My young son, Jeremy, startled me with a strange question one night at the supper table. "Why does the carrot move, Daddy?" he asked. I had just come back from speaking at a major "Back to Genesis" seminar. While there, I had had an interesting interaction with a marriage and family counselor from a large church concerning what God’s Word says about the role of men and women in marriage. I was deep in thought about these vital matters when I was confronted with this perplexing problem from my five-year-old son—"Why does the carrot move?"
It took some time to figure it out, but we finally solved the problem. Usually, my wife prepares strips of raw carrot with our meals. My son, Jeremy, loves to eat these strips after dipping them in ranch dressing. However, this time, the carrot was cooked. Jeremy was holding a drooping carrot, unable to dip it in the dressing and wondering why it "moved!" Children are certainly a source of inspiration.
Jeremy’s problem reminded me of the problem many Christians—including the counselor mentioned above—have with the Word of God. If Christians would only take God at His Word, they would have the foundation necessary for their lives. Instead, like the cooked carrot, they do things to God s Word, which warp it and change it so that it is not the same as was originally intended. So many people want to change God’s Word to suit their own ideas.
"Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." (Psalm 119:105)
Actually, a good rule of thumb, which solves a lot of supposed difficulties with interpretation, is as follows: "If the plain sense makes good sense, then seek no other sense." But some theologians think this is too simplistic an approach and they try to "interpret" God’s Word to find the "deeper meaning" or make it relevant to today’s theories.
For instance, this family counselor told me he totally disagreed with my saying that the man is to be the head of the house. He said there is no such thing as a specific role for a man or a woman in marriage anymore, because Christ had risen from the dead.
"The entrance of Thy Words giveth light: It giveth understanding unto the simple."(Psalm 119:130)
I asked him to show me, from God’s Word, that this was so. He simply went on to say that we are no longer under the consequences of sin and the curse, and these roles of headship and submission were only given because of sin, until Jesus came, and died, and rose. Now, he insisted, these roles no longer apply. "If we are no longer under the curse," I asserted, "we should not die." I then quoted from Ephesians 5:23: "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the Church: and He is the Savior of the body."
"If man is not head of the wife, then Christ is not Head of the Church," I said. He answered by saying that head means "source," and has nothing to do with roles. This definitely is incorrect, because, in Ephesians, the word "head" means" authority," and not "source."
I quoted I Timothy 2:11-15, where we are told that a woman’s role is related to the fact that Adam was formed first, and then Eve, and that Eve was deceived, not Adam. Again, this man said that we are no longer under the curse, so this does not apply. But I pointed out that the statement; "Adam was first formed," related to an event before sin. He answered by saying, "Adam was not formed first, the animals were."
He went on to say that a man and a woman, in marriage, have to be led by the Spirit to determine what they should do in their relationship. I asked how these people could determine the difference between the "Spirit’s leading" and their "feelings," if there was no absolute (Word of God) to test these by. This was an important question to ask him, because he had stated that the roles for husband and wife given in Scripture no longer applied, and thus there was no absolute (Word) to be trusted. This man, who has a degree from a well-known Christian college, will destroy families and marriages with this kind of theology.
"Is not My Word like as a fire? Saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?" (Jeremiah 23:29)
It was fruitless to continue the conversation, as people can justify anything, using (or misusing) the Bible, if they really want to, by taking verses out of context and applying their own interpretation, etc. That is what the cults do. And, sadly, it is what a lot of Christians do. When you consider the compromise positions (such as theistic evolution, progressive creation, the gap theory, etc.) that are taught at many Christian colleges and seminaries all "justified" by Scripture—one can’t help but be dismayed at the way in which the Word of God is being undermined in the Church.
"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the Word, that ye may grow thereby." (1 Peter 2:2)
Recently, at another seminar, a theologian told me that Genesis 1-11 was not to be taken literally, as it was only written for the "primitive Hebrews who did not understand science." However, we are told that "the Word of our God shall stand forever" (Isaiah 40:8); and "the Word of the Lord endureth forever" (1 Peter 1:25); "Forever, O Lord, Thy Word is settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89). If God’s Word, in Genesis, is not relevant for us now, then why is it going to stand forever? We are told, in Matthew 24:35, that "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
The Bible is the Book of the ages. It is the Holy Word of the Creator God. Oh, how we need to get back to giving God's Word the respect, the reverence, and the honor it is due. Instead of letting God’s Word speak to us and tell us what we need to know, we often tend to sit in judgment on God’s Word.
The great Christian writer, C.S. Lewis (a distinguished scholar of history and the classics) once said, "ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man, the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock."
"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: But the Word of our God shall stand forever." (Isaiah 40:8)
This generation that puts the words of finite men above the Word of the infinite God should take heed of Isaiah 30:9: "That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD." As Hosea says, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: Because thou hast rejected knowledge" (Hosea 4:6). Surely this applies today to those who claim that the scientific theories of finite man are above the Word of God.
Let us be a people, who say, "Thy Word is very pure: Therefore thy servant loveth it." (Psalm 119:140)
In Psalm 138:2, we are told, "For thou hast magnified thy Word above all thy name.’ If God says His Word is above His name, then how much should we sinful finite humans love this mighty, divinely inspired food for the soul?
Who would have ever thought a question about a cooked carrot could focus our attention on the Word of God? Maybe the next time you partake of this "created vegetable" you will be reminded of the authority of the Creator’s Word.
"How sweet are Thy Words unto my taste! Yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!" (Psalm 119:103)
Speaking of Big Bang Theory, and the fact that so many recent observations have been contrary to what was expected, science writer John Maddox comments: "… it is exceedingly improbable that the succeeding decade will allow the persistence of present views of how the Universe is constructed. The Big Bang itself is the pinnacle of a chain of inference, which provides no explanation at present for quasars, and the source of the known hidden mass in the Universe. It will be a surprise if it some how survives the Hubble telescope."
"Down with the Big Bang" by John Maddox, Nature Vol. 34, 10 August 1989.
Likewise, astronomer Fred Hoyle writes:
"As a result of all this, the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the Big Bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome . . .I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory. When a pattern of facts become set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers.’
Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang Under Attack," Science Digest, Vol. 92 (May 1984), p.84 (emphasis added).