|
“Now it came to pass on the next day that Moses went into the tabernacle of witness, and behold the rod of Aaron, of the house of Levi had sprouted and put forth buds, had produced blossoms and yielded ripe almonds” (Num. 17:8).
When people make statements, "Science confirms the earth was not created in six days!" they are themselves speaking unscientifically. Science cannot confirm that which is beyond its realm. Supernatural events found in the Bible are themselves above the scope of science, not only because they are not observable and repeatable, but also be cause they are "supernatural" or above and beyond nature. Science is therefore unable to prove or disprove creation, the parting of the Red Sea, the virgin birth, the resurrection from the dead, etc.
We ask, “Exactly how long was this day in Numbers 17?” Some may respond, “Long enough for buds, blossoms and ripe almonds to be produced.” How long would this take? People could create all kinds of speculative approaches for this passage as they do others. Some may charge Moses for fraud like they do Jesus’ death in the New Testament by claiming that He really wasn’t dead as the Scriptures say but merely “asleep” (Jn. 19:33). After all, they contend, “It is not what the scripture says that is important, but what it means.” (Nevertheless, how can any meaning be conveyed apart from what is said?)
Others may suggest a conspiracy theory saying,
“Perhaps Moses stole Aaron’s rod and replaced it with one which had fruit,” like some alleged regarding Jesus’ body (Matt. 28:11-15). Still alternatively, others may say, “Aaron’s rod was really not a ‘rod’ but a ‘tree’ which Moses planted in the tabernacle and during the ‘course of time’ it sprouted and produced ripe almonds.”
Some have spilt a great amount of ink on such mindless speculation regarding creation.
“The Days of Genesis” written by Shane Scott is a case in point, “The days of Genesis 1 may be interpreted literally, but that is not the best biblical interpretation. . . .The length of time God chose to create the world is immaterial, since He is eternal. As Moses wrote in Psalm 90:4, ‘For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by’ ” (Sentry Magazine; Vol. 21, NO 1).
What will happen if we reason similarly with Aaron's rod, or other Bible miracles that defy long ages? Why not say,
“Whatever interpretation you take, just know that the ‘day’ in Numbers 17:8 CANNOT BE LITERAL, because that is not the best biblical interpretation. When Moses said ‘next day,’ he more than likely was using ‘next’ to refer to the next order or epoch of time. Besides, the length of time God chose to create almonds on this rod is immaterial since He is eternal. As Moses wrote in Psalm 90:4, ‘For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by’ ”?
We may even anticipate some arguments and seek to submit nonsensical and ridiculous refutations, while dressing them up in the attire of intelligence and understanding. Some of the objections that Brother Scott anticipated in the “The Days of Genesis” were:
Shall we submit a similar kind of reasoning to Aaron’s Rod as brother Scott does toward the creation? Shall we say that the budding of Aaron’s rod must not be understood literally, because the book of Numbers uses “day” in a plurality of ways? Does the fact that it is used as an entire period of time (Num. 3:1, KJV), a 24-hour day (Num 1:1; 9:3), in reference to what has happened at night (Num. 3:13; cf. Ex. 11:4); or the daytime as opposed to the nighttime (Num. 9:15, 16) mean that it cannot be literal in Numbers 17:8? We think not! Such reasoning does not dismiss the fact that Aaron’s rod produced fruit in one day any more than it does of God creating the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in one week (Gen. 1:1ff; Ex. 20:8-11)?
One could reason as Brother Scott did of the days of Genesis One and say,
“The longer God takes to make a dead rod produce fruit the more problems there are with evolution, seeing that the rod did not evolve into another life form. Vast amounts of time show no transitional life forms!”
Such reasoning seeks to separate itself from the General Theory of Evolution, but its consistency is in question. Why do those who reject evolution subscribe to uniformitarianism when both are twins of infidelity, both support and rely on each other and both stem and grow from unproven assumptions! If one can accept uniformitarianism, what keeps such a one from endorsing evolution? It should be evident as to how interrelated these two concepts are.
Evolution has been defined by Sir Julian Huxley,
“Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and increasingly high level of organization in its products” (emp. mine, “Evolution and Genetics,” What is Science, 1995, p. 278).
G. A. Kerkut, wrote,
“. . .there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’. . .” (emp. mine, The Implications of Evolution, 1960, p. 157).
Webster defines uniformitarianism as,
“the doctrine that all geologic changes may be explained by existing physical and chemical processes, as erosion, deposition, volcanic action, etc., that have operated in essentially the same way throughout geologic time” (emp. mine, Webster’s New World Dictionary).
