, because he conclude his sentence with a dash, and then he adds these words, “—but only after fiery fundamentalists had their say.” You see, one isn’t a fundamentalist, one is a fiery fundamentalist. One isn’t a fundamentalist, he’s an ultra fundamentalist, you see; liberals aren’t liberals, they’re just moderates but fundamentalists are ultra fundamentalists or ultra fanatical conservatives or fiery fundamentalists. And this is just the propaganda of our time; it’s just the brainwashing of the culture deliberately designed to smash fundamentalism and any other person who believes in absolute truth.
But yet the reporter, as he continues his article actually contradicts himself because the central incident related in his article is one that involved a confrontation between a Reverend R. D. Littleton of Atlanta and Reverend R. Matthew Lind who was the newly elected moderator of the general assembly. To fit these characters into place, Reverend Littleton is a fundamentalist, and Reverend Lind, the new elected moderator of the assembly, apparently is one who went along with it and therefore would be a liberal. As the article proceeds, Reverend Littleton is said to have made a motion and it contained the words, (quote) “God made Adam, the head of the human race, in His own image, with intelligence and a conscience and with dominion over all creatures.” And then Littleton declared, (quote) “The majority of scientists in the world are not Christian,” (end quote). And I would say that’s a fair statement, one, however, wants to be careful about that kind of a statement because the majority of all plumbers in the world are not Christian either; the majority of all carpenters in the world are not Christian; the majority of all bus drivers in the world are not Christian; the majority of all truck drivers in the world are not Christians. So this should not be interpreted as a particular slam against scientists as a class. I know many fundamentalist scientists, incidentally, PhD’s in their field and believe in literal creation. Of course you never hear about it but nevertheless they exist.
Now at this point, this is simply a motion put on the floor by one of these so-called “fiery fundamentalists.” Now watch what happened. “The Reverend R. Matthew Lind,” now this is a liberal, “the newly elected moderator of the assembly interrupted Littleton to add, ‘Have you made a survey, Sir.’” You can just…a snotty slam against this man, “have you made a survey Sir.” “Replied Littleton,” and I think this was a smashing blow that Littleton as a fundamentalist gentleman replied to this rude interruption by the liberal, “‘That’s the first time I’ve been interrupted by a moderator but if you want to debate on that subject, I can.’” (End quote). “The moderator apologized.” Now one would say from reading this little incident that the fiery person wasn’t the fundamentalist at all, he was just simply a gentleman making a motion on the floor; the fiery man was the liberal, the liberal was the one who interrupted him while in the process of making a motion on the floor, and it’s very, very rude. And so the rude man here was not the fundamentalist at all, the rude man was the liberal. However, the reporter, because I believe, I don’t think he deliberately consciously did this but he just absorbed the general cultural brainwashing of our time that every fundamentalist is a fiery ignoramus; and fundamentalists are people who put their brains in the closet and so on.
This comes all the time, and of course, when I’m around people that I know think this way I deliberately call myself a fundamentalist just to see what happens. But this is interesting, this statement, “but only after fiery fundamentalists had their say,” and it once again shows you the tendency of our time. This is just a brief excursive on a contemporary expression of this Bible-science controversy and I think very interesting.
Now we return to the curse. We go to Genesis 3:14-19. This is the first passage dealing with the curse and the effects of the curse; we’ll be dealing with several more but here’s the origin of the curse upon the earth by God. In Genesis 3:14, “And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shall thou eat all the days of thy life.” “…upon thy belly,” this phrase in verse 14 connotes a definite physical change in the animal’s structure, and thus we have that in Genesis 3:14 as part of the curse a definite physiological effect at least on one animal.
Genesis 3:15, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” And of course here we have the protevangelium or the first promise of the gospel, the first announcement of God’s promise in Jesus Christ. In Genesis 3:16, “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and they desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Now one has to be careful with the word “multiply” because it sounds as thou she was already in sorrow and that she had already conceived and God was merely multiplying that. But that’s not the best translation; the best translation would be “I will increase and make much of thy sorrow and thy conception,” it doesn’t mean it was there before but that she would have great sorrow from now on. Conception, again notice an area of definite physiological change, that there was something in the birth processes of the woman from now on that would be sorrowful. “…and he shall rule over thee,” I this is rather ironic because this means that a woman from now on in history must be submissive to a man that has been corrupted by her action. This is rather ironic but the point is that the woman, from now on must be put under a man; a man however, who has a sin nature which came because he was deceived by the woman.
Genesis 3:17, “And unto Adam He said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and has eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. [18] Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field.” Now here the cursing on the ground again is a physical change wrought as a result of the curse.
Genesis 3:19, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it was thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Again here is physical death, imposition of the sentence of Genesis 2:17. The important point to notice, however, about all of these verses in Genesis 3 concerning the curse is that they all hint, very, very strongly at sharp physical and physiological changes in man’s environment and in man himself. And this is important because one has tended to bypass the importance of this curse simply because of its language, it seems rather trivial, it seems because it is not gone into in detail that the results of it are not extensive as one might first think.
