The Great Debate on Science and the Bible – Program 4

By: Dr. John Ankerberg, Ken Ham, Dr. Jason Lisle, Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. Walter Kaiser, Jr.; ©2005

Does Animal and Plant Death Before the Fall Undermine the Doctrine of Atonement?

Program 4: The Great Debate on Science and the Bible – Does Animal and Plant Death Before the Fall Undermine the Doctrine of Atonement?

Introduction

Today on The John Ankerberg Show, the Great Debate on Science and the Bible. My guests are Ken Ham and astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle of Answers in Genesis, debating astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, and Dr. Walter Kaiser, distinguished professor of Old Testament and President of Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary.

Today, has science proven through astronomy, modern physics, and geology, that the universe and the earth are billions of years old? If this is true, are Christians who teach that the universe is only 6,000 years old erecting a hindrance to those looking for a factual Christian faith? Or is the opposite true, that Christians who teach the days of Genesis are six long periods of time are really the one’s not interpreting the Bible literally?

These four men model how Christians who strongly disagree can discuss their different views with love and respect.

Join us for this important debate and hear both sides present their case.

---

Ankerberg: This week we have a very important topic that follows up on what we were talking about last week: What kind of world did God create? Did plants and animals die before Adam and Eve were created? And the answers that you give have a lot to do with whether you hold that the universe is 6,000 years old or billions of years old. And where we want to come to this week is that, as a result of Adam’s sin, certain things happened to the creation. The Bible talks about the curse. Romans 8:20 has some commentary on that. But one of the things that comes up in this whole topic is, does the bloodshed of animals before Adam sinned alter the doctrine of atonement? And, Ken, in your writings you say that it does have an affect. And tell us about that.

Ham: Well, let me just say, to start with, by implication, I believe having animal death before sin, because I believe it undermines the authority of Scripture, by implication it undermines the doctrine of the atonement. Now, let me also qualify that by saying there are people who believe in millions of years and billions of years, believe in death before sin, who believe the gospel, who are saved, and I would say, hold to an understanding of the atonement, I would say, inconsistently. So I’m not saying that therefore they’re not Christians, or whatever….

Ankerberg: I appreciate both those qualifications, but then, Dr. Kaiser, are you undermining the gospel, and are you inconsistent in your interpretation of Scripture?

Kaiser: John, now, I hope that you don’t accuse me of that. I was being a good boy. No, I really don’t see it. The verse in Genesis 3:21 about God preparing clothing has not one ounce to do with blood or of the whole sacrificial system that we see in Leviticus. Leviticus and, well, from Exodus on, especially with the Tabernacle instructions, we are given a clear statement that to atone means to ransom by a substitute. And the life of the flesh is in the blood, and therefore, there must be a substitute. But the thing that always was difficult is, how could an animal be a substitute for a human being? They did it and they had to do it over and over again. So what we needed was a perfect man, a God-man, who would be a substitute. So Leviticus is so clear on that. And that’s what it really wants to get about. But to put it back and to say, “Well, God had to kill the animals in order to get clothing.” But look, again, hang with the text. The text says, God was interested in clothing them. They were naked. There was nakedness that was the problem. It wasn’t blood, nor was it sacrifice at that point. At least that’s my understanding of it.

Ham: What I’m saying is there’s connection all the way through here.

Ankerberg: What’s the connection, though?

Ham: The connection is that the death of animals and the sacrifice are related to Christ’s sacrifice. So what I’m saying is this, if you’re going to believe there was death and bloodshed for millions of years before Adam sinned, then you know, “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin,” [Heb. 9:22] “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” [Lev. 17:11] and so on, it takes away from an understanding that death was a penalty for sin. In fact, when the Israelites had their sacrifice, they were told, “You shall kill.” What a dramatic thing; because death is a terrible thing. And so, “You shall kill.”