So we agree with Carl Sagan who wrote, “The secrets of evolution are death and time. . .” (Cosmos, 1980, p. 30). Evolution is about radical change of organic material that has happened gradually over long periods. On the other hand, uniformitarianism is about radical change of inorganic material over long periods. Evolution and uniformitarianism correspond to each other as a tight fit hand and glove relationship. Day-Agers want to reject the hand but retain the glove!
It is important to note that imaginative assumptive speculation gave birth to both of these doctrines, and such continues to coddle them even today. Among other things, evolution assumes that spontaneous generation has actually occurred. This is where something non-living gave rise to something living. It assumes that this occurred only once. It also imagines vertebrates coming from invertebrates, birds and mammals from reptiles, reptiles from amphibians, and amphibians from fish. The school of evolution sustains, believes, and teaches this without any proof. Spontaneous generation has never been observed; it has never been repeated and stands opposed to the Law of Biogenesis (life comes from life). Furthermore, of the millions of fossils unearthed and exhibited before the public, why is there no evidence of transitional life forms? Likewise, uniformitarianism assumes that existing processes may explain all geologic changes and that all things have operated at a constant uniform rate throughout time. To prove these assumptions scientifically, one would have had to observe all changes of all time. In essence, one would have to be God Himself, to prove such a position, yet, this position leaves God and any miraculous intervention out of the picture (e.g., Noah’s Flood).
Aaron's Rod
(3 Stages Simultaneous)
|
Unlike the weak, inventive, and naturalistic approaches above, we see that God clearly performed a miracle before His people with Aaron’s rod. To deny such is to deny the very word of God. We are saddened when anyone rejects the written word of God, but we raise an eyebrow of suspicion and shock when some “Bible professors” deny its power. There were twelve rods placed in the tabernacle of meeting and only one blossomed and produced fruit—the rod of Aaron (Num. 17:1-8). A miracle goes beyond natural explanation. If it were purely a natural phenomenon, then why did the other eleven rods not bud? Aaron’s “budding rod” is more than a budding rod, but is also a blossoming and a fruit-bearing rod. God simultaneously combines three stages of plant reproduction in this dead wood! As if that is not enough, He makes it bud, blossom, and produce ripe fruit while not being planted nor being exposed to sunlight (Num. 17:4). Furthermore, He did it in one day! (Note that God had previously made the earth produce grass, herbs, and fruit trees on day three of creation, while the sun was not made until day four. See Genesis 1:9-19.) He could have done it in one second if He so chose. That does not deny it being instantaneous, however. Considering the natural process of fruit bearing, these “ripe almonds” were most certainly instantaneous. Is it not instantaneous to have a barren rod one day and “ripe” almonds the next? One may say, “I came over instantly after I considered your need.” He may have arrived within the hour or within the day depending on distance. In such language, we mean quickly. God’s miracles are unnaturally quick. Whatever terms we use, we should all agree that Aaron’s rod did not bud, blossom, and produce fruit by slow uniformitarian and organic processes if we believe what the word of God says. Yet if we believe this, why not believe in a literal creation week of consecutive days?
Those who have no faith in the inspiration of the Scriptures are content with such butchering and twisting of its statements. However, those of us who believe that the Holy Scriptures are the inerrant word of God cannot tolerate such perverted and imaginary theories. Those of us who readily accept the Genesis foundation of creation have no problem accepting the other miracles in the Bible either. If God can create a world of life in a very short amount of time, if He can take that which was lifeless and void and make if full and living, then He can take Aaron’s dead rod and make it radiate with life. He can take a barren womb and make it bring forth children; He can take a dead corpse and make it breathe and walk again too! It is likewise true, that if God can take Aaron’s dead and lifeless rod and produce living fruit in one day, then why can He not create heaven, earth, and all that is in them in six days as taught in Genesis? The eye of faith can easily see and accept these things, when it correctly sees that our God is big and that nothing “is too hard for the Lord” (Gen. 18:14). Indeed, God is big enough to take our bodies, even if they be made still in death, buried in land or lost at sea, and revive them again as He did our Lord’s (Acts 1:3; 24:15; Rom. 1:4; 1 Cor. 15:35ff; Rev. 20:11-15; Jn. 6:40). Yet, if God is powerful enough to do that, is He not powerful enough to convey to us His word in an understandable way (Eph. 3:1-5)?
One final observation is in order. The controversy over the days of Genesis is not being debated because God’s word is ambiguous; if it were ambiguous, there would be no need for debate. The controversy remains because God’s word is clear! Yeah we say it is too clear and stands in direct contradiction to what some have misunderstood as “science.” It is precisely things like this that separate the goats from the sheep and true believers from infidels. Do you believe that which was written, dear friend? “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me. . .But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words” (Jn. 5:46, 47). “. . .The weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor. 15:25). “Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” (2 Pet. 3:3, 4).
|