But you must remember a rule for interpreting the early chapters of Genesis. The early chapters of Genesis are very synoptic, they are very much of a summary and you can’t err by taking them too seriously. In other words, if there’s an event that’s very important it’ll be mentioned, but only briefly, in the early chapters of Genesis because there’s so much material covered in these first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis that each important event can only be discussed very briefly. But don’t be deceived by the brevity of treatment. If you go by the brevity of treatment you would tend to not have a very high estimate of the importance of the curse or anything else back here in these early chapters. But you must remember that a lot went on here that was not put in this holy text. For example, the fall of Satan, treated extensively in Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28, Revelation and so on, and yet back here in Genesis it isn’t even mentioned. We have the preaching of Enoch, for example, before the flood, it isn’t even mentioned back here in Genesis and yet in the book of Jude in the New Testament we have an extensive report of the man’s ministry. We have other details back here in Genesis. So now I want to take you to some passages in the New Testament which will show you that this curse is not just some trivial little thing but it’s very important. I’ll take you to four passages in the New Testament.
The first of these is Romans 5:12; in Romans 5:12-14 we have a tremendous theological deduction based upon the imposition of the curse of Genesis 2:17. We read, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned.” And the death mentioned here is physical death, as can be seen by verses 13-14. So the point that’s being made is that physical death entered into the world, entered into the world of men, entered into the world of creation, by one man…by one man and that man was Adam. And verse 14 substantiates this: “Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression,” so in Romans 5:12-14 we have added information concerning the results of the curse of Genesis, that death and sorrow and suffering are the results of this curse.
Now if you’ll turn to Romans 8:18 and here we have another New Testament expansion of the curse of Genesis 3. “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. [19] For the earnest expectation of the creation waits for the manifestation of the sons of God. [20] For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly but by reason of him who has subjected the same in hope. [21] Because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. [22] For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now. [23] And not only they, but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within our selves, waiting for the adoption, that is, the redemption of our body.” The important thing to notice in verse 20 is that the entire “creation was made subject to vanity” or emptiness, “not willingly” but due to the plan of God. Man was put as the lord of creation and when the Lord of creation fell, creation fell with him.
Romans 8:22, “we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain,” and so this is obviously a reference to the curse. One would have a very difficult time, if this doesn’t refer to the curse, of trying to harmonize verse 22 with Genesis 1:31, that all things were good. And yet in verse 22 is says “the whole creation groans and travails in pain.” Now that’s the only alternative; if Romans 8 does not refer to the curse of Genesis 3, then Romans 8 must depict the normal state of creation which cannot be harmonized with the summary statement in Genesis 1:31, when God saw all that He had made and that is was very good.
In Romans 8:23 we have another hint that it is the curse, for here the Spirit, through the Spirit’s urging, “we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, that is, the redemption of our body.” And the “redemption of our body” is the replacement of our present physical body with a resurrection body, again a physical body but a physical body without suffering. So here again we have the tremendous statement that pain, suffering and sorrow entered into physical creation because of our sin, because of the sin in Adam.
Now a third New Testament reference would be 1 Corinthians 15:42; in 1 Corinthians 15:42-50 we have the following passage. “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption.” Now what does corruption mean here? Corruption means that the physical body was liable to corruption, in other words, Adam’s body could be corrupted. In other discussions I have shown the reason for this is due to the fact that our present flesh body is one that is dependent upon the physical environment, and this is why it says, for example, in this passage in verse 50, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” blood is the transmission line of nutrition from the lungs to the cells and oxygen, and also removes wastes from the cells and CO2 from the cells to the lungs, and all of this says in effect that the entire cellular system of the human body is utterly dependent upon a physical environment. Now this is not true of the resurrection body. In the resurrection body we have flesh and bones, Jesus says in Luke 24, but not flesh and blood. There is no blood in the resurrection body. Blood is one of the features of a body that is dependent upon a physical environment. And so this is what it means in verse 42 when it says “it is sown in corruption.” In Adam, of course, it was not sown in corruption, in was sown in corruptibility; in other words, Adam’s body could be corrupted, “but it is raised in incorruption,” that means the human body is not subject to corruption once it is resurrected.
1 Corinthians 15:43, “...It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power, [44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body,” and of course in verse 44 “natural is soulish and spiritual is spiritual and this has reference to things that we have developed under the doctrine of anthropology. Verse 45, “And so it is written, the first man, Adam, was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a life-giving spirit.” And the first Adam was dominated, the human spirit was put into a human body subject to that human body and the test of obedience was given to Adam and if Adam responded to the test of obedience positively then his human spirit would attain dominance over the body, and this only happened, of course, actually in Jesus Christ, and this is why the last half, “the last Adam,” Jesus Christ “was made a life-giving spirit.”
