Did Animals Die Before the Fall?

Transcription

1 Did Animals Die Before the Fall? Presented to the Midwest Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society Wyoming, MI, March 23-24, 2018 by Myron C. Kauk Adjunct Professor, Moody Theological Seminary PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary In the recently published book, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, Wayne Grudem made the statement that The entire Bible says nothing one way or another about the death of animals before the fall. 1 Hugh Ross makes a similar claim in his chapter in Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. Commenting on Romans 5:12, he writes, Paul clarifies that Adam s sin inaugurated death among humans. Neither here nor anywhere else in Scripture does God s word say that Adam s offense brought death to all life. 2 Of course, this is a matter of considerable debate. Evolutionary Creationists insist that human beings are the result of a long evolutionary process involving natural selection and the death not only of animals, but also of human ancestors. 3 Young Earth Creationists, on the other hand, insist that there was no death of animals or humans before the fall. 4 In between are the Old Earth Creationists. According to Ross, 1 Wayne Grudem, Theistic Evolution Undermines Twelve Creation Events and Several Crucial Christian Doctrines, in Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, ed. J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K Gauger, and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 2017), Hugh Ross, Old Earth (Progressive) Creation, in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, ed. J. B. Stump (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), E.g. Deborah B. Haarsma, Evolutionary Creationism, in Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, ed. J. B. Stump (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), ; Ronald E. Osborn, Death Before the Fall (Downers Grove, IVP Academic, 2014); Dennis Lamoureux, No Historical Adam: Evolutionary Creation View, in The Historical Adam, ed. Matthew Barnett and Ardel B. Canaday (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 37-71; Tremper Longman III, What Genesis 1-2 Teaches (And What It Doesn t), in Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation, ed. J. Daryl Charles (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2013), ; Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2012). 4 E.g. Ken Ham, Young Earth Creationism, in Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, ed. J. B. Stump (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 24-26; William D. Barrick, A Historical Adam: Young Earth Creation View, in The Historical Adam, ed. Matthew Barnett and Ardel B. Canaday (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), ; James Stambaugh, Wence Cometh Death? A Biblical Theology of Physical Death and Natural Evil, in Coming to Grips with Genesis, ed. Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), Myron C. Kauk Page 1

2 Old Earth creationism is a big tent. It includes multiple interpretations of the Genesis creation account: 1. creation days as revelatory days, 2. twenty-four-hour creation days separated by long eras, 3. creation days as a literary framework, 4. twenty-four-hour creation days following a time gap between Genesis 1: 1 and 1: 3, 5. analogical or time-relative creation days, 6. creation days as ages or long time periods, 7. any combination of the above. 5 This paper will be narrowly confined to an evaluation of the positions of Ross and Grudem regarding the death of animals before the fall and a positive presentation of the case that animals did not die prior to Genesis 3. Hugh Ross Hugh Ross identifies himself specifically with the day-age position. He builds his case from a constructive integration of the book of Scripture with the book of nature. According to Ross, Both Scripture s words and creation s works originate from the One who is truth and reveals truth. Both are subject to interpretation and, therefore, to human error. 6 Consequently, much of his case is based upon his interpretation of the scientific data, which this paper will not seek to evaluate. This paper will focus solely on his biblical argument. Ross employs a highly questionable hermeneutic. He considers biblical inspiration to imply that each passage communicates relevant messages to all generations of humanity, not just to the generation of that book s human author. 7 Consequently, just as Bible writers sometimes predicted through the Holy Spirit s agency future events in human history, so, too, they sometimes described natural phenomena far in advance of their own understanding. 8 Therefore, Ross concludes that, Even one short passage may contain multiple layers of meaning that unfold through multiple generations. 9 5 Hugh Ross, Old Earth (Progressive) Creation, Ross, Old Earth (Progressive) Creation, Hugh Ross, Old Earth (Progressive) Creation, Hugh Ross, Old Earth (Progressive) Creation, Hugh Ross, Old Earth (Progressive) Creation, 76. Myron C. Kauk Page 2