Ankerberg: Yes, but here’s the thing that I think that people in our audience are having a problem with is the fact that you’re saying that animals couldn’t have died before Adam and Eve were created, because somehow this is attached and it would effect the doctrine of the blood atonement. Which the verse you just cited in Hebrews said, “the blood of bulls and goats…” it couldn’t take away the sins. [Heb. 10:4] It’s because of Christ, not because of the animals. So again…

Ham: Right, but that’s a reference to the Levitical system. But, you know, the point is, if there was death and bloodshed before sin, death is not the penalty for sin. Then why would the death of an animal….

Ankerberg: But the question is, is it death to human beings, or did Adam’s sin… I mean, Paul seems to clarify it, that Adam sinned and it brought death to humanity. [Rom. 5:12] It doesn’t say anything about the animals there.

Ham: That’s true, but again we go back to Genesis. We know they’re vegetarian, and so on. But the sacrificial system is a picture; it’s a picture of what was to come in Christ.

Ankerberg: Okay. But Dr. Kaiser, if it’s a picture, I mean, how do… What else can you say that…

Kaiser: John, I can explain this. I really do. Here, finally my education pays off. Yom Kippur. The word kippur is the noun form, “day of atonement.” The KPR root there is a very important one. There are four uses of that, and the theologians of a former day, before we had Akkadian background, which is a sister language to Hebrew, they took it to mean “to cover”. Why? They went to the Genesis ark story, Genesis 6, 7 and 8, where they took the pitch and caulked the boat. And they actually cemented it closed. And they covered it, at least the seams there. So they said that’s the word picture for salvation. But no, kippur means “a village.” Capernaum in Greek comes over as a seed: “village of Neum,” Capernaum. It means a lion, animal. It means to caulk. But then, it is distinctly used not to cover their sins.

So when God killed the animal and covered the individuals, that was not a picture of redemption or of atonement. It was a picture of getting them out of nakedness. Rather, what the KPR root, the fourth meaning, not a village, not a lion, not to caulk or to smear or to cover, but rather it means to ransom or to deliver by a substitute. And that’s what you have in the sacrificial system. Which, Ken is right; Hebrews 10 says the blood of bulls and goats couldn’t take away sin. Neither did the law ever say that it did! And that’s the point that needs to be yelled to our Protestant, evangelical audience, too. So it doesn’t mean to cover. So we’ve lost our cover for translating that into the atonement, because it doesn’t hint at our salvation. It’s only talking about people need clothes.

Ham: I think maybe, you know, maybe I haven’t explained it enough here. And that is, regardless of what we say about Genesis 3, talking about the Levitical system there, you know, it’s a picture of understanding, hey, because of sin, now there’s death. There’s the death of an animal. There has to be the shedding of blood. And, of course, it’s pointing out that animals can’t take away our sins, so it’s pointing to Christ. But if death has always been here of animals, bloodshed has always been here, then the picture of death being the penalty for sin, I say, it takes away from that. I say it undermines that.

Ankerberg: Does it take away, Dr. Kaiser?

Kaiser: No, Ken, it reverses the picture. Now I’ve got God involved in death. What did He kill those animals for?

Ham: What do you mean there?

Kaiser: Now I’ve got God involved in death. He killed the animals. And it doesn’t fit your….

Ham: Which animals are you talking about?

Kaiser: I think if He has the right to do it, you do too. But on your view, it seems to me, that it’s kind of hard….

Ham: He killed the animals, what do you mean?

Kaiser: To make the skins for the…. I take it you don’t just get the skins off and let the animals live.

Ham: Yes, well, actually if you think about it, He’s the one that provided the sacrifice in Christ. It’s a picture of the fact that He was going to provide…

Kaiser: Yes, now don’t run away from me. Come on back to Genesis 3:21.

Ham: But that’s the whole point. And the point is that…

Kaiser: And you and I agree on that.

Ham: …that God provided the covering there in the Garden, He’s going to provide the covering though Christ which totally takes away our sins. But man, on his own, can’t do it, because man is a sinful creature; and animals can’t do it. It has to be Christ. But…

Kaiser: That’s so true, when it’s in Leviticus.