1 Corinthians 43:46, “However, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is soulish [natural]; and afterward that which is spiritual.” And it says [47] “The first man is of the earth,” etc. etc. and then move down to verse 50, “Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither does corruption inherit incorruption.” We have here again a discussion of the physical death that was imposed upon Adam’s body as a result of the curse, once again showing us the definite physical and physiological impact of the curse.
Now for our final New Testament commentary on the curse, turn to Revelation
22:3. In this passage describing the
new creation the Apostle John writes, “And there shall be no more curse, but
the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve
Him.” This tells us that the effects of
the curse of Genesis 2 and 3 is not removed, they are not removed until the new
creation of Revelation 21 and 22.
Now putting all this information together in a picture or a chart can be done in the following way. Suppose we have a piece of paper and we divide our paper into four periods. In other words, if we draw a horizontal line across the paper we mark out four equal line segments, and the first segment extends from the Garden of Eden to the flood. The second segment extends from the flood to the Second Advent of Christ and the beginning of the millennial kingdom. The third section begins from the Second return of Christ through the one thousand years, the millennial kingdom, to the eternal state. And the fourth segment extends from the end of the millennial kingdom, the Great White Throne judgment, on through to eternity. So here are four periods of time.
At Eden, there is where we have the imposition of the curse. And so from the Garden of Eden to the flood we have a luxurious earth; men live an average of 930 years, tremendous vegetation apparently, watering of the earth accomplished by subterranean wells and springs, not by rain, and during this first period of time the earth is watered in a very peculiar fashion, and you have great natural luxury. Nevertheless you have death occurring throughout this first period, but it is ameliorated somewhat by the luxuriant grown in physical creation. Now from the flood until the Second Advent of Christ, the era in which we live, there is no such luxuriant growth. From the flood to the Second Advent of Christ we have the human lifespan decrease radically, to 70 years instead of 930. And so men die off very rapidly, we live in an impoverished environment which is becoming obviously more impoverished with time, and then the third period of time, the thousand years of the millennial kingdom, we have a restoration to pre-flood conditions. Here the world is revamped; death is not eliminated during the millennial kingdom.
This is one reason why the premillenarians, that is a person who believes that Jesus Christ comes before the millennium, insists that the millennial kingdom is not identical to the eternal state; the millennial kingdom is distinguishable from the eternal state because in the millennial kingdom death has not yet been removed and you have many things that aren’t removed, sin natures and so on, although Satan is, sin natures are not nor is death. Now in the millennial kingdom, the one thousand years, you have however, the removal of Satan and since you have his removal you have a restoration of many wonderful conditions, somewhat analogous to the pre-flood era. And then in the eternal state we have finally the removal of the curse and the entire creation is regenerated and the new heavens and the new earth predominate.
Now in summary, as we have gone through the curse we want to make the following conclusions to this discussion. And that simply is that the curse, this little (apparently at first glance) trivial passage in Genesis 3 has tremendous implications because what this does is knock out the prevailing assumption or axiom of unbelief that sin, death and sorrow are inherent features of reality, that God, when He created creation, created it with sorrow. All of nature is dominated by the blood tooth and claw, and of course, if this really is true, then as we pointed out several times so far, this axiom of unbelief that sin, death, sorrow and suffering are inherent features of reality, if this is really true, then what it leads one to say is what Archibald MacLeish said in his play, J. B., that if God is good He can’t be God and if He is God He can’t be good. And it leads also to the total despair, total pessimism because there’s no release from it. And if I believed this way I would be a drug addict; I would think that the drug response would be a very normal straightforward response of this axiom, namely that if you can’t escape it because it’s embedded in our very being, then why not just turn off the mind, why not take mind-bending drugs and forget the whole story.
So I would say that the drug response of our modern day could be very well a logical deduction, a logical reaction to the idea that sin, sorrow, death and suffering are inherent features of reality, when in fact if one believes the Scriptures and seriously considers the curse of Genesis, one is faced immediately with the fact that as you look around you, and you see babies born deformed, you see idiots born, you see horrible tragedies occur, you see decay and sorrow within the animal kingdom as well as the human kingdom; you see all of these things in physical corruption, you are reminded not of the work of your Creator, you are reminded of your own work for it is our work as men that has resulted in this terrible, horrible mess in which we find ourselves. And our thoughts, if we are to think biblically after the thoughts of God, when we see these things around us, the deformed babies, the horrible sufferings that we see, the suffering of the innocent, the tragedies of war, when we see all of these things, including physical suffering, genetic mutation, we are to say to ourselves, if we are to be truly Biblical, my God what have we done…what have we done? We have fallen in Adam. God did not intend nor design creation this way; the fact that creation is this way now is because we have fallen; man, the kingdom lord of creation has fallen from his high status and has doomed his domain to suffering and sorrow forever.