3 Armed with such a hermeneutic, Ross claims confirmation of his paradigm from passages which the original writers did not intend and the original readers could not have understood in the way that he takes them. For instance, Ross argues that there was no fundamental change in the laws of nature as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve. He acknowledges that In the new creation there will be no death, decay, suffering, grief, evil, sin, disabilities, disease, or restrained free wills, 10 but he argues that the second law of thermodynamics was fully operational prior to the fall. 11 In support of this he offers Rom 8: For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Rom. 8:20-22 ESV) Thinking like an astro-physicist, Ross understands the whole creation as a reference to the entire space-time continuum and concludes that this passage refers to the entire spatial and temporal extent of the universe since the beginning and not merely since the fall. 12 But this is not what Paul intended. There is a strong consensus among commentators that The only interpretation of in these verses which is really probable seems to be that which understands the reference to be the sum-total of sub-human nature both animate and inanimate. 13 Ross is also mistaken to equate death with the second law of thermodynamics. James Stambaugh makes the case that Bible writers did not think about death the same way a modern biologist might. He argues that in biblical terms something is alive when it possesses three 10 Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2014), Ross, Old Earth (Progressive) Creation, Ross, Old Earth (Progressive) Creation, 75. Cf. Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis, C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1982), ; Cf. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 469; Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), ; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 435; Robert Jewett, Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 511; Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), Myron C. Kauk Page 3

4 characteristics, 1) a soul or consciousness, 2) breath, and 3) blood. 14 Based on this definition, plants are not alive and therefore do not die. 15 Ross further overlooks the fact that Romans 8 says the creation was subjected to futility, which implies a time before it had been subjected. Cranfield comments, The aorist ὑπετάγη refers to a particular event. The use of the passive veils a reference to God. There is little doubt that Paul had in mind the judgment related in Gen Cranfield suggests that ματαιότητι futility (v 20) and φθορᾶς corruption (v 21) mean respectively the mutability and mortality which characterize creaturely existence as we know it. 17 But Ross denies all of this. He insists that mutability and mortality have always been a part of the created order. Ross attempts to make a case for the presence of death and decay within a very good creation (Gen 1:31). He states, The current creation serves its purpose as the best possible realm in which God efficiently, rapidly, and permanently conquers evil and suffering while allowing free-will humans to participate in his redemptive process and plan. 18 He envisions a series of mass speciation events as divine interventions, occasions in which God introduces diverse species appropriate for Earth s changing conditions and in optimal ecological relationships. Between these events we see several long periods during which Earth s life experiences microevolutionary changes, adaptations propelled by a combination of environmental conditions, challenges from invasive species, and genetic factors. 19 As biblical support for this, he offers Psalm 104: These all look to you, to give them their food in due season. When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are filled with good things. When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground. (Ps. 104:27-30 ESV) 14 Stambaugh, Whence Cometh Death, For further discussion and the explanation of a handful exceptions where plants are metaphorically said to die when being compared to humans, see Stambaugh, Wence Cometh Death, Cranfield, Cranfield, Ross, Old Earth (Progressive) Creation, Hugh Ross, Old Earth (Progressive) Creation, 72. Myron C. Kauk Page 4

5 Ross comments, Psalm 104 seems to support this history of ongoing extinction and speciation. In verses the psalmist declares that all of Earth s creatures depend on God for their needs. Verse 29 refers to those instances when Earth s creatures die off. But then, according to verse 30, God recreates and renews the face of the earth. 20 It is widely recognized that Psalm 104 is a creation Psalm and that verses roughly parallel the sixth day of creation. 21 But that does not mean that everything discussed in these verses occurs within the first creation week. Verse 26 refers to ships and there were no ships on the fifth day of creation. The suggestion that verse 30 refers to successive creations of new species after mass extinction events is an obscure interpretation that must be considered highly unlikely since nothing like this is suggested anywhere else in Scripture. The most likely interpretation is that this refers to God s providential work in bringing the next generation of existing species into being, not the creation of new species. 22 The other passage Ross appeals to as support for the death of animals before the fall is Job According to Ross, these chapters are roughly parallel to the creation account in Genesis 1. He focuses attention on Job 38: Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in their thicket? Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help, and wander about for lack of food? (Job 38:39-41 ESV) According to Ross, these verses show that the lion and the raven were created as carnivores and so death must have preceded the fall. But these verses are not describing these creatures as they were originally created. They are being described as Job knows them. In Job s time they are carnivores and God provides for them. Their original state is described in Gen 1:29-30, where God says to Adam and Eve, 20 Ross, Navigating Genesis, 64. Cf. Ross, Old Earth (Progressive) Creation, 90; Ingrid Faro, The Question of Evil and Animal Death Before the Fall Trinity Journal 36NS (2015): Cf. Richard E. Averbeck, Psalms 103 and 104: Hymns of Redemption and Creation, in Interpreting the Psalms for Teaching and Preaching, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV and D. Brent Sandy (St. Louis: Chalice, 2010), Goldingay, 194; Leslie C. Allen, Psalms (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 34; Willem A. VanGemeren, Psalms, in The Expositor s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 5:664. Myron C. Kauk Page 5