Ham: Yes, but my point is that, if the death of an animal has always been there before sin, and so on, and bloodshed, then I’m saying that really it’s not a picture then of death as a penalty for sin. It has to be the shedding of blood, which represents life. I’m saying it undermines the authority of Scripture by putting death of animals and disease and suffering before sin. And it undermines, by implication, it undermines the doctrine.

Ross: Can I ask you a question, Ken, because I’m still not clear where you stand on this. If someone were to believe that animal death took place before Adam sinned, does that mean that that person is destroying the foundation of the gospel, or not? I mean, where do you stand?

Ham: By implication, they are certainly undermining the foundation of the gospel.

Ross: So you would claim that we are denying the doctrine of the atonement?

Ham: No, I didn’t say that. You’re not denying the doctrine of the atonement. We can hold… Everyone holds to things inconsistently. If you have death and bloodshed before Adam sinned,… I mean, B. B. Warfield believed in evolution even up to human evolution. And Hodge believed in millions of years. And I believe those guys were great Christian scholars. I just believe they were wrong on those issues.

Ankerberg: But the question is, are they denying the atonement? Are they denying the gospel?

Ham: No. You yourselves, obviously, are not. Of course you’re not. But I’m going to say you’re inconsistent in allowing death and bloodshed millions of years before sin.

Ross: Well, would you agree we’re only being inconsistent if we conflate human death with animal death?

Ham: If you… sorry, I missed that word.

Ross: In other words, the penalty for sin is human death, not animal death. So if animals die, it’s got nothing to do with the atonement.

Ham: Well, I…. We’re getting back to the same arguments again. We’re just going to go around in circles here.

Ross: Right.

Ankerberg: Well, let’s go around that circle. I mean, finish it up. I mean, again, the connection is to man’s sin, and God taking care of man’s problem. And aren’t you reading into the text this thing about animals?

Ham: You know, what I would say is that Dr. Ross is reading into the text. Because he’s got millions of years, he has to have… because you believe in millions of years, you have to have death before sin, correct? You have to.

Ross: Yes.

Ham: Death of animals. You have to.

Ross: Death of animals.

Ham: Yes. Death of animals before sin, and death of beings that you call soulless beings that look like humans, which we would say…

Ross: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I have never said that. When I claim that there are bipedal primates, I am not, in any way, saying they are human.

Ham: Well, you said that they…

Ross: No.

Ham: … we agree they bury their dead….

Ross: I’m not even saying that.

Ham: Ah…

Ross: All we have is evidence.

Ham: Well, that’s what I read in your books. You said that they bury…. You even…

Ross: Have you read Who is Adam?

Ham: … you even used the examples of some animals bury their dead to try to justify that.

Ross: That’s something I wrote 15 years ago. Who is Adam? was brought out just a few months ago. It’s our latest book on human origins. And now, you see, more has been discovered in human origins in the last five years than in the previous 5,000. And so these ancient claims that Neanderthals, for example, buried their dead, are now at the point where they’re saying all we have is evidence that they are in the same sedimentary deposits.

Ham: Well, Neanderthals also made musical instruments. That’s pretty well accepted.

Ross: No. That’s been refuted, too.

Ham: Well, … this is getting to another….

Ankerberg: Hugh, you had a comment. You think this is one of the most serious issues that divides us. Tell us why.

Ross: I think this is really good, John, that we’re talking about this, because everything else that we’re divided over is not a gospel issue. This is a gospel issue. So the fact that we’re spending time on this I think is really critical.

Ankerberg: Why is this a gospel issue? Explain that to the people.

Ross: Well, the doctrine of the atonement is one of the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith. If you mess up the doctrine of the atonement, then you mess up the basis for our salvation from our sins and entering into a right relationship with God. What exactly did Christ atone for on the cross? Did He atone for human beings? Or did He atone for more than human beings? This is very important.

