Did Jesus Contradict the Law of Biogenesis in John 12:24?

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Q:

Did Jesus contradict the Law of Biogenesis in John 12:24?

A:

In John 12:24, Jesus said concerning His approaching death, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain” (emp. added). The Law of Biogenesis says that in nature, life comes only from life of its own kind (Miller, 2012). Life cannot spontaneously generate or create itself. So, how could a grain which “dies,” subsequently produce living things? Does this phenomenon contradict the Law of Biogenesis? Did Jesus make a mistake? Was He ignorant of the scientific principle we call the Law of Biogenesis?

First, scientists understand today that a seed is typically not considered lifeless for some time, but rather, is dormant, and therefore, still able to produce life. Seeds are alive when they produce other life, in keeping with the Law of Biogenesis. Seeds can remain dormant for centuries and still produce life (cf. Quick, 1961, pp. 94-99). For instance, a seed from Masada in Israel that was radiocarbon-dated to the time of Christ was recently germinated and studied for over two years as it grew (Sallon, et al., 2008). A seed’s ability to produce life does not contradict the Law of Biogenesis. But does that mean that Jesus was wrong in saying that a grain “dies”?

The answer is seen in understanding that the words “life” and “death” can mean different things, depending on the context in which they are used. This is especially true in the Bible. “Death” in the Bible simply means a separation of some sort (Butt, 2006). Spiritual death occurs when we commit sin, which separates us from God (Isaiah 59:1-2; Romans 6:23). One’s faith is dead when it is not coupled with works of obedience (James 2:26). Physical death occurs when the spirit is separated from the physical body (James 2:26). Plants were not created in the image of God, like humans (Genesis 1:26), and were not endowed with a spirit, although sadly, many confused individuals in the world would likely disagree (cf. Miller, 2008). So, Jesus is not talking about death in the same way humans die.

But what “separation” has occurred in the case of the grain Jesus mentioned? The text helps to illuminate its own meaning. When a grain “falls to the ground,” it dies. Falls from where? Obviously, it falls from its stalk. So, when it falls, being separated from its stalk, it is no longer receiving nourishment from it, and has undergone a form of death. It is no longer growing and being nurtured by its stalk, but rather, begins to slowly decay. This is not in contradiction to the Law of Biogenesis, which indicates that life cannot come from lifeless matter in nature. A seed is typically not considered “lifeless” for centuries or longer. The renowned Greek lexicographers, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, help to illuminate the distinction between lifeless death and the death implied by mere separation, explaining that the meaning of apothnasko (i.e., the Greek word translated “dies” in John 12:24), when speaking of plants and animals, is not necessarily “death” as we typically use the word when referring to lifeless death. They note that in John 12:24, the word technically means “decay” (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:36), but contextually, is meant to imply the idea of “death” in Jesus’ illustration, which is why the translators used “died” (Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, 1979, p. 91).

Armed with this information, Jesus’ meaning in the passage is clear, and alleged error cannot be sustained against Jesus or the Bible. A grain of wheat must die, i.e., be separated from its stalk and nourishment and fall to the ground, decaying, in order to produce more wheat. Similarly, Jesus had to die, i.e., His soul had to be separate from His physical body in order to bear fruit in the form of disciples—followers washed in the blood that He shed for us. Rest assured, the Bible does not contradict the laws of science. After all, God, Himself, authored them (Job 38:33).

REFERENCES

Arndt, William, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition revised.

Butt, Kyle (2006), “Does Death Imply Annihilation?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1861.

Miller, Jeff (2008), “Off With Their Heads!” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2485.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.

Sallon, Sarah, Elaine Solowey, Yuval Cohen, Raia Korchinsky, Markus Egli, Ivan Woodhatch, Orit Simchoni, and Mordechai Kislev (2008), “Germination, Genetics, and Growth of an Ancient Date Seed,” Science, 320[5882]:1464.

Quick, Clarence R. (1961), “How Long Can a Seed Remain Alive?” Yearbook of Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: The United States Government Printing Office), The United States Department of Agriculture, http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/misc/yoa1961_quick001.pdf.

---

Copyright © 2012 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

When Did Terah Beget Abraham?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Unfortunately, in an attempt to defend the strict chronology of Bible genealogies, there are some who read them without taking into account that certain Hebrew phrases possess a wider connotation than what might be perceived in English. One of these phrases occurs several times in Genesis 11. In that chapter, we learn of various Messianic ancestors who lived to a certain age and begot sons. For example, verse 16 of the chapter reads: “Eber lived thirty-four years, and begot Peleg.” Later, we read where “Nahor lived 29 years, and begot Terah” (11:24). The sons listed in this chapter generally are thought to be the firstborn sons, yet the evidence shows that this was not always the case because there was not always a father-to-firstborn-son linkage.