6 "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. (Gen. 1:29-30 ESV) It seems that the original created state, not only of humans, but also of animals, was vegetarian. Victor Hamilton, commenting on these verses, says, Man is to have as his food the seed and fruit of plants. Animals and birds are to have the leaves. (The latter point accords with the description of the eschatological age when the lion shall eat straw like the ox, Isa 11:7; 65:25) At no point is anything (human beings, animals, birds) allowed to take the life of another living being and consume it for food. The dominion assigned to the human couple over the animal world does not include the prerogative to butcher. Instead, humankind survives on a vegetarian diet. What is strange, and probably unexplainable (from a scientific position), is the fact that the animals too are not carnivores but also vegetarians. 23 This appears to be the sum total of Ross biblical argument for the death of animals prior to the fall. Because Job 38:39-41 says that God feeds the lions and the ravens, they must have been created in their original state as carnivores. And because Psalm 104:27-30 says that God is in control of when animals die and when they come to lie, there must have been successive extinction and creation events prior to Genesis 3. And when Rom 8:20-22 says that the whole creation was subjected to corruption, this is taken to be the state from creation rather than from the fall. If this is the entire argument, perhaps it would be appropriate to say, "Neither here nor anywhere else in Scripture does God s word suggest that animals died before the fall. Wayne Grudem Theology. Grudem s position on the death of animals before the fall is expressed first in his Systematic Might God have created an animal kingdom that was subject to death from the moment of creation? This is quite possible. There was no doubt death in the plant world, if Adam and Eve were to eat plants; and if God had made an original creation in which animals would reproduce and also live forever, the earth would soon be overcrowded with no hope of relief. The warning to Adam in Genesis 2:17 was only that he would die if he ate of the forbidden fruit, not that animals would also begin to die. When Paul says, Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin (Rom. 5:12a), the following phrase makes clear that he is talking about death for human beings, not for plants and 23 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), Myron C. Kauk Page 6

7 animals, for he immediately adds, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned (Rom. 5:12b). From the information we have in Scripture, we cannot now know whether God created animals subject to aging and death from the beginning, but it remains a real possibility. 24 Grudem goes on to evaluate both the Day-Age and the Literary Framework positions, finding weaknesses in both. After considering the arguments for a Young Earth position, he concludes that Scripture seems to be more easily understood to suggest (but not to require) a young earth view, while the observable facts of creation seem increasingly to favor an old earth view. 25 Based on that analysis, Grudem suggests that both the young earth and old earth camps to begin to work together with much less arrogance, much more humility, and a much greater sense of cooperation in a common purpose, which would be to oppose evolutionary creationism. 26 The same spirit seems to prevail in his introductory articles to Theistic Evolution. Grudem makes clear there that that book is not about the age of the earth or about whether the days of Genesis 1 should be understood as literal 24-hour days. 27 He does insist that Genesis 1-3 should be understood as a historical narrative that reports events which actually happened and not as figurative or allegorical literature. 28 Under this banner, Grudem invites Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists of all stripes to unite in opposition to the Evolutionary Creationist position. Admittedly, there is much in Grudem s chapter (and in the book) which a Young Earth Creationist can appreciate. He affirms that 1) Adam and Eve were the first human beings, 2) they were not born from human parents, but 3) they were specially created by God. Moreover, 4) Eve was specially created by God 24 Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), Grudem, Systematic Theology, Grudem, Systematic Theology, Although he does make clear that the science chapters in that volume operate within the commonly assumed chronological framework of hundreds of millions of years for the earth s geological strata (Wayne Grudem, Biblical and Theological Introduction, in Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, ed. J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K Gauger, and Wayne Grudem [Wheaton: Crossway, 2017], 64 note 1). 28 Grudem, Biblical and Theological Introduction, Myron C. Kauk Page 7