Ankerberg: Okay. Explain where you are at in terms of this conversation, and what are the two views here?

Ross: Well, my position is that when Christ died on the cross, He was atoning for humanity. He was atoning for all the sins that every human being had ever committed. And on that basis we can come to God and say, “I’m willing to trade my imperfection for the perfection of Christ, because of what He has done on the cross.” And so my position would be what happened with the animals is completely immaterial, and had nothing to do with the atonement.

Ankerberg: And what do you hear them saying?

Ross: Well, what I hear them saying is that animal death is somehow linked into blood atonement. And if it’s linked into blood atonement, then any belief in a doctrine that would require animal death before Adam’s sinned – and incidentally, I think you get it with the young-earth position as well as the old-earth position – now you’ve got a problem with the doctrine of the atonement. And this is what leads to the charge that this is destroying the gospel.

Ankerberg: Does that make sense, or is that true, what we’re saying here?

Ham: Um, I believe Dr. Ross is misunderstanding some of what we’re saying, maybe a lot of what we’re saying here. Actually, John, and Dr. Ross and Dr. Kaiser, what I really want to get across is this. What we’re ultimately saying is this, the real issue, I mean the message of the gospel, absolutely, I mean, that’s what the Scripture is all about. But that’s what the Scripture is all about. And the thing that we’re all about as a ministry, and Jason and myself, is standing upon the authority of the Word. And what I would say to you is that I know you believe in millions of years, and we’ll talk about the issues of science in another program. You have to have death of animals and disease and suffering and that sort of thing before sin. I understand that from your position. What we’re saying is that is undermining the authority of the Word. When you look at our culture today, people no longer believe the credibility of the Word as they used to, and I believe the reason is that when you…

Ross: How does it undermine…

Ham: Well, when you go back to the 1800s, …

Ankerberg: No, no, Ken, the claim is that they are undermining the gospel. That’s the claim. Now we need evidence to back up the claim.

Ham: Well, John, I think you’re missing our point.

Ankerberg: No, I think I’m right on the point, and that is, the fact is that, I understand what the claim is, but we’re asking for documentation as to how do you tie animal death before Adam and Eve were even created, to the doctrine of blood atonement?

Ham: If you’re going to believe in millions of years, you’re not going to accept our point anyway. And what we’re saying is, believing in millions of years and reinterpreting Scripture undermines the authority of Scripture and therefore, it undermines all of Scripture. And…

Ross: But how?

Ham: Because you’re using man’s ideas to reinterpret the Word. And what we’re saying in regard to the specific example about animal death,… and you are using man’s fallible ideas outside the Bible to reinterpret the Word of God. You’re importing things into Scripture that aren’t there, such as millions of years.

Ankerberg: Alright, hold on right there. Kaiser, is that what you’re doing?

Kaiser: No. You can’t have any old animal. It must be a very special animal, of a very special type, of a very special quality, at a very special place, under very special circumstances. To import all animal death and equate that with the sacrificial system of the Bible is, I think, a major mistake. I don’t see that those two really come anywhere close to each other. I don’t have an idea how to do that, unless there’s some verses I’m missing. Maybe there’s a part of the gospel that I didn’t see. But I don’t get it.

Ankerberg: And doesn’t… I mean, when we go back to the verse, Romans 5:12, isn’t Paul very explicit about Adam’s death causing problems to humanity? It doesn’t say anything about animals.

Kaiser: We agreed on that. We agreed on that.

Ham: But Romans 8:19-23 also talks about the fact that the creation is looking forward to redemption. Because the first part of that talks about that, then the second part talks about we are looking forward to redemption.

Ross: And it talks about the sons of God being redeemed. It doesn’t say the creation is going to be redeemed.

Ham: Yes it does!

Ross: I’ve got it right here.

Ham: It’s talking about creation looking forward to the redemption there in…

Ankerberg: But are you saying…

Ham: … in Romans 8.