Many have assumed that because Genesis 11:26 states, “Now Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran,” that Abram (also known as Abraham; cf. Genesis 17:5) was Terah’s firstborn, and that he was born when Terah was 70. The truth is, however, Abraham was not born for another 60 years. When Stephen was delivering his masterful sermon recorded in Acts 7, he stated that Abraham moved to the land of Palestine “after the death of his father [Terah—EL]” (7:4). Yet if Terah was 205 years old when he died (Genesis 11:32), and Abraham departed Haran when he was 75 (Genesis 12:4), then Terah was 130, not 70, when Abraham was born. In light of this information, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris have aided us in better understanding Genesis 11:26 by paraphrasing it as follows: “And Terah lived seventy years and begat the first of his three sons, the most important of whom (not because of age but because of the Messianic line) was Abram” (1961, p. 480, parenthetical item in orig.).

Lest you think this is an isolated incident (in which the son mentioned was not the firstborn son), consider another example. Genesis 5:32 states: “And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.” Like the situation with Terah begetting Abraham, Nahor, and Haran, here we read that at age 500, Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Was Shem the firstborn? Were the three sons of Noah triplets? Or was Shem mentioned first because of his Messianic connection? In all likelihood, the evidence seems to indicate that Shem was not the firstborn, but was born two years later. Consider the following passages:

“Noah was six hundred years old when the flood waters were on the earth” (Genesis 7:6).

“And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, that the waters were dried up from the earth and Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and indeed the surface of the ground was dry” (Genesis 8:13, emp. added).

“Shem was one hundred years old, and begot Arphaxad two years after the flood” (Genesis 11:10, emp. added).

These verses seem to suggest that Shem was born, not when Noah was 500, but rather when he was 502. A comparison of Genesis 11:10 with 10:22 may suggest that Shem’s son, Arphaxad, was not the firstborn son in his family. Likely, Shem, Arphaxad, and others are mentioned first for the same reason Abraham is—because they are Messianic ancestors, and not because they were the firstborn sons of their fathers. Interestingly, numerous other Messianic ancestors, such as Seth, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and Perez, were not firstborn sons. Was Moses being dishonest when he recorded these genealogies? Absolutely not. We must remember that

the year of begetting a first son, known in the Old Testament as “the beginning of strength,” was an important year in the life of the Israelite (Gen. 49:3; Deut. 21:17; Psa. 78:51; and Psa. 105:36). It is this year...and not the year of the birth of the Messianic link, that is given in each case in Genesis 11 (Whitcomb and Morris, p. 480).

Just as Genesis 5:32 does not teach that Noah was 500 when Shem was born, Genesis 11:26 does not teach that Abraham was born when Terah was 70. This verse basically means that Terah began having children at age 70, not that all three children were born at that age. According to other passages, Terah was 130 when Abraham was born. Those who allege these passages contradict Genesis 11:26 simply are misunderstanding the text by not taking into account that certain Hebrew phrases possess a wider connotation than what might be perceived in modern-day English.

REFERENCES

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris (1961), The Genesis Flood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

---

Copyright © 2002 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Man: From the Beginning

by Wayne Jackson

The name of the game is intimidation. It is a tragic but true fact that many views are propagated in today’s world simply on the basis of intimidation. The vocal majority frequently bullies the muted minority into an acceptation of their ideas.

And this is precisely what has happened in the case of many professed friends of the Bible.

Evolutionists, by means of “scientific” propaganda, have coerced some religionists into abandoning all confidence in the biblical view of man’s origin.

Others, not willing to forsake the totality of their faith, have sought an alliance between evolutionary and creationist concepts. It’s called “theistic evolution.”

Compromise Over the Age of the Earth

One area of such compromise has been in connection with the geological and anthropological theories of earth and human history.

Evolutionists contend that the earth is approximately 4.543 billion years old. This estimate is not based upon scientific fact, but upon preconceived assumptions grounded in the dire need for vast eras of time with which to accommodate the evolutionary scheme.

So, evolutionists fiercely argue for a very ancient earth.

How Long Has Man Been on the Earth?

But what of man? Where does he fit into evolutionary chronology?

Well, in the words of George Simpson (1902-1984), the famous evolutionary expert from Harvard, man is something of a newcomer, a Johnny-come-lately in comparison to other life-forms and especially compared to the age of the earth.

However, even some Christian writers have capitulated to this notion. John Clayton, a lecturer who travels widely among the churches of Christ and the Christian Churches, and who, in his writings has endorsed the evolutionary geological time-scale, suggests that “man is a very recent newcomer to this planet.” In fact, he argues that man’s history is but a tiny fraction of earth’s history (Clayton).

Such assertions need to be carefully examined to see whether or not they are accurate in light of the inspired Scriptures.

The Bible is right regardless of what certain pseudo-scientists claim. Remember, yesterday’s “science” is frequently tomorrow’s superstition.

Comparing “Science” With the Bible

In recent years, anthropologists have said that “true man” appeared on earth about 3.6 million years ago. Let us look closely at this and see whether or not it has any implications for the Bible believer.

If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and man has been on earth for 3.6 million years, simple mathematics reveals that man is but 1/1250th of the age of the earth.