8 from Adam, and 5) Adam and Eve were originally sinless human beings. But 6) Adam and Eve committed the first human sin and as a result, 7) death was introduced into humans. 29 A Young Earth Creationist would agree with all these things. But then there is the statement about the possibility of animal death before the fall. Grudem begins his discussion in Gen 1:31. The absence of death when Adam and Eve were created is implied by the summary statement at the end of the sixth day of creation, and God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good (Gen 1:31). In light of later biblical teaching that death is the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26), and the prediction that in the age to come, death shall be no more (Rev 21:4), the initial very good creation should be understood to imply that Adam and Eve were not subject to death when they were first created. 30 Why is the implication of no death limited to Adam and Eve? Gen 1:31 is a summary statement, it is applied to the whole creation, all that he had made, instead of just to individual items. 31 If the implication of a very good creation is no death, then that implication should be extended to everything He had made and not just to Adam and Eve. Grudem insists that the no death provision in the original creation was limited only to humans because the threat of Gen 2:17, you shall surely die, is addressed only to Adam and the judgment of Gen 3:19, till you return to the ground, is pronounced only on humans. Furthermore, he appeals to Rom 5:12, noting that this states specifically only that death spread to all men, not that all death in the world is the result of human sin. Later, Grudem discusses the very good creation of Gen 1:31 further. Interpreters have understood Genesis 1-2 to speak of an idyllic garden of Eden, an earth in which there were no thorns and thistles (Gen 3:18), no curse on the ground because of sin (Gen 3:17), and, by implication, no weeds hindering beneficial crops, and no natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, or droughts. It was also thought to be an earth where no animals were hostile to human beings, because of the prophetic predictions of God s future restoration of an earth where, The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder s den, and They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain (Isa 11:8-9). 29 Grudem, Theistic Evolution Undermines Twelve Creation Events, Grudem, Theistic Evolution Undermines Twelve Creation Events, Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 34. Myron C. Kauk Page 8

9 This was understood (I think rightly) to be the kind of earth implied by the summary statement at the end of the sixth day of creation. 32 So, according to Grudem, the original creation was idyllic in that it did not have thorns, thistles, weeds, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, or droughts. Animals were not hostile to humans and humans did not die. But animals might have. Next, he turns his attention to Rom 8: He understands this passage to teach (contra Ross) that the present operation of the natural world is not the way God originally created it to work, but is a result of God s judgment. 33 Here it seems that Grudem acknowledges that, contrary to his earlier statement, God s judgment after the fall did more than just effect the death of humans. It affected the whole creation. A Case for No Animal Death Before the Fall A strong case can be made that there was no death of animals before the fall. According to Gen 1:29-30, animals as well as humans were originally vegetarians. According to Gen 1:31, they lived in an original creation that is described as very good. This is rightly understood to include no thorns and thistles, no natural disasters, and a peaceful coexistence with humans. But things change after Adam and Eve sin. Adam and Eve were told that on the day they sinned they would die. But they did not die, at least not physically, at least not right away. Instead, three things happened. First, their relationship with God changed, they died spiritually. Second, they became mortal. Although they did not die physically immediately, death became a part of human existence as Gen 3:19 indicates. But it was not only humans that were affected by God s judgment for human sin. Nature also was affected. The ground was cursed (Gen 3:17-19). A third way in which death influenced Adam and Eve after the fall is that a substitute had to die in their place. Gen 3:21 says that the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them. It is not stated explicitly, but presumably those skins came 32 Grudem, Theistic Evolution Undermines Twelve Creation Events, Grudem, Theistic Evolution Undermines Twelve Creation Events, 820. Myron C. Kauk Page 9