Ankerberg: Are you saying then…

Ross: Yes, but read the next verse.

Ankerberg: Are you saying then that, say, rocks, and trees, and dirt, and things like that need to be redeemed?

Ham: Dirt is cursed. In the new heavens and…

Ankerberg: But I’m saying do they need to be redeemed?

Ham: … new earth there’s going to be no more curse; there’s going to be a restoration. There’s going to be a redemption, in that sense, for the creation.

Ankerberg: Alright, Dr. Kaiser, is that how you see the redemption being applied to the dirt, rocks?

Kaiser: That part’s not too bad. It seems to me that, yes, it is the whole created order, the whole thing is out of whack. But the question is assigning the cause. Since we know one cause, are we saying that covers all of the causes here? Especially since when we were in Romans 5, we said that was only a human cause. Now we’re in Romans 8 and we’re saying, “No, no, that human cause now,” now we’re jumping logic, and we’re saying that is over here. Now, I brought up Satan, I had to get him somewhere, and he doesn’t sound like a good character. He sounds like evil personified. The devil himself. And he’s in the Garden. And he is there before the Fall. So I’ve got to say there that death on the cross by Christ is taking care of the whole kit and caboodle. But the question is, what were the causes for it? Were there several causes?

Ham: Are you linking Romans 8 to the Fall, or not, there?

Kaiser: I just said that it is one of the causes. But I’m not saying I can prove from Romans 8 that it is the only cause.

Ankerberg: Alright, let’s go around the circle, and we’ll wrap it up, everybody. Jason, start us off. Give me a concluding comment on this.

Lisle: Okay, well, again, it’s the same problem. It’s importing things outside of the text into the text. I think if we let the text speak for itself it’s clear that human beings ruined the world, because we, in Adam, sinned. And you know, what kind of a God do we serve? It goes back to God’s nature, doesn’t it? Do we serve a God who is an ogre, who made animals to kill other animals, and then killed them off, and then made other animals and slaughtered them off, and made disease and suffering and called it all very good? Or do we serve a God who made a paradise for us to enjoy, and we ruined it by rebelling against Him? See, all these evils that we see in the world, they’re not God’s fault, they’re our fault.

Ankerberg: Okay. Hugh, comment?

Ross: Sure. We need to recognize there’s many purposes for God creating. He didn’t just create the universe to provide a place in which we can live. He created the universe to be observable. He created it to be a theater that would bring about an efficient conquest, through Christ’s work, of the problem of sin and evil. And we recognize the eight different purposes we see recorded in Scripture for God creating, teaching the angels is another one, for example; preparing us to receive the new creation. On that basis, I would not look at the death of animals before the fall of Adam as being somehow impugning evil to God. I see this as part of God’s very good creation, because He has set up this creation, this universe, to be the place where the conquest of evil takes place. And then comes the new creation where evil will never exist again. And so we see in Romans 8 that God has subjected the entire creation from the beginning of time, beginning of cosmic time, to these laws of physics. Why? So that God can fulfill all of these purposes of His very good creation, to prepare us for the best creation that will follow.

Ankerberg: Alright, Dr. Kaiser.

Kaiser: Let me re-interact with Jason. Adam’s sin didn’t make the devil or the serpent. Adam’s sin didn’t, indeed, effect the angelic fall. They fell on their own. We know of at least two falls: the fall of Adam and Eve, and the fall of the angels. There are two, and they must be accounted for.

Ankerberg: Ken, last comment.

Ham: You know, when God described everything as very good, you can’t have millions of years of suffering and death and cancer with animals. And you know, when you look at the fact that when the Israelites killed an animal, it was a reminder that death was a result of sin. If there was death millions of years before sin, then that does undermine an understanding of what the gospel is all about. It doesn’t destroy it, or foundation, or whatever, but certainly, by implication, undermines it, because it undermines the authority of Scripture.

Ankerberg: I appreciate all of these comments.

Read Part 5