If such is the case, he is but a speck on the panorama of geo-history!

Perhaps the following illustration will dramatize the force of this. Suppose we let one day represent the sum of earth’s alleged history.

This means that the supposed 4.5 billion years of earth history are represented by the 86,400 seconds of one day.

Since man’s age is assumed to be only 1/1250th of the earth’s, man, on this one-day scale, would be only slightly more than one minute and nine seconds old!

Look at it another way. If one drew a horizontal line one hundred feet long and at the right end, directly underneath, he drew another line only one inch long, he could vividly see the difference in the alleged respective ages between earth and man, according to the evolutionary dogma.

Accordingly, if the whole of earth’s history is viewed from man’s current vantage point, human existence commenced virtually at the END of history—not at the beginning.

The impact of this needs to be clearly noted. The evolutionary theory (and views related to it) does not allow that man originated at the beginning of creation history.

Anyone, therefore, who accepts the evolutionary chronology of geo-human history cannot possibly believe that man has existed from the beginning of the creation!

Yet, this is what the Bible affirms repeatedly!

Man: From the Beginning

The New Testament phrase “from the beginning” (ap' arches and ex arches) denotes “the first point in time, its occasion being determined from the context” (Silva, 160).

While it is true that the expression can involve some degree of relativity, such obviously must be fairly limited, otherwise, language is meaningless.

In other words, when something is said to be “from the beginning” of a certain period, there must be a reasonable proximity involved.

With this in view, note the following Bible passages.

Isaiah: From the Foundations of the Earth

First, an example is introduced from the Old Testament. When Isaiah was contrasting the greatness of Jehovah with the impotence of idols, he asked:

“Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?” (Isa. 40:21).

Note how the prophet parallels the expressions “from the beginning” and “from the foundations of the earth.” Man had known of God’s nature since that time!

Clearly, human existence extends back to the very beginning of earth history.

Adam and Eve

Concerning Adam and Eve, Jesus declared:

“But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them” (Mk. 10:6).

The word “creation” is the Greek ktiseos and it denotes “the sum-total of what God has created” (Cremer, 113; 114; 381). Bloomfield observed that it refers to “the world or universe” (197-198).

Unquestionably, Christ places the first humans at the very dawn of creation.

Since the Creation

In Romans 1:20 Paul writes:

“For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse .... "

The phrase “since the creation of the world” directs attention back to the very beginning of the “sum total of the material universe” (cf. Trench, 215-216).

And note that Paul affirms that evidence for God’s existence has been “perceived” and “seen” since the creation so that man is without excuse for any unbelief!

This passage clearly does not allow for a vast gap of billions of years between the beginning of the creation and man’s ability to perceive upon the face of the earth.

And there is no reason for rejecting the clear testimony of the inspired apostle — unless one is under the spell of evolutionary chronology!

There are several other New Testament passages of a similar thrust:

• Lk. 11:45-52
• Mk. 13:19
• Jn. 8:44
• 2 Pet. 3:4

Were it not for the speculative assertions of modern evolutionary theorists, there would be absolutely no controversy as to the clear meaning of these historical statements of sacred literature.

But the truth is this — some have allowed the unsupported ideas of current scientism to be the criteria by which they interpret the Bible. Such is a great error indeed.

Three Important Conclusions

When a fair treatment of all the facts are considered, three important conclusions emerge.

Science does not know the age of the earth.

As Dr. Robert Kofahl has noted, “it is not possible to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old” (109).

Even the evolutionary views regarding such are highly unstable. Between 1900 and 1960, the estimated age of the earth increased from 50 million to some 5 billion years!

True science does not demand an ancient earth.

Dr. Donald Chittick declares that

“the idea that the earth is very, very old is not in any way suggested by any studies in science. It arises as a result of rejecting Special Creation” (73).

There are many evidences of a relatively young earth.

Many scientific observations point to an earth inhabited by man from the very beginning (“Our Earth — Young or Old?”).

Let us, therefore, not compromise the biblical record of earth-human history simply for the sake of placating unreasonable, faithless, hopeless infidelity.

References

• Bloomfield, S. T. 1855. The Greek Testament with English Notes. Vol. I. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans.
• Brown, Colin, ed. 1980. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. I. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
• Chittick, Donald. 1970. A Symposium on Creation II. Patten, Donald, ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
• Clayton, John. Does God Exist? Course 8. South Bend, IN: Does God Exist?
• Cremer, Hermann. 1895. Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testment. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
• Kofahl, Robert. 1977. Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter. San Diego: Beta Books.
• Trench, Robert C. 1894. Synonyms of the New Testament. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co.

Scripture References

Isaiah 4:5; 1 Thessalonians 5; Isaiah 40:21; Mark 10:6; Romans 1:20; Luke 11:45-52; Mark 13:19; John 8:44; 2 Peter 3:4

Cite this article

Jackson, Wayne. "Man: From the Beginning." ChristianCourier.com. Access date: February 20, 2018. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1593-man-from-the-beginning