10 from an animal, or likely two, that died. If so, this is the first death of an animal mentioned in Genesis. If not, then the first animal death recorded explicitly comes in Gen 4:4 when Abel sacrifices the firstborn of his flock. Since humans continue on a vegetarian diet until Gen 9:3, the purpose of this sacrifice was not for food, but probably as a reminder that a substitute had to die in their place. Turning to the New Testament, the key passage is not Rom 5:12, which admittedly only requires that human death results from Adam s sin, but Rom 8:20-22, which indicates that the whole creation groans because of it. Guy Prentiss Waters, writing in the volume on Theistic Evolution, says about this passage: In these verses, Paul contrasts the sufferings of this present time with the glory that is to be revealed to us. The revelation of this glory is something that even the creation eagerly anticipates. The creation does so because it was subjected to futility, is presently in bondage to corruption, and now groan[s] together in the pains of childbirth until now. That creation was subjected to futility means two things. First, the present state of affairs here described by Paul did not characterize creation at its inception. Second, creation did not choose, as it were, its present condition. God has consigned the creation to its present condition. We have, then, an obvious reference to the Gen 3 narrative, and a commentary on Genesis 3:17, 18. The hope appended to this subjection, then, must refer to the hope offered in the divine promise of Gen 3:15 the very decree of subjection was given in the context of hope. Paul, then, regards the opening chapters of Genesis to be fully historical. The world that God created has, in light of the fall of Adam into sin, been subjected to the curse of God. This subjection, however, was attended by a promise that the creation would become at the consummation a fit and glorious habitation for the children of God. 34 Perhaps this stops just short of an explicit statement that no animals died before the fall, but given the biblical evidence presented, this certainly must be the presumption and the burden of proof would have to lie with those who would argue that animals did die before the fall. 34 Guy Prentiss Waters, Theistic Evolution Is Incompatible with the Teachings of the New Testament, in Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, ed. J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K Gauger, and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 2017), 897. Myron C. Kauk Page 10

11 Bibliography Allen, Leslie C. Psalms Waco, TX: Word, Averbeck, Richard E. Psalms : Hymns of Redemption and Creation. In Interpreting the Psalms for Teaching and Preaching, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV and D. Brent Sandy, St Louis: Chalice, Barrick, William D. A Historical Adam: Young Earth Creation View. In The Historical Adam, ed. Matthew Barnett and Ardel B. Canaday, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh: T & T Cleark, Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1-8. Dallas: Word Books, Enns, Peter. The Evolution of Adam. Grand Rapids: Brazos, Faro, Ingrid. The Question of Evil and Animal Death Before the Fall. Trinity Journal 36NS (2015): Goldingay, John. Psalms. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, Grudem, Wayne. Biblical and Theological Introduction. In Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, ed. J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K Gauger, and Wayne Grudem, Wheaton: Crossway, Grudem, Wayne. Theistic Evolution Undermines Twelve Creation Events and Several Crucial Christian Doctrines. In Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, ed. J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K Gauger, and Wayne Grudem, Wheaton: Crossway, Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Haarsman, Deborah B. Evolutionary Creationism, in Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, ed. J. B. Stump, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Ham, Ken. Young Earth Creationism. In Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, ed. J. B. Stump, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapter Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Jewett, Robert. Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress, Lamoureux, Dennis No Historical Adam: Evolutionary Creation View. In The Historical Adam, ed. Matthew Barnett and Ardel B. Canaday, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Longenecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Longman III, Tremper. What Genesis 1-2 Teaches (And What It Doesn t). In Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation, ed. J. Daryl Charles, Peabody: Hendrickson, Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Osborn, Ronald E. Death Before the Fall. Downers Grove, IVP Academic, Ross, Hugh. Old Earth (Progressive) Creation. Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, ed. J. B. Stump, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Myron C. Kauk Page 11

12 Ross, Hugh. Navigating Genesis. Covina, CA: RTB Press, Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker, Stambaugh, James. Wence Cometh Death? A Biblical Theology of Physical Death and Natural Evil. In Coming to Grips with Genesis, ed. Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, VanGemeren, Willem A. Psalms. In The Expositor s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, 5: Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Waters, Guy Prentiss. Theistic Evolution Is Incompatible with the Teachings of the New Testament, in Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, ed. J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K Gauger, and Wayne Grudem, Wheaton: Crossway, Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis Waco, TX: Word, Myron C. Kauk Page 12